Agenda item

Application to review a premises licence.

RECEIVED an application made by the Licensing Authority for a review of the Premises Licence held by Ms Melek Akgun at the premises known as and situated at Kosem Restaurant & Meza Bar, 500-504 Hertford Road, Enfield EN3.

NOTED

1.    The introductory statement of Mark Galvayne, Principal Licensing Officer, including the following points:

a.  The application was to review the Premises Licence and was made by the Licensing Authority.

b.  The application was set out in Annex 03 to the report.

c.  Additional information to the Licensing Authority representation was set out on page 33 – 38 of the agenda pack.

d.  It was confirmed that the Licensing Authority now sought revocation of this licence.

e.  Subsequent to publication of the agenda, the Licensing Authority provided further additional information by email dated 28.10.13, circulated in advance of the meeting.

2.    The opening statement of Charlotte Palmer, Licensing Enforcement Officer, including the following points:

a.  She requested to submit further additional written information relating to the weekend of 2 / 3 November. This was not agreed to be received by the Chairman.

b.  The initial review application was made because of noise complaints, noise abatement notice, and breaches of permitted hours at the premises.

c.  The initial review application sought to reduce the licensed hours for regulated entertainment and to amend/add further conditions.

d.  However, subsequent to the initial review application, further complaints were received, bringing the total number to 20, and the noise abatement notice was breached.

e.  Offences had continued despite Ms Akgun, the licence holder and DPS, knowing that this hearing was pending.

f.  Ms Akgun was interviewed under caution on 4 November 2013. Up to that point, it was considered that her responsibilities as licence holder had not been taken seriously and that she had been slow to act.

g.  The stage had now been moved from the window and a board put up, but there had been insufficient time to assess whether the changes had any effect.

h.  Officers had also been informed that musicians had been sacked, but the responsibility was with the licence holder to ensure that music volume was appropriate.

i.  The current ownership of the premises dated from April, and all the alleged offences listed had all occurred since the opening night on 9 June 2013.

j.  Officers had come to the conclusion that this licence should be revoked based on the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objectives.

k.  The same problems had continued over five months, despite letters and visits: officers had no confidence in the licence holder, and considered that residents had suffered enough.

l.  The premises was located within the Enfield Highway Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) Area, where there was a greater occurrence of crime and disorder, and there were many residential properties.

m.  There had also been breaches of hours approved under Planning permission (Ref TP/92/1037/1).

n.  Even on the previous weekend, in the early hours of 3 November 2013 there had been a further breach of the noise abatement notice, and an officer visit made at 01:30 in relation to loud music.

o.  Issues had been continuous and were still occurring. Receipt of 20 complaints in five months equated to a complaint every week since the business opened.

p.  Officers had given advice to keep musicians away from windows, to ensure doors were kept closed, and to turn the volume down. The advice had been simple and officers did not understand why the operation had been so problematic. Each week they lost confidence in this operation. Improvements had not been forthcoming, even with this review hearing and legal proceedings pending.

3.    The statement of PC Martyn Fisher that he supported the Licensing Authority’s application. It was clear from the breaches listed that the premises licence holder and DPS were not willing to work with the Police and Council.

4.    Representatives of the authorities responded to questions as follows:

a.  In response to the Chairman’s query, Charlotte Palmer confirmed that the representation in respect of prevention of crime and disorder referred to the criminal offences being investigated relating to licence breaches. PC Fisher confirmed that the only calls to Police about the premises were in regard to noise.

b.  The Chairman asked for further details about the officer visit on Saturday 28 September 2013. Charlotte Palmer believed the incident had been intimidating for officers. They had to assess risk for their own personal safety, and would leave if they were being approached in this way. Officers tried not to get involved in discussions with customers. She confirmed that it was neither of the representatives present who had made the comments noted on page 35 of the agenda pack, which were quoted from the officers’ notes taken on the night.

c.  Ms Akgun stated that she had done her best, including giving notice to musicians, and questioned whether officers thought she had done nothing to tackle the issues. Charlotte Palmer maintained that simple solutions including turning the music down had not been implemented, and that Ms Akgun was directly responsible as licence holder.

