Issue - meetings
Consideration of the Adoption of the Sexual Entertainment Licensing Regime, Policing and Crime Act 2009 -Update
Meeting: 08/01/2014 - Licensing Committee (Item 3)
Additional documents:
- SEV Appendix 1, item 3
PDF 110 KB
- SEV Appendix 2, item 3
PDF 51 KB
- SEV Appendix 3, item 3
PDF 27 KB
- SEV Appendix 4, item 3
PDF 97 KB
- SEV Appendix 5, item 3
PDF 110 KB
- Supporting Doc 1, item 3
PDF 271 KB
- Supporting Doc 2, item 3
PDF 2 MB
- Representation 1, item 3
PDF 250 KB
- Representation 2, item 3 HTM 12 KB
- Representation 3, item 3
PDF 2 MB
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, David Tolley, Head of Consumer and Business Regulations, introduced the report and explained that the Licensing Committee on 8th October 2013, had requested for an extraordinary meeting to be held to discuss the proposed fees structure for Sexual Entertainment Venues (SEV). It was noted that the report covered a cost analysis of the fees structure and gave the Licensing Committee the option of reconsidering its decision not to adopt the legal framework to licence sexual entertainment venues by proposing recommendations to Full Council.
It was noted that the issues which were of concern were the exclusion of the White Swan Public House from the Sexual Entertainment Policy, the reconsideration of the fees and not to adopt the framework legislation to permit a licensing regime for SEVs.
It was further noted that there was no specific licensing regime in place for SEV’s and therefore there is currently no control on the number of venues permitted in the Borough. Mr Tolley explained that 11 existing businesses held premises licences under the Licensing Act 2003 with permissions that would be affected by the adoption of the SEV legislation and these businesses could submit applications to operate under the new legislation and such licences would be reviewed annually.
It was noted that venues including the White Swan as an existing operator would benefit from the exemption of the “nil limit” provided for existing premises in the SEV policy. Mr Tolley stated that it was not possible to withdraw or waiver the White Swan from the policy. However it would benefit from the nil limit as an existing premises.
Mr Tolley then explained the breakdown of the £9000 fee and detailed the costs in relation to compliance visits. He explained that the Council must determine its fees on a cost recovery basis so comparison with fees in other boroughs was not a relevant consideration. However it was noted that compared to 13 other London boroughs there was 5 boroughs charging below Tower Hamlets and 8 boroughs charging higher than Tower Hamlets ranging from £10,000 - £22,523.
Mr Tolley concluded by highlighting the consultation process that took place and was noted that the overall consultation response represented only a small percentage of those who worked and lived in the borough.
The Chair indicated that he would allow three persons, who had requested speaking rights, to address the Committee. The speakers were allowed three minutes each, in line with the time limits for speaking at full Council meetings.
Mr Gareth Hughes, speaking on behalf of Metropolis and Aston’s Champagne and Wine Bar, stated that the decision made at the previous Licensing Committee on 8th October 2013 was a valid decision and still stands, he explained that there had been an attempt to take to take a report to full Council on this matter, which was withdrawn on the night due to legalities.
Mr Hughes questioned the procedure and process which was followed to call the extraordinary meeting as ... view the full minutes text for item 3