Agenda item
Application to Review the Premises Licence for Paradise Cottage, 477 Bethnal Green Road, London, E2 9QH
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Licensing Officer, introduced the report detailing the application for review of the premises known as Paradise Cottage, 477 Bethnal Green Road, London E2 9QH. Mr Ali stated the review was instigated by one of the responsible Authorities, the Metropolitan Police and was supported by the Council’s Environmental Noise Protection Team.
He referred Members to supporting evidence appended at Appendix 1 and stated that the premise licence at appendix 2, appeared a bit messy as it was a converted licence from the 1964 Licensing Act, under grandfather rights in 2005.
Mr Ali stated the current Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) had been appointed in November 2017 and Appendix 9 listed the visits of the Environmental Noise Protection Team.
The Applicant, PC Mark Perry was invited by the Sub-Committee to present his case and explain why a review of the licence was sought. PC Perry said the report at Pages 31 to 36, documented the grave nature of the incident which took place on the 28th October 2017. He said it was a shocking and disturbing incident and whilst the Premises Licence Holder denies knowledge of the party and the potential risk to under aged girls, it is clear the licence holder, the lessee and the designated premises supervisor, allowed the premises to be used for this type of parties.
Prior to October, the Metropolitan Police did not have any concerns regarding the premises, which is a takeaway Kebab shop and restaurant. The premises came to the attention of the Tower Hamlets Police Licensing Team when the MET’s Sexual Exploitation Team contacted them. An undercover surveillance operation was undertaken to gather evidence as there was a real risk to under aged girls, who potentially could have been plied with drugs and alcohol before older males had sexual intercourse with them. This was averted due to the operation undertaken by the Police.
PC Mark Perry referred to Page 41 and the poster which appeared in the window of the premises, advertising a Halloween party designed to attract a young crowd. The premises are not a nightclub yet the poster asks party goers to dress “Smart and Sexy”. PC Perry said the Child Sexual Exploitation Team and himself spoke to the Mr Erkan Dogan and Mr Haci Mustafa Unlu and explained they could not sell alcohol past midnight and that they needed a DPS in place for licensable activity. PC Perry said they were careful not to give too much away, as they did not want the planned party to be moved to another venue.
PC Perry said the when he was at the venue a temporary wall to separate the counter of the premises from the area where the party was going to take place was being erected. PC Perry stated he was concerned about this structure as it could easily fall and collapse and was a fire hazard.
The Premises Licence Holder, Ms Sibel Dogan did not make contact with the Responsible Authorities to obtain a Temporary Events Notice (TEN) or have a clue about how to run her premises. It is clear from the evidence presented on page 59, they continued to ignore the advice given to them and held other parties, which they claim were private parties that resulted in noise complaints to the Environmental Noise Protection Team. What is alarming is the entry for 27th November which states “Officers also smelt cannabis emanating from the venue”.
These premises are operating and behaving like a club and held a party where potentially under aged girls could have come to harm. It is for this reason that the Metropolitan Police believe the premises Management and the licence holder cannot be trusted, in particular to holding a late night refreshment licence and licence for the sale of alcohol. Throughout this time, the Premises Licence Holder did not make contact with the Police and continued to hold parties regardless of the warnings issued.
In the circumstances the Police are seeking the revocation of the licence. However, should the Sub-Committee be minded to allow the objectors to continue operating, it should place conditions that they should install CCTV and keep an incident log book.
Mr Michael Dunn, representing the Environmental Noise Protection Team added that they had visited on five different occasions, albeit the second and third incidents mentioned in the police application for review were on the same night. However warning letters issued to the proprietors were ignored.
After the submissions of the applicant, the objector’s Counsel, Mr Steven Woolf representing the Premises Licence Holder, Ms Sibel Dogan, Mr Erkan Dogan – the lessee and Mr Mustafa Unlu was invited to present his clients response to the evidence put forward by the Police.
Mr Woolf stated that this was a somewhat difficult objection to make but his clients wholly condemn the heinous allegations detailed in the Police officer’s report. With respect to the Officer, the sole evidence provided cannot substantiate that child sexual exploitation was taking place. The poster on page 41 makes a somewhat nebulas reference to “sexy” and this is just an innocent reference. Nothing suggests Child sexual exploitation of children was the intention of the party and no children under the age of 18 were at the premises.
Mr Woolf said he would have sympathy with the Officer if there was evidence to support the assertion that an “Ugg party” was taking place and officers from the Child Exploitation team were present for the hearing. Fundamentally the way in which the review had been bought was on circumstantial suspicion as there was no UGG party taking place at the premises.
