Ref No 2 – pages 36 to 63
To receive an application for a new Premises Licence
Minutes:
SUBMITTED an application from Mr Haydar Koca for a new Premises Licence.
NOTED
1. The opening statement of Mark Galvayne, Licensing Officer, that:
i. the application was for a new Premises Licence to serve late night refreshments;
ii. the applicant had agreed the proposed Metropolitan Police condition who had therefore withdrawn their representation;
iii. the applicant had agreed the proposed Environmental Health condition regarding displaying notices requesting patrons to leave the premises quietly;
iv. Environmental Health’s representation regarding public nuisance after 12.00 (midnight) remained;
v. Planning permission was given in 2003 for the premises to operate as a take-away between the hours of 08.00 and 23.00 Monday to Saturday and 09:00 and 22.30 on Sunday;
vi. applications on 23 September 2003 and 20 September 2005 to extend the opening hours to 02.00 Monday to Saturday were refused on grounds of noise and disturbance to local residents.
2. The opening statement of Carol Collins, Environmental Health Officer, that:
i. the extension of hours beyond 12.00 (midnight) for late night refreshment had the potential to cause noise nuisance and disturbance to local residents;
ii. there were residential properties above the premises;
iii. sources of potential noise nuisance were patrons arriving at and leaving the premises, patrons waiting around, vehicles arriving and leaving, car horns, car doors slamming and car engines revving;
iv. the premises was situated in a designated Drinking Control Area and there was a 24 hour off-licence at 377-379 Fore Street. This could encourage patrons to buy food at the applicant’s premises, purchase alcohol from the off-licence and then to stay in the local area eating and drinking;
v. the restaurant at 389 Fore Street was licensed to 03.00;
vi. there had been no recent complaints regarding noise or anti-social behaviour;
vii there had been complaints regarding building works in March 2006, when the Council issued warning letters, and June 2006;
viii. there were no representations from interested parties as it was assumed that local residents were tolerant of current operating hours but the application sought to extend operating hours to 02.00 and 04.00 which was excessive.
3. The opening statement of Rose Altun, the translator of the applicant, that:
i. the applicant owned the residential flat above the premises;
ii. the applicant had accepted the condition regarding the display of notices requesting patrons leave the area quietly;
iii. the customer base of the premises would be Turkish people who did not drink alcohol;
iv. the premises would not attract alcohol drinkers;
v. if alcohol drinkers were attracted to the premises the consumption of food would dissipate their alcohol levels;
vi. the applicant sought extended opening hours to accommodate religious fasting hours;
vii. the premises would have CCTV cameras;
viii. the premise would not attract anti-social behaviour.
4. In response to the Chairman, the applicant advised that 4 or 5 people would be employed at the premises.
5. Councillor Giladi asked how many people would be employed in a management capacity.
Rose Altun, the applicant’s translator, advised that there were 2 owners, 1 of which would be there most nights.
6. Councillor Giladi asked the applicant what experience he had in dealing with patrons drunken behaviour.
Rose Alton, the applicant’s translator, advised that the applicant had previously worked in Germany in a restaurant and off-licence and that the applicant’s partner had an alcohol licence. The applicant had been resident in the UK for 2 years.
7. The Chairman stated that the plans of the premises showed a large number of seats and asked why these were required for a take-away premises.
Rose Alton, the applicant’s translator, advised that the applicant had owned the premises for 3 months during which time the premises had been closed for refurbishment works and the applicant intended to convert the premises to a restaurant.
8. Mark Galvayne asked if the applicant had applied for Planning Permission to change the premises from a take-away to a restaurant.
Rose Alton, the applicant’s translator, advised that the applicant did not know.
RESOLVED that in the absence of Mr Koca’s representative, the applicant’s limited English and the confusion as to the appropriateness of the licence applied for that the application be deferred to allow clarification of the issue.
NOTED that the premises could continue to trade as a take-away under its current licence from 08:00 to 23.00 Monday to Saturday and 09:00 to 22.30 on Sunday.