The Licensing Sub-Committee meeting scheduled for Thursday, 19 March 2026, was set to consider a single application for the variation of a premises licence. This application concerned the premises known as Greek Meze 2, located at 299 Main Road, Sidcup, Kent. The meeting's agenda indicated that representations had been made regarding this application, necessitating its determination by the sub-committee.

Variation of Premises Licence for Greek Meze 2

The primary item scheduled for discussion was an application to vary the premises licence for Greek Meze 2, located at 299 Main Road, Sidcup, Kent DA14 6QL. The application, submitted by Mr Leonard Truni, sought to remove a specific condition from Annex 4 of the Premises Licence. This condition, imposed following a licence review in January 2025, stated that a named individual, referred to as Mr XXXXXXXX in the documents, must not be re-employed in any capacity or permitted on the premises at any time.

The applicant's stated reason for this variation was to allow the individual's return in a limited, non-managerial, and fully supervised capacity. The application highlighted that the individual previously held a prominent front-of-house role and was well-known by regular patrons. It was suggested that since his departure, the premises had experienced staffing pressures and a notable drop in customer feedback regarding hospitality and atmosphere. The application also noted that over 300 customers had signed petitions calling for his return, and more than 20 formal reference letters had been received from regulars and local residents, many of whom referred to his respectful nature, professionalism, and the welcoming environment he helped foster. The applicant acknowledged that the original condition was offered at a challenging time and suggested that substantial operational changes had since been made.

Representations against the application were made by the Police and the Licensing Authority, both acting as Responsible Authorities. The Police stated that the condition was imposed as a direct and proportionate response to serious concerns evidenced in a previous review hearing. These concerns included complaints of physical interference with female customers, free pouring of alcohol, and an attempt to force alcohol into a customer's mouth. Despite additional training for staff regarding vulnerable people and violence against women, incidents reportedly continued. The Police noted that the applicant, Mr Leonard Truni, had been verbally warned and received a written letter from the Metropolitan Police on 19 December 2025, reiterating the breach of licence conditions and possible consequences. The Police also highlighted further complaints received on 19 October 2025 and 14 December 2025, alleging the individual was back at the premises and pressuring people to sign a petition for his return, and that Mr Truni had admitted he was working there due to being busy. The Police concluded that the removal of this condition would undermine the review outcome and reintroduce risks to the licensing objectives.

The Licensing Authority, represented by Mrs Geraldine Eley, also made representations against the variation. Mrs Eley detailed a history of complaints related to the individual, including incidents of physical interference with female customers, free pouring of alcohol, and an alleged assault. She also cited a complaint on 1 January 2026 regarding a food safety failure where a customer with declared allergies was served food containing allergens, with the manager identified as the individual in question. A subsequent visit by an Environmental Health Officer on 5 January 2026 noted the individual's aggressive and confrontational approach when discussing the case. Mrs Eley stated that in every instance prior to the review, complaints had been received as a direct result of this individual's actions, and since the review, he had allegedly returned with the willing collaboration of the Management and engendered further complaints. The Licensing Authority's position was that the individual should not be employed in any licensed premises, and therefore the application should be refused.

The report pack also included extensive character references for the individual in question, provided by customers, friends, and former colleagues. These references generally described him as polite, respectful, professional, kind, compassionate, reliable, hardworking, and having a positive impact on the atmosphere and customer experience at the restaurant. Many references highlighted his ability to make customers feel welcome and valued, and some expressed a strong desire for his return to the premises.

The sub-committee was asked to consider the application, the representations made by the Responsible Authorities, the applicant's response, and relevant parts of Bexley's Statement of Licensing Policy and statutory guidance. The sub-committee could then decide to grant the application, reject it in whole or in part, or impose conditions considered necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives.