Agenda item

Variation of a Premises Licence Application

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Ellie Green, Principal Licensing Officer, including:

a.    The sub-committee were to consider a variation application from the premises known as Edmonton Corbacisi, 30 Sterling Way, London N18 2XZ.

b.    The current premises licence had been in operation since 4 March 2024.

c.    The Premises Licence Holder was Mr Memik Gilgil. No DPS was required as there was no sale of alcohol at the premises, which was a restaurant.

d.    The variation application sought extended opening hours and late night refreshment times, so that the premises could be open 24 hours daily.

e.    Current opening hours permitted were 06:00 - 00:30 Sunday to Thursday and 06:00 – 02:30 Friday and Saturday.

f.     The Police had objected to any extension of current hours, as it would undermine the licensing objectives. The Police representation was set out in Annex 3 of the report.

g.    Mr Gilgil had offered one additional condition arising from the variation application: ‘An intruder alarm with an emergency button, which when pressed alerts the Police, shall be installed and in use throughout the times of licensable activity’.

h.    Mr Gilgil did not respond in writing to the Police representation, but did confirm he would like consideration of the application by Licensing Sub-Committee, and was present at the meeting.

2.    Mr Memik Gilgil, the applicant, made the following statement:

a.    The premises served hot food, namely soup.

b.    The premises’ customers were mainly working people, from his (Turkish) community, travelling from London to home at night after work.

c.    The premises was located on a busy road, where there was already a lot of traffic movement and parking at night.

d.    The customers did not make a lot of noise: they came to the premises after work for soup and then left.

e.    The restaurant did not serve any alcohol and did not play any music in the premises. There was nothing at the premises to lead to any problems.

f.     There had been no incidents at the premises.

3.    In response, the following question was received:

a.    Cllr Savva asked whether everything was in good order to operate the licence at the premises.

b.    Mr Gilgil confirmed that everything was correctly in place, including 24 hour cctv, fully trained staff, and an alarm.

4.    Sergeant Danni Jones, on behalf of the Police, made the following statement:

a.    The Police objected to the variation application seeking 24 hour opening seven days a week.

b.    The original application for a premises licence was received on 29 January 2024, and the Police had detailed their concerns in respect of that application, objecting to the hours of the application. Following mediation, terms were agreed with Mr Gilgil and the Police and the current licence was granted on 4 March 2024.

c.    On 18 April, a variation application was received to vary the hours of the premises licence. Police were surprised at the application at this time, as the operation was so new and the original application had been objected to on proposed timings.

d.    The Police could see the same issues arising from the variation application and had submitted a representation opposing 24 hour opening and late night refreshment under the Prevention of Crime and Disorder and Prevention of Public Nuisance licensing objectives.

e.    The variation application was lacking in information. In respect of additional steps to promote the licensing objectives as a result of this variation, the applicant had only submitted one under Part B, that “we have installed alarms connected to the Police”. This was not considered sufficient.

f.     The Police considered that the licence should be operated for much longer before a variation application was made; for the licence holder to prove their ability to properly operate the licence sufficiently. This would be the advice given to any new licence holder.

g.    This premises was located near a busy transport hub, with Silver Street station and bus routes by the venue, and there was seating opposite. The ward in which the premises was located was the second highest ward for crime and disorder in the borough. The area was affected by anti-social behaviour, violence, vehicle crime and sex trade, and there had been gang crime previously in this location. There were concerns the premises with late hours could attract more people in an already crime-impacted area.

5.    In response, the following questions were received:

a.    In response to the Chair’s queries whether there had been any complaints received during the period the premises had had been operating, or incidents of criminal activities at the premises, it was advised there had been no reported incidents in the premises in the six weeks it had been operating, but that Sterling Way attracted a lot of crime.

b.    In response to the Chair’s query, the licence holder confirmed that the premises had 24 hour cctv.

c.    Members asked why the premises needed to have all night opening hours, and how granting the variation would help the business. The licence holder described his customers as finishing work late, at around midnight, often in kebab restaurants, and then travelling home which took them around 30 to 60 minutes. They wished to have something lighter to eat at that time. Granting the variation would help the business to serve these customers. If there was not such custom, the premises would not want to open at those late hours.

d.    Members asked for confirmation in respect of provision of alcohol at the premises. The licence holder advised that there was no alcohol provided at the premises. There was also no music at the premises; the atmosphere was quiet and more like a home environment. They heated and served soup to their customers.

e.    Members asked about any complaints from local residents since the licence had been operating. The Principal Licensing Officer confirmed that no complaints had been received by the authority from local residents, including those living above the premises, and that no residents had made representations to this application.

6.    The following closing summaries/points were made:

a.    The Principal Licensing Officer outlined, having read and heard the representations, the next steps available to the sub-committee, and directed them to the relevant guidance.

b.    Sergeant Jones confirmed that the Police would like to see the premises operating for at least a year before considering any variation to timings. In principle they were not opposed to the premises operating and they did support new premises. However, this licence had been granted very recently and the current operating hours had been agreed in mediation with the Police. The Police position remained unchanged from a few weeks ago when objections were submitted in response to the original premises licence application with regard to the licensing objectives.

c.    Mr Gilgil clarified that the operation was not ready to open longer hours at the time the hours were agreed originally. He had wanted to install more cameras and an alarm, and for staff to be fully trained. Now those were in place, the business needed to be improved so he had applied for the variation. He confirmed all of the licence conditions were complied with since March, but the staff team and staff training had not been ready. He confirmed the staff training was done by himself and an external person who also advised on health and safety. The training was on a personal basis as the licence holder considered fit.

The Chair thanked everyone for their time and adjourned the meeting at 10:26 while the sub-committee went away to deliberate. The Panel retired with the legal adviser and committee administrator to consider the application further, and then the meeting reconvened in public at 11:03.

The Licensing Sub-Committee RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED  as follows:

(i)            Licensing Hours and Activities:

(ii)          Conditions:

11. An intruder alarm with an emergency button, which when pressed alerts the Police, shall be installed and in use throughout the times of licensable activity.

(iii)       Formal training of all staff including induction and refresher training relating to all staff at the Premises and duly recorded and available for inspection by the Licensing Authority and Police.

The Chair made the following statement:

“The Licensing Sub-Committee (LSC) having listened to and considered written and oral submissions made by the Licence Holder, Memik Gilgil, and the Metropolitan Police and in particular the evidence that there are no recorded incidents concerning crime and disorder or public nuisance concerning the Premises. Additionally, it has been noted that the Licensing Authority has not made any objections and nor have any objections been received from local residents. The Licence Holder to ensure all the Mandatory conditions of the licence are complied with including the display of relevant notices particularly concerning being respectful of local residents and leaving the premises quietly.

Accordingly, on balance, the LSC has made the decision to GRANT THE VARIATION to the Licence held by MR MEMIK GILGIL. 

The LSC has taken into account the statutory guidance and the London Borough of Enfield’s Policy Statement in making its decision and has made its decision in promoting all of the four licensing objectives and in particular that of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder and Prevention of Public Nuisance and the Protection of Children from Harm.”

The Chair thanked everyone for their time and contributions and the meeting ended at 11:06.