The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and announced the procedure of the meeting, which was noted by the Committee. The Chair enquired how long Mr Ladenburg required to present his case and stated that he would allow the objector the same amount of time.  Mr Ladenburg and the objector indicated that they were content with the procedure.

To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992.  See attached note from the Monitoring Officer.

There were no declarations of interest made.

At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer introduced the report which detailed the application for a Sexual Entertainment Venue Licence under Schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (as amended) for Charlie’s Angel, 30 Alie Street, London E1 8DA.

Ms Driver explained that this application was a new application trading as London City Traders Ltd. The existing operator was Mr Abdul Malik who was also the sole director of London City Traders Ltd. Ms Driver referred to page 60 of the agenda, a letter to Ms Maria Guida, Solicitor acting on behalf of the Applicant, from Mr Andrew Heron dated 16^th February 2015 clarifying the transitional provisions in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1982.

It was noted that the premises currently had a licence under the Licensing Act 2003 that permits sexual entertainment. The licence was originally granted on 10^th March 2006 and amended by a variation application on 8^th September 2009 and a further minor variation on 8^th January 2014 in relation to the layout.  Mr Abdul Malik had been the licence holder since June 2011 and the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) since May 2013. It was noted that the history and the running of the business was a relevant consideration.

Ms Driver continued to highlight and refer to the hours applied for, the maps and layout of the premises, the complaints and enforcement history, and the site visit made at the premises by Officers. Ms Driver confirmed that the Applicant had met the advertising/notice requirements, and all objections were contained in the agenda and additional documents were contained in the supplemental agenda.

Ms Driver continued to refer to the appendices in the report and stated where the relevant documents were contained in the agenda. It was also noted that the report author and officer who undertook the inspection of the premises was present at the meeting and was available to answer any questions.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Guy Ladenburg, Legal Representative for the Applicant, explained that this was a straight forward application with a twist which required clarification. It was noted that the application was set out as a new application; however, he explained that there had been a clerical error when completing the application form. He urged Members to treat this application as an existing operator as there was clear links that the premises already existed and was operated by the same management. He explained that law treats new applicants and existing operators very differently and that it would not be fair to penalise the Applicant due to a clerical error made by their solicitor.

He explained that it was evident from the papers, objections and history of the premises that this premises was an existing operator and for it to be noted that the premises had been providing sexual entertainment since 2008. Mr Ladenburg explained that there were 30-40 performers working at the premises together with 8-10 members of staff.

It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.1