Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late reports, related to item 5 below, which will be considered under that agenda item.  

None received.

A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at he commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.

A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member’s judgement of the public interest and if this interest affects their financial position or the financial position of a person or body as described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct and/or if it relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to them or any person or body described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chair will explain the procedure that the Committee will follow for the hearing considered under the Licensing Act 2003.  A copy of the procedure is attached.

The summary of the procedures were noted.

To consider an application by the Enforcement Services Manager for review of the Mangol Ocakbasi Restaurant, 443 Green Lanes, London N4.

Please note that under the Council’s Constitution, Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 17 no other business shall be considered.

RESOLVED

The Licensing Sub Committee (the Committee) decided to uphold the review application brought by the Enforcement Service, acting as a responsible authority, and agreed to suspend the license for a period of two weeks.

In determining the application the Committee considered the steps that it could take in order to promote the licensing objectives. The Committee considered:

1.                  To take no further action:

On hearing all of the evidence presented to take no further action was not an option for the Committee.

2.                  To issue formal warnings to the premises supervisor and/or premises license holder:

The Committee did not feel that this was a productive option as it would only be repeating the approach taken by the Council on the 13^th February 2006, in writing, to the licensee warning that a breach of conditions could result in the review of the license and the courts by imposing fines following prosecution.

3.                  Modify the conditions of the licence:

The Committee was satisfied that on the basis of the evidence presented including details of prosecutions for non compliance with conditions on the licence that any modification of conditions would not be complied with.

4.                  Exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the licence:

The Committee felt that due to the nature of the establishment excluding late night refreshment from the licence and only allowing the supply of alcohol for consumption both on and off the premises without the benefit of food could potentially have a detrimental effect to the promotion of the licensing objectives.

5.                  Remove the designated premises supervisor:

The Committee did not feel that this was applicable or proportionate as there was no evidence that alcohol was being served after 1:45am.

6.                  Revoke the Licence:

The Committee decided that the revocation of the Licence was not necessary or proportionate to the promotion of the licensing objectives.

Reasons for suspending the license for 2 weeks:

The Committee considered the evidence submitted by the responsible authority and interested parties. The Committee had particular regard to the prosecutions outlined and the determinations made by the Court.

The Committee found that the conduct demonstrated by the licensees towards officers, carrying out enforcement duties and the consistent disregard of the licence conditions convinced them that modification to current conditions or exclusion of a licensable activity would be disregarded by the licensees.

The Committee took into consideration the licensees assertions that they would not have offended if they had known of the possibility that their licence could be revoked but noted that there had been a revocation of a licence under the previous night cafe legislation and that there were allegations of breaches of condition after the notice of this review served on the licensee on the 29 January 2008.

The Committee noted that a written warning was hand delivered to the licensee at the licensed premises on the 13 February 2006, also that verbal warnings had been given about the possibility of a license review and in addition warnings had been given  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.