5.    The opening statement of Ms Akgun and Mr Saglem on behalf of Kosem Restaurant and Meza Bar, including the following points:

a.  In respect of the Police visit on 5 October 2013, there had been no problems, people had finished eating and there was no music. However, the operators did understand the issues and did try to keep the neighbourhood happy. Officers from the Council and the Police had come and given advice, which was acted on.

b.  Soundproof curtains were put up, but did not work.

c.  Musicians had been asked to reduce the volume, but did not listen, but the bands that were too loud were no longer used.

d.  The stage had been moved to the middle of the restaurant.

e.  Professionals had been brought in and soundproofing had now been installed to the windows. They had done everything to stop noise and complaints.

f.  Ms Akgun stated that she had tried her best to keep noise inside. Bass had not been used for over a month. Staff used one door in and one door out so as to keep music in.

6.    Ms Akgun and Mr Saglem responded to questions as follows:

a.  The Chairman asked about the officer visit on 28 September 2013, and comments as the licence holder. Ms Akgun stated that she always treated officers kindly on visits to the premises, and took them to the office or private area to talk, so as not to involve customers. She also never allowed other staff to talk to the officers. The comments quoted were not made by the DPS or manager and had nothing to do with them. She did not agree with what was said. The comments may have been made by a customer under the influence of alcohol.

b.  Councillor Hayward asked about the solutions to noise issues described and yet there had been complaints three days ago. Ms Akgun responded that she did not agree there were noise issues, because the bass had been off for one and a half months, two different sets of curtains had been made, outside patrols had been carried out, back doors and toilet windows had been kept shut, volume levels were kept down. She did not think that much noise was coming out of the premises.

c.  The Chairman highlighted the noise abatement notice and breaches suggested that there was a statutory nuisance, and that there had also been breaches of the licensed hours, and he asked if the licence holder’s responsibilities were being taken seriously. Mr Saglem stated that music was stopped completely by 01:30 as their first priority. Customers often took time to leave and may be preparing to go for 10 to 20 minutes.

d.  The Chairman asked if, given the problems discussed, the operators would be willing to shut the restaurant and suspend the licence voluntarily for a period of one to three months to work on the licensing issues further to the satisfaction of the Licensing Authority. Mr Saglem stated that he wanted to work together to do everything he could not to shut the restaurant. He had a lot of employees and he had invested a lot of money in the premises. He declined the opportunity of a brief adjournment of the meeting to consider the Chairman’s question. Charlotte Palmer advised that officers still sought revocation of the licence, as they had been working for five months with the operators but issues had occurred from the opening night to last weekend and had not been resolved. Mr Saglem re-iterated that officers’ advice had been followed and asked Members to also consider a compromise rather than revocation in their discussions.

7.    The summary statement of Mark Galvayne, Principal Licensing Officer, that having heard all of the representations from all the parties, the Sub-Committee must take such steps as it considered appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives.

8.    The closing statement of Charlotte Palmer, Licensing Enforcement Officer, including the following points:

a.  The Licensing Authority sought a revocation of this licence.

b.  This was because of the lengthy period that problems had gone on, and the amount of officer time which had been dedicated to this operation.

c.  The operators had moved the stage, but this was only done the previous Sunday. The soundproofing was not up yet. Measures had been offered very late.

d.  There had also been breaches of hours, which had not been addressed. Officer notes and statements were on file for a potential prosecution.

9.    The closing statement of PC Martyn Fisher, confirming that the Police supported revocation of this licence. Due to the number of breaches of the licence he had no faith in the operators.

10.  In closing, Mr Saglem raised that having represented himself he would rather involve his barrister. The Chairman advised that the operators had knowledge of this application and hearing and there had been ample time to seek legal advice if they had wished to. The Sub-Committee had to consider the application on the basis of everything they had heard today and information provided in the meeting papers, whilst noting that a decision could be subject to appeal.

RESOLVED that

1.  In accordance with the principles of Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the press and public from the meeting for this item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

The Licensing Sub-Committee retired, with the legal representative and committee administrator, to consider the application further and then the meeting reconvened in public.

2.  The Licensing Sub-Committee RESOLVED to revoke the licence.

3.  The Chairman made the following statement:

“Having considered all the written evidence and listened carefully to all the oral submissions given at the hearing, the Licensing Sub-Committee has decided that the applicant, in bringing this review, made the case for revocation in full; and that it is appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives to revoke the licence.

The Sub-Committee were entirely persuaded by the evidence within the submissions from the Licensing Authority that the licence conditions have been repeatedly and continuously breached since the licence was granted, on several occasions even since the review was called and knowledge of today’s hearing known. This was despite all the advice and guidance dispensed by officers on regular visits to the premises.

As such, the Sub-Committee was persuaded by the evidence from the applicant that we could have no faith in the licence holder’s ability to manage the premises in compliance with the conditions attached to that licence.”