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 of interest made.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Licensing Committee held on 25^th May 2021 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

The minutes of the Licensing Committee held on 25^th May 2021 were agreed as a correct record.

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

The rules of procedures were noted.

At the outset of the hearing, Mr Jonathan Melnick, Principal Enforcement Lawyer, on behalf of the Chair asked both parties for their view on adjourning the consideration of the applications as the Committee understood that the appeal decision was due to be heard by the magistrates’ court on 4^th and 5^th November 2021. The Committee considered that awaiting the determination of that appeal would be of benefit to the parties and to the Committee.

Mr David Dadds, Legal Representative on behalf of the applicant, opposed an adjournment for three reasons. Firstly, that the Committee should not proceed to a determination based on the prior decision. Secondly, there was a right of appeal from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court. Finally, he hoped to be given an opportunity to persuade the Committee to grant the applications today, which would have a bearing on the appeal.

Mr Tom Lewis, Team Leader Licensing, expressed concern that there was a possibility that the appeal hearing date may change. If the appeal was certain to be heard in November then he would have no objection to an adjournment but, in light of that uncertainty, he too was of the view that the applications should be heard and determined as scheduled. 

Members adjourned the meeting at 7.00pm to consider this proposal and reconvened at 7.15pm.

In light of the parties’ representations, the Committee decided to proceed with the applications as scheduled. The parties agreed to a suggestion by Mr Melnick that both applications would be considered together since the issues raised and the submissions to be made were identical. Two separate decisions, however, would be issued.

At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer, briefly introduced the report for the application for the renewal of a Sexual Entertainment Venue Licence for Whites Gentleman’s Club, 32-38 Leman Street, London E1 8EW. Members and all interested parties noted the reports as read.

Mr Dadds began by asking if Members had read the supplemental agenda which included the summary of submissions made on behalf of the applicant, to which Members confirmed they had. He asked Members to keep an open mind and allow him the opportunity to persuade them to reconsider the previous decision made.

Mr Dadds highlighted the fact that Mr Yasin Baboo, Applicant, had been on anti-depressant medication since the reported incident in 2019, and this had been due to the trauma of the refusal of the application. He said that the serious allegations made had caused tremendous harm to the applicant.

It was noted that the renewal applications for 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 had not received any objections from residents, police or Councillors. Mr Dadds stated that the CCTV footage did not match what the undercover operatives had said as there were many discrepancies in their witness statements. The CCTV footage showed that there was no one in the VIP rooms at the times the undercover operatives had claimed to have been there.

He said that Council Officers on 29  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1

The Committee considered two applications by Whites Venues Ltd. to renew the SEV licence held in respect of Whites Gentleman’s Club, 32-38 Leman Street, London, E1 8EW (“the Premises”). The applicant previously held an SEV licence for the Premises which expired on 31^st May 2019. The application to renew that licence came before the Committee on 3^rd September 2019 and the application was refused pursuant to paragraph 12(3) of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 on the basis that the applicant was unsuitable to hold a licence “for any other reason” due to failures in the management of the Premises, a lack of cooperation with the licensing authority, and concerns as to its ability to operate in accordance with its SEV licence.

The applicant has appealed the decision to refuse to renew the premises licence. The Committee understands that the effect of the appeal is that its decision does not take effect unless and until it is upheld by the magistrates’ court (and subject to any further right of appeal). The applicant therefore needed to submit renewal applications for both the 2020/21 year and the 2021/22 year. The first application was of course affected by the coronavirus pandemic hence both renewal applications coming before the Committee at the same time. Both applications were objected to by Tom Lewis, Licensing Manager for the Council.

The Committee understood that the appeal decision was due to be heard by the magistrates’ court on 4^th and 5^th November 2021. In light of that, the Committee canvassed the parties’ views on an adjournment of these applications pending the determination of that appeal. It appeared to the Committee that the determination on the appeal, particularly as the appeal was due to be heard very soon, might be of some assistance.

Mr. Dadds, solicitor for the applicant, opposed an adjournment for three reasons. Firstly, that the Committee should not proceed to a determination based on the prior decision. Secondly, there was a right of appeal from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court. Finally, he hoped to persuade the Committee to grant the applications today, which would have a bearing on the appeal.

Mr. Lewis was expressed concern that there was a possibility that the appeal hearing date may change. If the appeal was certain to be heard in November then he would have no objection to an adjournment but, in light of that uncertainty, he too was of the view that the applications should be heard and determined as scheduled. 

In light of the parties’ representations the Committee decided to proceed with the applications as scheduled. The parties acceded to a suggestion by the Legal Adviser to the Committee that both applications should be considered together since the issues raised and the submissions to be made were identical.

The main focus of the parties’ submissions related to the CCTV and the applicant’s failure to provide all of it to the licensing authority during the course of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.2