Dear Mr Tolley
Thank you for indicating that this missive would be
circulated to members of the committee prior to the hearing. I confirm that I
shall be representing the Nag’s Head 17-19 Whitechapel Road London E1 1DU that
has provided nude entertainment at this site since 1982
I have had the benefit of reading my colleague Gareth Hughes’
letter of the 6th January and adopt his representations and would
make the following additional comments.
The Agenda papers record that the Council delegated power to
the Licensing Committee to decide whether or not to adopt the legislative scheme
to licence sexual entertainment in the Borough. The committee decided that,
following due process, it should not be adopted.
In an apparent ruse to revisit that decision (see para 5.13
page 15), the committee is being asked to consider the appropriate level of fees
for the licences that it has decided cannot granted. If the Council wishes the
decision to be revisited, due process requires that it should start the process
afresh
The agenda papers record that the existing public
consultation “must be taken into account” (para 5.8, page 14) but it was flawed
and the papers go on to speculate what the result would have been without that
flaw. The only way that issue can be resolved is, due process which requires it
to consult afresh without that flaw
The agenda papers recite at 1.5 page 5 that “there is
currently no control on the number of venues in the Borough” which is not true.
The present licensing regime is controlled by the Licensing Act 2003. Any new
application can be refused, any change in style of operation can be the subject
of Review and revocation, see also paragraph 3.3 page 6 which correctly states
that any application for a sexual entertainment licence must be decided “on its
merits”. The new regime does not allow councils to refuse licenses on moral
grounds
The Nag’s Head has provided sexual entertainment (as defined)
under a licence since 1982 and the concerns expressed in relation to the White
Swan apply equally here and raise the fundamental issue of the protection of
human rights (as defined). The holders of licences are entitled to expect organs
of government to protect their property, in this case a license (see Tre
Traktorer Aktiebolag v Sweden 1989). Adoption of the new legislation puts that
in jeopardy (see White Swan arguments).
Should the committee decide to recommend adoption of the
legislation (and it is difficult to understand how it could recommend that given
that the Council has delegated the decision to the committee) the Nag’s Head
should not have any additional conditions as is proposed by the standard
conditions
Should the committee adopt the standard conditions may I
suggest that the word “drunk” is substituted for “intoxicated” in condition 31.
Most customers where alcohol is sold are intoxicated to some degree, it is only
when they become drunk that intervention is required
The course of conduct or process recommended by the Agenda
papers is fundamentally flawed. The strength of argument and the strength of
feeling expressed elsewhere, would suggest that, if the legislation is adopted,
it will be the subject of costly challenge. The appropriate way for the Council
to reconsider its previous decision is not to fudge it as suggested, but to
apply due process, give local democracy a fair hearing by re-consultation and
armed with that voice of democracy, reconsider the matter afresh with open
minds
Thank you once again for agreeing to circulate this
missive
Julian
Julian
Skeens
Director
for Jeffrey Green Russell
Limited
(
+44(0)2073397018
È +44(0)7836275095
Ê
+44(0)2073070245
Top
Rated Licensing Individual and
Top
Rated Licensing Firm for 25 Years.