Mr Woolf said it was important to have realism here. The Licence for the premises had been in place for many years and the Police were attempting to revoke this on the basis of this alleged party. On the balance of probability, this argument is flawed because the licensing objectives had not been broken. The event on the 28th October did not take place. Mr Woolf continued stating that he could not ignore the fair observation made on page 32 that the DPS was not in place. However there was confusion in relation to the DPS and this was rectified on the 3rd November 2017 when the DPS was changed.
Mr Woolf continued stating the current premises licence allowed for private parties and the incidents referred to on page 59, with points 2 and 3 being one incident and the one on the 2nd December gives the impression that the party continued into the small hours. However that was certainly not the case.
Mr Woolf invited Members to consider the events in isolation and the long history of the premises which are a family run restaurant business that has been in the family for more than 30 years. He said his clients are better informed and now know that private parties at the venue must be managed better and entry and egress strictly adhered to, in order to ensure noise did not escape outside.
Mr Woolf said the Environmental Health Officers comment of the smell of cannabis is extremely difficult to substantiate and answer. There was no clear evidence of drugs being smoked on the premises. There was no evidence that the Premises Licence Holder had committed any offences relating to drugs. The Premises Licence Holder does not condone the selling and use of drugs and will do what is required to prevent this, but it is not her responsibility if people decide to smoke cannabis or other drugs.
In relation to the licensing objectives listed on page 30, it is clear the alleged breach of objective 1 – the prevention of crime and disorder is based on circumstantial evidence as no evidence to support the Police’s assertion was found.
With regard to objectives 2 and 3, public safety and the prevention of public nuisance, there are isolated incidents from which the Premises Licence Holder has learnt a very valuable lesson. Turning to objective 4, the protection of children from harm, again it is clear this is based on circumstantial evidence and cannot be substantiated through the evidence presented. Therefore the application to revoke the premises licence should be dismissed.
The incidents referred to are from last year and there have been no further incidents for nearly three months. The DPS is now in place and the Premises Licence Holder has vowed to uphold the licensing objectives and operate the premises as a kebab takeaway and restaurant with no private parties to be held on the premises. The threat to the premises licence has been a awake up call.
No communication has taken place between the Premises Licence Holder and the responsible authorities is because there has been no repeat of noise complaints against the premises. On page 36, the application for review suggests the hours be reduced to the framework hours of the premises licence is not to be revoked. However this would not be convenient to the business. CCTV is already in place and an incident record book will be provided on request to the responsible authorities.
Mr Woolf stated that if the Sub-Committee was of the view that the Premsies Licence Holder was actively participating in the type of parties described, there is no evidence to support this allegation and it is a weak assertion to make.
Members of the Sub-Committee asked the following questions:
· The Police were asked , with reference to Page 31, paragraph 1, was there concrete evidence that the party was an UGG party?
It is a very difficult area but on the intelligence the CSE team had, a decision was made to undertake surveillance with the ultimate goal of protection young children from harm. The witness statement of Sergeant Penney, last sentence states that “without intervention there was a real and serious risk.”
The poster was designed to attract a young crowd and 20 year old males were stood outside the venue at the start of the party. The Police strongly believe that the party was about to happen and young girls were in danger. The Members should ask themselves, why would people go to a Kebab shop for a Halloween party? It is the opinion of the Sergeant and Inspector that the way in which the party was run was not sound and children were at risk of harm.
The management claim they had no idea of the nature of the party and take no responsibility for the smoking of cannabis. However in any event they are not a club and cannot operate as one.
· The Objector was asked if she agreed that she should have applied for a TEN when holding parties?
Yes, with hindsight that would have been a good idea but you must draw a distinction between a ‘crowd’ for which a TEN is required and a private party. The parties referred to on page 59 were private parties as opposed to the Halloween party, for which a TEN should have been applied for.
· The objector was asked what had the business done to address the Police allegations?
No action is required to address the allegations as the alleged incidents are in the past and the Premises Licence Holder as decided not to stage any parties or similar events in future and to operate only as a restaurant.
· It was pointed out to the objector that this did not answer the question. As a responsible business owner the Premises Licence Holder had duties and responsibilities to uphold and these are serious allegations.
