RECEIVED the application made by Mr Mansur Duzgun for the premises now known as and situated at The Hyde Arms Public House, 137 Victoria Road, London, N9 9BB for a transfer of Premises Licence (LN/200501812).
1. The introductory statement of Ellie Green, Principal Licensing Officer, including the following:
a. The current premises licence permitted opening hours and various licensable activities from 11:00 to 00:30 latest, and was included as Annex 2 of the report. The original licence holder was Mr John Martin Cross.
b. This application to hold the licence in his own name was from Mr Mansur Duzgun, and was included as Annex 3 of the report.
c. Mr Duzgun had simultaneously applied to vary the DPS to Ms Re-Anne Cunsamy: this application was included as Annex 4 of the report.
d. The Police objection to the licence transfer application was set out in Annex 5 of the report.
e. Mr Duzgun’s response to the representation was included as Annex 7 of the report.
f. Mr Duzgun had also notified the Police and Licensing Team that should the transfer be granted he would undertake to submit a minor variation application to modify the licence conditions.
g. The Police did not object to Ms Re-Anne Cunsamy as DPS, but as the application was made by Mr Duzgun it would not be valid if the transfer was not granted.
2. The statement of Mr James Rankin, on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service, including the following:
a. The Police were no longer objecting to the transfer application, but were unhappy with the state of affairs in respect of the existing premises where Mr Duzgun held a premises licence: Kalamis Fish Restaurant, which had been subject to review proceedings. There was a lengthy and detailed chronology of contact with the Enforcement Team and Mr Duzgun in respect of that premises.
b. At a Licensing Sub-Committee hearing on 29/11/17 in respect of Kalamis Fish Restaurant, the Police were content that the licence was suspended for two weeks to be satisfied that all conditions were in compliance. It was difficult to suggest that Mr Duzgun was not a fit person to hold this licence if conditions at Kalamis Fish Restaurant were in compliance.
c. Police would like Mr Duzgun to apply for a variation of conditions within two weeks. They wanted it to be known that this will be closely monitored. If a pattern of behaviour was repeated, there would be no hesitation in coming forward and applying for a review of these premises as well.
d. Confirmation was given at the Chair’s request that the Police were not asking for the application to be rejected; that Mr Duzgun had agreed to make a variation application within two weeks; and that the sub-committee was not permitted to apply conditions on a transfer application.
3. The statement of Mr Duzgun, applicant, including:
a. He confirmed he was happy to make the variation application.
b. He understood there had been problems at Kalamis Fish Restaurant, but he sub-let that property and was a third party to everything that happened in that venue. Also some of the allegations about drugs and noise related rather to the next door pub car park.
c. He confirmed that there had been dialogue with officers and a variation application would be submitted within two weeks.
d. His only concern was the need for an agent to be employed, which he considered unnecessary and expensive. He would be running this property himself. In response, PC Staff clarified that, as premises licence holder, Mr Duzgun was responsible for what went on in the property. Issues at Kalamis Fish Restaurant were not fixed until an agent was employed. Therefore there was concern now that Mr Duzgun was taking on a larger property and that problems may arise again.
e. Mr Duzgun confirmed his understanding, and that he would employ an agent for now. PC Staff confirmed that an agent would not be required permanently if there was compliance with the licence conditions.
f. Parties had agreed an amendment in respect of checking CCTV was working each day, to give a 48 hour grace period.
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.
2. The Chairman made the following statement:
“The Licensing Sub-Committee was advised at the hearing by Mr Rankin – representing the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) – that the position of the MPS had modified from its earlier stance taken to object to the transfer of the premises licence for The Hyde Arms into the name of Mr Mansur Duzgun.
The Licensing Sub-Committee heard that despite certain residual reservations over another premises, the objection to this transfer was to be withdrawn.
We further heard that the MPS and Mr Duzgun had come to an accord in terms of the strengthened conditions being applied to this licence. Mr Rankin made it clear that the modified position of the MPS was itself conditional upon Mr Duzgun agreeing to submit a written application to vary the now agreed conditions; and he also sought an oral undertaking from Mr Duzgun that he will make such an application within two weeks.
Mr Duzgun duly gave that oral undertaking to the satisfaction of the Licensing Sub-Committee, enabling it to formally resolve that the application for a transfer of this premises licence be granted.”
3. The Licensing Sub-Committee resolved that the application be granted.