Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1  Cllr Penny Wrout was duly elected as chair of the meeting.

3.1  There were no declarations of interest.

The decision

The Licensing Sub-Committee, in considering this decision from the information presented to them within the report and at the hearing today and having regard to the promotion of the licensing objectives:

·  The prevention of crime and disorder

·  Public safety

·  Prevention of public nuisance

·  The protection of children from harm

The application to vary a premises licence has been approved in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Licensing and the proposed conditions set out in paragraph 8.1 of the report, with the following amendments:

The following condition will be added to the premises licence: 

The Premises Licence holder to instruct and pay at their own cost for an independent expert mediator in conflict resolution, for example the Civil Mediation Council or a similar organisation, to seek to bring all parties together (the Premises Licence holder, the management and staff of the premises, local residents and the Licensing Authority) to find a way forward to resolve the issues between the local residents and the management of the premises within the next 3 months.

Reasons for the decision

The Application to vary this premises licence has been approved to remove condition 46 from the premises licence as members of the Licensing Sub-committee were satisfied that the licensing objectives would not be undermined. 

The Sub-committee took into consideration that the Responsible Authorities raised no objection to this Application to remove condition 46 from the premises licence. The Sub-committee noted the Temporary Events that had been acknowledged between 2022 - 2023.

The Sub-committee took into account that Other Persons (local residents) objected to the Application and their concerns about the venue. The Sub-committee noted that no crime reports had been provided by the Police.

The Sub-committee has no jurisdiction over Planning issues. However, what became apparent is that there are poor relations between the venue and local residents and more needs to be done to work harmoniously with neighbours.

The Sub-committee noted that condition 32 requires the contact details of the Designated Premises Supervisor to be on display for local residents or members of the public to make contact with the premises if they have any concerns.

The Sub-committee felt that given that the Responsible Authorities did not object to this Application they could not continue to have condition 46 on the premises licence. However, given the history of the premises they felt that a condition should be added to the premises licence that the premises undertake mediation at its own costs to try and resolve the concerns by local residents. 

The Sub-committee would have liked the opportunity to speak to Hande Sezgin and to hear from her regarding this Application.

Having taken all of the above factors into consideration the Sub-committee was satisfied that by granting this variation to the premises licence, the licensing objectives would continue to be promoted.

Public Informative

The Licence holder is encouraged to work with local residents to reduce noise nuisance, and prevent any negative impact in the area.

6.1  The Sub-committee heard from the Business Regulation Team Leader and Applicant’s legal representative, and also took into consideration the written representations submitted by the Other Persons.

6.2   All parties noted the confidential information received from the Applicant and Other Persons. The parties agreed that the information should not be in the public domain due to the nature of the allegations made against Hande Sezgin.

6.3  During the course of submissions and a discussion of the application, the Sub-committee noted the following:

·  The Business Regulation Team Leader outlined the application seeking to remove condition 46 on the licence relating to Ms Sezgin being excluded from the premises, and advised that the late representation received following the consultation period was not relevant to the application and would not be taken into consideration at the meeting.

·  The Applicant’s legal representative stated that condition 46 should be removed as it was no longer relevant due to the passage of time, the Applicant upholding the licensing objectives and no incidents of crime and disorder at the premises. Ms Sezgin was of good character with no criminal convictions, had obtained the personal licence and SIA badge qualifications, had family connections to the venue, and no representations from the Responsible Authorities in particular Licensing and the Police.

·  The Applicant's legal representative clarified that the Applicant had previously proposed condition 46 to address the Sub-committee’s concerns relating to lack of trust and management skills following a breach of a condition relating to food. This condition was no longer relevant and had been removed from the current licence. The premises licence holder had been holding TENs events without any issues, the representation regarding the Stop Notice issued by Planning to cease using the outdoor area had been withdrawn today, and the issue of noise nuisance was being resolved.

·  The Applicant's legal representative emphasised that many vexatious allegations that Ms Sezgin had been visiting the premises daily and being involved in management were uncorroborated allegations. 

·  The Business Regulation Team Leader confirmed that the council had received complaints relating to the premises during normal operating hours however, some specific complaints could not be corroborated by CCTV footage.

·  The Sub-committee believed the Other Persons’ complaints were not vexatious but there was a breakdown and history of poor community relations between the venue and local residents.

·  The Applicant's legal representative confirmed that Mr Ozturk was the DPS and also premises licence holder (PLH). He had engaged with his neighbours and local residents and had sent letters to the residents about the application and had installed soundproofing to address the noise nuisance.  He had received no responses or complaints. 

·  The Sub-committee expressed their disappointment at Ms Sezgin’s absence at the hearing and to be able to speak directly to her.

·  The Applicant's legal representative argued that remote meetings did not enable him to have a private discussion with his client and that the removal of this previous condition was not relevant to this application. The Sub-committee stated that any condition removed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.