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 were made.

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

The rules of procedure were noted.

At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a renewal of the premises licence for Sexual Entertainment Venues for Whites Gentleman’s Club, 32-38 Leman Street, London E1 8EW. It was noted that the licence consists of the basic licence, plus additional conditions relevant to that premises only, and in addition the Tower Hamlets Standard SEV conditions also applied and form part of the licence. It was further noted that there was one local resident objector. 

Mr David Dadds, Legal Representative on behalf of Whites questioned why the supporting information on the local demographics of the area had been submitted.

At the invitation of the Chair, Mr O”Toole advised the Committee in open session regarding the Council’s Schedule 3 Policy dated June 1st 2014 (SEV Policy). Mr O’Toole said the SEV Policy states that there was no locality within Tower Hamlets in which it would be appropriate to license a sex establishment. Accordingly, the appropriate number of sex establishments for each and every locality within Tower Hamlets is zero. Mr O’Toole advised the Committee that it could refuse to renew a license because of a change in the character of the relevant locality. However the Ward Profile dated June 2014 at Appendix 11, and the information in the Supplemental Agenda 2 did not amount to evidence of such a change for the purposes of the Committee hearing. Therefore he advised the Committee it was best they did not consider this issue any further this evening.

Mr Dadds was satisfied with the response and accepted this.

In response to questions from Members, Ms Holland confirmed the following;

-       That each room/booth had a CCTV camera.

-       That the plan on the agenda was from 2014 and an updated plan had not been submitted.

-       That after the unannounced visit detailed in p.22 of the agenda there had been no follow up visit, however a letter had been sent raising concerns.

At the request of the Chair Mr Dadds made his submission it was noted that the Applicants were not present at the meeting due to unforeseen circumstances and Mr Dadds had been instructed to act on their behalf. He questioned the supporting evidence provided and did not feel the relevance of this, as there were no changes since last year when the application for renewal was last granted.

Mr Dadds explained that there was only objection from a local resident, who had also made a generic objection for the latter application listed on the agenda. He said that he had tried to engage with resident via Licensing Services but the objector did not attempt to make contact. It was noted that there had been no objections from Responsible Authorities or local businesses. .

Mr Dadds concluded that the application should be granted with little or no weight given to the objector as he/she was not present at the meeting and therefore he was unable to challenge the objection.  Mr Dadds  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.1

At this juncture, Mr O’Toole asked the Applicant’s representative if they had any submissions to make in respect of the composition of the Licencing Committee, as some of the Members had been the same Members who had previously made a decision to refuse their licence. Mr Paddy Whur, Legal Representative for the Applicant confirmed this was not a concern and that he had no objection to  the composition of the  Committee . 

At the request of the Chair, Mr Tom Lewis, Licensing Team Leader, introduced the report which detailed the application for a renewal of the premises licence for Sexual Entertainment Venues for Flamingos, 30 Alie Street, London E1 8DA. It was noted that the licence consists of the basic licence, plus additional conditions relevant to that premises only, and in addition, the Tower Hamlets standard SEV conditions also applied and form part of the licence. It was further noted that there had been objections from local residents.

At the invitation of the Chair, Mr O”Toole advised the Committee in open session regarding the Council’s Schedule 3 Policy dated June 1st 2014 (SEV Policy). Mr O’Toole said the SEV Policy states that there was no locality within Tower Hamlets in which it would be appropriate to license a sex establishment. Accordingly, the appropriate number of sex establishments for each and every locality within Tower Hamlets is zero. Mr O’Toole advised the Committee that it could refuse to renew a license because of a change in the character of the relevant locality. However the Ward Profile dated June 2014 at Appendix 11, and the information in the Supplemental Agenda 2 did not amount to evidence of such a change for the purposes of the Committee hearing. Therefore he advised the Committee it was best they did not consider this issue any further this evening.

Mr Whur was satisfied with the response and accepted this.

It was noted that up to date CV’s had not been included for the DPS and the owner/manager. Mr Whur confirmed that these had been submitted during the Judicial Review Process and had not been resubmitted. Ms Victoria Fowler, Legal Officer, confirmed that these documents had been sent previously and asked for these to be resent to officers.

Mr Whur briefly introduced Mr Martin McVitae, the DPS and Manager of the premises he detailed his experiences to date and said that Mr Santosh Nair, Applicant, had been working very closely with Mr McVitae to gain hands on experience. 

It was noted that previous operators were not connected to the business and that the applicant had worked hard to get the previous decision overturned. It was noted that 4 new conditions were added to the SEV licence as a result. It was also noted that 28 cameras were in operation and that the level of scrutiny was the best it could be. 

Mr Whur then went through and addressed each of the objections received, it was noted that covert visits had been undertaken which showed that there were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.2