Agenda item

Application for Review of a Premises Licence.

RECEIVED the application made by the Licensing Authority for a review of the Premises License held by Mr Mansur Duzgun at the premises known as and  situated at Kalamis Fish Restaurant, 112 High Street, Enfield, EN3 4ES

NOTED

1.    Councillor Levy’s explanatory statement that normally there would be an opening statement to explain why we are here today and what the Committee does, but there have been developments regarding the review. So, for the moment he would hold back on making the statement.

2.    The introductory statement of Ellie Green, Principal Licensing Officer, including:

a.    A review application had been sought by the Licensing Authority for Kalamis Fish Restaurant , 112 High Street, EN3 4ES.

b.    The Licensing Authority were originally seeking revocation of the Premises License, but developments had been made and a number of strict conditions had been agreed between both the Licensing Authority & Police, Mr Mansur Duzgun (Premises License Holder) and his Legal representative, Mr Sutherland.

c.    There was also a proposal of 14 days suspension period of the license or until the conditions are in compliance to the satisfaction of the Licensing Authority and the Police. So if compliance is shown earlier, then the suspension period would cease earlier.

3.    Charlotte Palmer, Senior Licensing Enforcement Officer, responded to questions including:

a.    In response to the Chair’s enquiry regarding Ellie Green’s statement (as above), Charlotte Palmer advised that the Licensing Authority were no longer requesting the revocation of the license but the suspension of it until the satisfaction of all conditions and existing permissions.

b.    Another discussion Charlotte Palmer had had with the Premises License Holder (PLH), Mr Duzgun Mansour, was his agreement to submit a signed undertaking that no license application would be made to increase the licensing hours or amend the conditions restricting the use of the rear area, shall be submitted until they have been fully complied with all the licensing conditions and operating times, for at least a year.

c.    This was not a condition, but Charlotte Palmer wanted the above minuted to show that that discussion had taken place and agreed. This did not prevent the PLH from any TENS being submitted and considered.

d.    The Chair further clarified that with a decision notice, which seems likely to be issued, these conditions would be physically appended to the decision notice, aswell as being written into conditions the Licensing Authority normally attach, when the license is issued.

e.    Charlotte Palmer further clarified that the license may have already been issued, but that a new one would be issued with all the conditions and correct plan.

4.    PC Martyn Fisher, on behalf of the Police, had no questions to add.

5.    The Summary Statement of Mr Sutherland (on behalf of the PLH), Legal representative, including the following:

a.    He was grateful to officers for the time they had spent, both at the premises before and since he was involved. He was also glad to say that his client had been able to get to this position today.

b.    On behalf of Mr Mansour Duzgun (PLH) he wanted to say three things:

·         To apologise to officers regarding some e-mails sent that were unfortunate in the way they were worded. His client apologises to the officers for that and any offence that was caused by that.

·         In relation to the undertaking, both of the individuals were present, and they undertake to comply not to make an application to vary the license in relation to the rear area or to change the hours in relation to that rear area.

·         Technically, the review is not withdrawn but that the Committee were making a determination on it.

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 Panel retired, with the legal representative and committee administrator, to consider the application further and then the meeting reconvened in public.

The Licensing Sub-Committee RESOLVED that it considers the steps listed below to be appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives:

(a)  To modify the conditions now agreed between the Premises Licence Holder and the Licensing Authority, which initially called in the Licence for review.

(b)  To suspend the Premises Licence for a period of fourteen days, as agreed between the Licensing Authority and the Premises Licence Holder; albeit this may be increased or decreased (if required) until the Licensing Authority confirm that it is satisfied that all conditions are in compliance.