Agenda and draft minutes

Please note this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method.  Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting.  Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on.  By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The Chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual, or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

Noted.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Beacham and Mallett.  Councillor Patterson attended as substitute for Councillor Mallett and Councillor Carter attended as substitute for Councillor Beacham.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business. (Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be considered at item 9 below).

None.

None.

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 Chair outlined the procedure to be followed at the meeting.  He advised that the agenda would be varied to take item 8 first (Tasty Hutt), and that the decisions would not be provided at the meeting, but would be provided within 5 working days of the hearing.

To consider an application for a premises licence review brought by Trading Standards as a Responsible Authority. 

Daliah Barrett, Licensing Officer, introduced the application for a review of the Premises Licence as requested by Trading Standards on the grounds of public safety and crime and disorder.  The licence had been granted in November 2015, and the licence holder had been the designated premises supervisor since this time.  The Licence Holder had received a caution by Trading Standards in December 2015, and conditions had been added to the licence.

Rebecca Whitehouse, Trading Standards Manager, presented the application for a review of the Premises Licence, and provided a background to the premises.  In September 2014, the Licence Holder, Ozkan Albay, joined the Responsible Retailers Scheme.  In June 2015, Trading Standards and HMRC discovered illicit tobacco at the premises.  Mr Albay received a simple caution, as it was a first offence.  A further visit found further illicit tobacco, and Trading Standards felt that this warranted a review of the licence. 

David Caxton, Premises Licence Holder’s representative, responded to the review application.  The current licence had been in place since November 2015, and Mr Albay had been a licence holder for 17 years, with only two incidents occurring during this time.  The first incident had occurred as a result of Mr Albay’s brother bringing in illicit tobacco into the premises without Mr Albay’s knowledge, although Mr Albay took responsibility and the caution.  The second incident occurred as a result of Mr Albay allowing a customer to pay off a £200 debt with cigarettes.

In response to the Chair, Mr Caxton stated that it would not be fair to focus on the time since the premises licence had been granted in November 2015, as Mr Albay had held a premises licence for many years before then, with no incidents. 

In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Albay advised that he had signed up to the Responsible Retailers scheme as he had been asked to by Haringey Council, and he did not completely understand what it was, as he thought it was a reward scheme.  His premises licence training had taken place 16 years ago, in English.  Ms Barrett explained that the licence would have been granted in a Magistrates Court, and grandfathered over when the legislation changed, but the law would have remained the same with regard to illicit sales.

Mr Caxton summarised the case and reminded the Committee that there had been no previous offences by Mr Albay in the whole time he had held a licence, and referred to the guidance which said that the Committee should consider revocation, rather than that they should revoke the licence.

The Committee adjourned to consider their decision.

RESOLVED

The Committee carefully considered the application for a review of the premises licence, the representations of Trading Standards and the licence holder, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the s182 guidance.

The Committee resolved to:

·                Modify the conditions of the licence to incorporate the recommendations in the Trading Standards representation set out on page 23, point 1 of the Committee agenda pack.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

To consider an application for a premises licence review brought by Trading Standards as a Responsible Authority. 

Daliah Barrett, Licensing Officer, introduced the application for a review of the Premises Licence as requested by Trading Standards on the grounds of crime and disorder and public safety.  The Premises Licence had been held by Mr Salman Ekinci from November 2015 until July 2016, when he attempted to transfer the DPS to Mr Kazim Marasli, a director of the company, who was rejected on the grounds of his criminal record.  A subsequent application to transfer the DPS to Ms Tonbul, although Mr Ekinci and Mr Marasli were still involved with the premises.  Mr Ekinci was in charge of the premises when the Trading Standards visit was carried out in February 2016. 

Rebecca Whitehouse, Trading Standards Manager, presented the application for a review of the Premises Licence.  HMRC and Trading Standards had visited the premises on 24 February 2016, and had found illicit alcohol and tobacco, which equated to £884.19 of unpaid duty.  The goods had been stored in places commonly equated with illicit sales, and were readily accessible within the premises to allow them to be sold.  The case was being put forward for prosecution, and it was felt that a review of the licence was also appropriate.