The Premises Licence Holder acknowledges these are serious incidents and is conscious the business cannot be used as a club when in fact it is a restaurant. Therefore Ms Dogan has made a business decision that the holding of parties and similar events at the premises will end and the responsible authorities will not hear of any further complaint against the premises. Mr Unlu has been appointed as the DPS and Ms Dogan has no desire to find herself on the wrong side of the Police or Environmental Health.
· The objector was asked to clarify the management structure of the business?
Ms Sibel Dogan is the Premises Licence Holder. Mr Erkan Dogan – her brother is the lessee and is responsible for the day to day running of the business and Mr Unlu is the DPS.
· The objector was asked to describe the layout of the premises?
The premises are on Bethnal Green Road and the entrance to the shop is from the street. As you enter, the counter is on the right and beyond that is the bar. The premise’s opens out to the seating area and there is a family section for those customers who require privacy. Beyond that, there is a small room and then a small area that leads to the kitchen. There is an exit to the side street.
· The objector was asked what is the capacity of the premises?
50 people maximum, 30 for the seating area.
· The objector was asked when holding private parties, how many people are permitted?
A maximum of 25 people.
· The objector was referred to the poster advertising the Halloween Party. A copy of which accompanied the application for review. The poster stated that the party was between 9:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. The objector was asked who was to manage this party?
The premises were hired out to a promoter who said no more than 30 people were to attend.
· The objector was asked in relation to the private parties, who from the management team was present?
The DPS was present at all times.
· The objector was asked what type of risk assessment was undertaken in relation to such events?
The premises is compliant with health and safety and we have evacuation procedures in place. Smoke and Carbon Monoxide detectors are in place.
· It was pointed out to the objector that there had been a history of noise nuisance. What steps have been taken to address this?
There will be a complete stop to parties. The main speakers will be removed to reduce the noise level and the business will operate as a restaurant only.
· The Police were asked if there had been further complaints against this business?
No further complaints since the 2nd and 3rd December 2017 incidents have been reported or recorded.
Mr Wong asked Mr Woolf to clarify the following point for the Sub-Committee:
Mr Woolf had stated that there was no clear evidence of matters mentioned in the application for review, and what evidence did Mr Woolf consider should have substantiated what was alleged? Mr Woolf clarified that by lack of clear evidence, he meant evidence was hearsay. Mr Wong asked if Mr Woolf was aware that hearsay evidence is not debarred from Licensing Sub-Committee hearings. Mr Woolf said he was, but it was a matter of who much weight was put on matters where there was no clear evidence. Mr Woolf said that the reference to cannabis was based on hearsay as there is no clear evidence that it was drugs the Officer had smelt, and Ms Cadzow who was the author of the email setting out such things was not present to be questioned on this.
Both the Applicant and the Objector were given an opportunity to sum up their arguments before the Members adjourned at 8:55 p.m. to deliberate and reconvened at 9:35 p.m.
The Licensing Objectives
In considering the application, Members were required to consider the same in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended), the Licensing Objectives, the Home Office Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and in particular to have regard to the promotion of the four licencing objectives:
- The Prevention of Crime and Disorder;
- Public Safety;
- Prevention of Public Nuisance; and
- The Protection of Children from Harm
Consideration
Each application must be considered on its own merit. The Sub Committee has carefully considered all of the evidence before them and considered written and verbal representation from both the applicant and the objectors with particular regard to all four licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance, the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm and public safety.
The Sub-Committee were concerned about the lack of understanding of the Licencing Objectives by the Premises Licence Holder and her associates.
The Sub-Committee were concerned about the serious allegations made and that no attempt had been made by the Objector to talk to the Responsible Licensing Authorities, namely the Police, Environmental Noise Protection Team and the Council’s Licensing Team.
The Sub-Committee were concerned that a premise’s had planned to hold an event without a licence and were concerned about the pattern of incidence of noise nuisance.
The Sub-Committee noted that the Objector failed to offer any conditions to give the Sub-Committee confidence that the Premises Licence Holder will uphold the licensing objectives.
Therefore, in view of the above the Sub-Committee were not satisfied that the Objectors had successfully demonstrated that she had rebutted the presumption against the review of the licence and the Responsible Authorities’ application for the revocation of the premises licence.
Accordingly, the Sub-Committee unanimously
RESOLVED
That the application to review the licence of the premises at Paradise Cottage, 477 Bethnal Green Road, London E2 9QH be REVOKED to EXCLUDE from the scope of the licence.
· The sale by retail of alcohol; and
· The provision of regulated entertainment (recorded music only)
Supporting documents: