Members are reminded to consider the categories of interest in the Code of Conduct for Members to determine whether they have an interest in any agenda item and any action they should take. For further details, please see the attached note from the Monitoring Officer.

Members are reminded to declare the nature of the interest and the agenda item it relates to. Please note that ultimately it’s the Members’ responsibility to declare any interests form and to update their register of interest form as required by the Code.

If in doubt as to the nature of your interest, you are advised to seek advice prior to the meeting by contacting the Monitoring Officer or Democratic Services

There were no declarations on interest.

To note the rules of procedure relating to determinations of licenses for sexual entertainment venues.

The rules of procedure were noted.

The Committee considered an application relating to The Nag’s Head, 17-19 Whitechapel Road, London, E1 1DU (“the Premises”). This was submitted by Mr Mohshin Ali on behalf of the Licensing Authority for the revocation of the Sexual Entertainment Venue (SEV) licence held by NH License Ltd.

 It should be noted that the Committee was provided with a large bundle of documents. One contained the reports and the supporting material (including some documentation provided by the licence holder in relation to the revocation hearing).

The other contained supporting documents relied upon by the licence holder.

The sole director of the licence holder is Manpal Singh Clair. On 3^rd March 2023 Mr. Ali applied for the revocation of the licence following the discovery of breaches of the licence on 18^th August 2022. That application was due to be heard on 16^th May 2023. Shortly before the hearing Mr. Ali became aware of problems arising at a similar venue in Westminster. The licence for that venue, Vanity, was held by another company of which Mr. Clair was the sole director. Given that these issues could not be fairly addressed having arisen so close to the Committee meeting, that meeting did not proceed.

In the interim, however, the licence was due to be renewed and a renewal application had been made on 4^th May 2023. That application attracted objections from both the Licensing Authority and the Police. Both applications were listed to be heard on the same evening and the parties all agreed that it was appropriate to hear both applications together given that the evidence and submissions would cover the same, or almost the same, points.

The Licensing Authority was represented by Mr. Cannon, the Police were represented by Mr. Rankin, and the licence holder was represented by Mr. Kolvin KC. It should be noted that the Police did not address the revocation application nor seek to make a late representation in that regard. The Committee was grateful to the parties for the concise way in which they each made their submissions.

Applicant

Mr. Cannon addressed the Committee on behalf of the Licensing Authority. He focused on three main areas of concern. The first was the breaches that occurred on 18^th August 2022; the second was the licence holder’s response at the time and since; the third was to touch briefly on the issues arising at Vanity, the venue in Westminster.

He summarised the application, which followed a test purchasing exercise on 18^th August 2022. Two operatives entered the Premises, paid for and were given private dances, and those dances were not compliant with the licence conditions. These were repeated breaches occurring over a period of about forty minutes. The Licensing Authority and the licence holder had agreed a schedule of breaches [Bundle 1, pages 94 – 107]. In the main, the schedule showed breaches of two no-touching rules. One was condition 35 which prohibited physical contact between customer and performer [Bundle 1, page 479], the other  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.1

The SEV licence is subject to annual renewal and runs from 1st June to 31st May each year. It is subject to the Council's standard conditions as well as some additional conditions imposed by the Committee in October 2017. The sole director of the licence holder is Manpal Singh Clair. On 3rd March 2023 Mr. Ali applied for the revocation of the licence following the discovery of breaches of the licence on 18th August 2022. That application was due to be heard on 16th May 2023. Shortly before the hearing Mr. Ali became aware of problems arising at a similar venue in Westminster. The licence for that venue, Vanity, was held by another company of which Mr. Clair was the sole director. Given that these issues could not be fairly addressed having arisen so close to the Committee meeting, that meeting did not proceed.

In the interim, however, the licence was due to be renewed and a renewal application had been made on 4th May 2023. That application attracted objections from both the Licensing Authority and the Police. Both applications were listed to be heard on the same evening and the parties all agreed that it was appropriate to hear both applications together given that the evidence and submissions would cover the same, or almost the same, points.

Licensing Authority

The Licensing Authority was represented by Mr. Cannon, the Police were represented by Mr. Rankin, and the licence holder was represented by Mr. Kolvin KC. It should be noted that the Police did not address the revocation application nor seek to make a late representation in that regard. The Committee was grateful to the parties for the concise way in which they each made their submissions.

Mr. Cannon addressed the Committee on behalf of the Licensing Authority. He focused on three main areas of concern. The first was the breaches that occurred on 18th August 2022; the second was the licence holder’s response at the time and since; the third was to touch briefly on the issues arising at Vanity, the venue in Westminster.

He summarised the application, which followed a test purchasing exercise on 18th August 2022. Two operatives entered the Premises, paid for and were given private dances, and those dances were not compliant with the licence conditions. These were repeated breaches occurring over a period of about forty minutes. The

Licensing Authority and the licence holder had agreed a schedule of breaches [Bundle 1, pages 94 – 107]. In the main, the schedule showed breaches of two no-touching rules. One was condition 35 which prohibited physical contact between customer and performer [Bundle 1, page 479], the other was condition 38 which prohibited touching between performers as well as prohibiting performers from touching themselves in a sexually explicit way [Bundle 1, page 479].

The breaches were by more than one dancer. The purpose of a test purchasing exercise is that the operatives act as any patron would or might act. Having paid for private dances, they witnessed multiple  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.2