Mr Marasli apologised for the incident, and advised that the cigarettes were for personal use and had been stored under the counter in the premises.  He also told the Committee that the alcohol had been purchased from a cash and carry and he had no knowledge of it being non-duty paid. 

In response to the Committee, Ms Whitehouse confirmed that Trading Standards considered that this was day to day practice for the premises because of the accessibility and availability of products, and the fact that there was no CCTV footage available when requested, which could imply that any footage would show sales of non-duty paid goods. 

The Committee questioned Mr Marasli in regard to the statement made in his interview where he said that the alcohol was purchased by him in Belgium and brought back to sell, which conflicted with his statement earlier in the hearing where he said that he had purchased the alcohol at the cash and carry.  Mr Marasli did not provide an answer to the Committee.

Ms Whitehouse summed up, reiterating that there had been a significant quantity of illicit goods available for sale, and Trading Standards had no confidence that the premises would confirm to the licensing objectives.

The Committee adjourned to consider the application.

RESOLVED

The Committee carefully considered the application for a review of the premises licence, the representations of Trading Standards and the licence holder, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the s182 guidance.

The Committee resolved to:

·         Modify the conditions of the licence to incorporate the recommendations in the Trading Standards representation set out on pages 65 and 66, points 1- 10 of the Committee agenda pack.

·         To suspend the license for a period of 1 month.

. 

The Committee  noted that the account given by Mr Marasli at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

To consider an application for a premises licence review brought by Enforcement Response as a Responsible Authority. 

Daliah Barrett, Licensing Officer, outlined the application for a review by Enforcement Response on the grounds of public nuisance and crime and disorder.  The premises had been granted a licence in October 2006 for Late Night Refreshment and the sale of alcohol.  The licence holder had not been able to sell alcohol as he did not have a personal licence.  At the rear of the premises was a shed which was being used by the premises as a shisha hut, and this area was not covered by the premises licence.  A number of complaints had been received by Environmental Health in relation to the use of the premises, and to ward councillors regarding Anti Social Behaviour particularly at the rear of the premises.  Officers had visited the premises, and had been confronted with aggressive behaviour by patrons.  These issues had been reported since March 2015, and visits showed the hut was being used as a late night social club.

Charles Buckle, Enforcement Officer, presented the application for a review on behalf of Enforcement Response.  A visit had been made to the premises on 3 August 2016, and found the layout of the premises to be substantially different to that set out on the premises licence.  A number of noise complaints had been made, particularly in relation to noise at the rear of the premises, from the hut.  A noise abatement notice had been served on the premises.  Mr Buckle advised that the recommendation of the Enforcement Response team was that the licence be revoked, or suspended at the very least.

Graham Hopkins, Premises Licence Holder’s representative, presented the response to the application for a review.  In relation to the aggressive behaviour towards the Enforcement Officer, he confirmed that it was patrons at the premises, and that the management have barred these individuals from the premises.  Mr Hopkins advised that a variation had been submitted for a change of layout at the premises.  He also advised that although Mr Wagdi had no intention of selling alcohol at the premises, he did not want to remove this from the licence.  In relation to the use of the hut at the rear of the premises, Mr Hopkins explained that Mr Wagdi would be applying to include this area in the premises, and that he had advised Mr Wagdi that no licensable activities would be permitted to take place there, and that noise should be kept to a minimum.

Mr Hopkins advised the Committee that Mr Wagdi was offering the following conditions – closing time of the premises to be 0030; after 2200, only a maximum of 10 customers would be permitted on the premises, and this would be monitored by a member of staff.

In response to the Committee, Mr Wagdi advised that he had built the shed in 2012, and had submitted a planning application in November 2015. 

Mr Wagdi responded to further questions from the Committee:  since the noise abatement notice in June 2016, he had displayed notices in the premises  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

None.