To consider an application for a NEW Premises Licence.
Minutes:
(Agenda Item 6).
The Licensing Officer, Daliah Barrett presented the Report for the New Premises License to the Committee highlighting the current position in terms of the operation of the premises. The premises had been the centre of enforcement action. The previous owner of the premises had pleaded guilty to operating without a license and was fined £2500 and that the premises had been found to be open without a license past 23:00 since this fine. Ms Barrett informed the Committee that the representation against the application by the Fire Officer had been withdrawn since the measures required by the Fire Authorities had been implemented. Ms Barrett also notified the Committee of concerns raised by the Planning Officer. There was one letter of objection from an interested party.
The Chair invited questions to the Licensing Officer. Mr Sygrave, representing the Ladder Community Safety Partnership (LCSP), objector, asked Ms Barrett to clarify when the premises had been found to be open beyond 23:00. Ms Barrett replied by listing dates and times of the offending occasions on 20 November 2005 (02:15) and 22nd January 2006 (02:15).
The Chair invited the objector to address the Committee. Mr Sygrave, objector on behalf of the LCSP raised his concerns over the operating schedule that had been submitted as part of the application stating that it did not tackle directly the four objectives of the licensing laws and this raised concerns to him because of the levels of crime and anti-social disorder in the area around the premises. Mr Sygrave asked the applicant to compromise in his application by bringing the closing hours applied for to 12midnight on weekends, and 02:00 on weekends. The Legal Adviser, Maria Bilbao, asked Mr Sygrave if there was any evidence of crime and anti-social behaviour being attributable to the premises. Mr Sygrave replied that there was no evidence.
The Chair invited the applicant, Mr Orhan Kati, to address the Committee. Mr Kati stated that he was new to the business (since 21st October 2005). He informed the Committee that there had been no criminal activity related to his premises and that he supported efforts to prevent it. Mr Kati rejected Mr Sygrave’s request for shorter opening hours on the grounds that he had not received any complaints from local residents or other residents’ groups. Mr Kati continued by highlighting that a public house was situated next to his premises which operated longer hours. He claimed that there was more likely to be nuisance emanating from this establishment. He also stated that there was no evidence that parking had been a problem attributable to the premises. At the request of the Chair, Mr Kati gave reasons for the two occasions the premises were found to be open beyond its licensed hours. On 20 November 2005, this was four weeks after Mr Kati had taken over the running of the premises , and there had been a mis-communication in respect of the what hours the license permitted the premises to be open, although he was aware that his closing hour should have been 23:00. On 22 January 2006, Mr Kati stated that the premises were not open to the public, but the lights were on and the door open whilst it was being cleaned. Mr Kati claimed that the premises took a long time to clean up after customers had finished eating. The Chair asked Mr Kati what time he stopped serving customers. Mr Kati’s reply was that he stopped serving food at 23:00.
RESOLVED
The Committee decided to grant the application in full and subject to the following conditions:
(i) Conditions to enforce the operating schedule.
There were two informatives:
(i) The licence granted would not constitute consent under any other regime. It would be necessary for the licensee to obtain any other consents that may be necessary for the lawful operation of the premises, including planning consent
(ii) That there should be a clear and visible “closed” sign after 02:00, with doors closed to any customers.
Supporting documents: