Skip to main content

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Room 3.1, 3rd Floor, 5 Strand, London, WC2 5HR. View directions

Contact: Jonathan Deacon  Email:  jdeacon@westminster.gov.uk Tel: 020 7641 2783

Items
No. Item

1.

Membership

To report any changes to the membership and to appoint a Chairman.

Minutes:

There were no changes to the Membership.  Councillor Melvyn Caplan was appointed as Chairman for the meeting.

2.

Declarations of Interest

To receive declarations by Members and Officers of any personal or prejudicial interests in matters on this agenda.

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

3.

The Windmill, 17-19 Great Windmill Street, W1 pdf icon PDF 6 MB

App

No

Ward

Site Name and Address

Application

Licensing Reference Number

1.

West End Ward / Core CAZ North

The Windmill, 17-19 Great Windmill Street, W1

Renewal application – Sexual Entertainment Venue premises licence

16/09992/LISEVR

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE No. 6

Thursday 11th January 2018

 

Membership:              Councillor Melvyn Caplan (Chairman), Councillor Heather Acton and Councillor Rita Begum

 

Legal Adviser:             Barry Panto

Policy Adviser:            Chris Wroe

Committee Officer:     Jonathan Deacon

Presenting Officer:     Daisy Gadd.  Heidi Lawrence in attendance.

 

Relevant Representations: Objector (wished to remain anonymous), City Inspectors and Licensing Authority

 

Present:          Mr Stuart Jessop (Counsel, representing the anonymous objector), Mr Glyn Franks (City Inspectors) and Mr Nick Nelson (Licensing Authority), Mr Michael Bromley-Martin QC (Representing Applicant), Mr Thomas O’Maoileoin and Mr Jack Spiegler (solicitors, on behalf of the Applicant), Mr Daniel Owide (Director, Applicant Company), Ms Annette Leahy (Designated Premises Supervisor), Retired Chief Inspector Adrian Studd and Retired Inspector Graeme Ironside (Consultants to Applicant).

 

The Windmill, 17-19 Great Windmill Street, W1

16/09992/LISEVR

 

 

An application for the renewal of a Sexual Entertainment Venue Premises Licence to provide full nudity striptease, pole dancing and table dancing between the hours of 09:00 to 05:30 on each of the days Monday to Saturday and 14:00 to 03:00 on Sunday. The Applicant did not request to change the relevant entertainment or to remove any standard conditions to the licence in the event the application was granted. Objections to the renewal application had been submitted alleging serious breaches of the conditions on the licence.

 

 

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

 

None.

 

 

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

 

Ms Gadd, introducing the application advised at the hearing that the original Objector had not waived the right to anonymity. 

 

Mr Bromley-Martin, representing the Applicant, wished to make a preliminary point.  He requested that the Sub-Committee permit the submission of two witness statements on behalf of the Applicant, from Mr Owide and Ms Leahy, which had been sent to the Licensing Service the day prior to the hearing.  Mr Bromley-Martin clarified that the reason the witness statements had been sent at that time, which was after the deadline set out in the Council’s Rules of Procedure (‘all documentary or other information produced by a party in support of their application must be received by the Authority by noon on the third working day before the day of the hearing at which it is to be relied upon’), was in order to respond to further submissions sent on behalf of the Objector on Monday 8 January.  He added that Mr Jessop, Mr Franks and Mr Nelson had no objection to the witness statements being submitted.  The Sub-Committee permitted the submission of the two witness statements, adjourning briefly to read the documents.

 

The Sub-Committee decided to hear from the objectors first as that was considered to be the most appropriate way of dealing with an opposed application for renewal under the Sexual Entertainment Venue legislation. 

 

Mr Jessop spoke first on behalf of the original objector, stating that the evidence on behalf of the objector was that there had been serious and significant breaches of the conditions on the premises licence.  It was crucial that customers, performers and those involved in the industry were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.

Sunset Strip, Basement, 30 Dean Street, W1 pdf icon PDF 2 MB

App

No

Ward

Site Name and Address

Application

Licensing Reference Number

2.

West End Ward / Core CAZ North

Sunset Strip, Basement, 30 Dean Street, W1

Renewal application – Sexual Entertainment Venue premises licence

17/10883/LISEVR

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE No. 6

Thursday 11th January 2018

 

Membership:              Councillor Melvyn Caplan (Chairman), Councillor Heather Acton and Councillor Rita Begum

 

Legal Adviser:             Barry Panto

Policy Adviser:            Chris Wroe

Committee Officer:     Jonathan Deacon

Presenting Officer:     Daisy Gadd.  Heidi Lawrence in attendance.

 

Relevant Representations: An objector.

 

Present:          Mr Declan Forde (Applicant), Mr Martin McVitie (Manager, Sunset Strip) and Mr Thomas Strange (Objector).

 

Sunset Strip, Basement, 30 Dean Street, W1

17/10883/LISEVR

 

 

An application for the renewal of a Sexual Entertainment Venue Premises Licence to provide striptease, pole dancing and table dancing involving full and partial nudity between the hours of 09:00 to 01:00 on each of the days Monday to Saturday and 09:00 to 23:00 on Sunday. The Applicant has not requested to change the relevant entertainment or to remove any standard conditions to the licence if the application is granted.

 

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

 

None.

 

 

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

 

Ms Gadd, introducing the application advised at the hearing that the objector, Mr Strange, had waived the right to anonymity.  Mr Strange confirmed this was the case.

 

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Strange first  as that was considered to be the most appropriate way of dealing with an opposed application for renewal under the Sexual Entertainment Venue legislation.  This is not actually a requirement of the legislation. Mr Strange expressed the view as a local resident that Soho was changing and that the venue no longer fitted the cultural fabric of Soho.  Even when compared with other premises of a similar nature in the vicinity such as Sophisticats, it was the most obvious in terms of the trade it carried out.

 

Mr Strange stated that Soho was increasingly frequented by families and young people who he believed should not be exposed to the activities which took place at the premises.  He was of the view that in terms of its external appearance Sunset Strip was not in keeping with the aesthetics of the street.  None of the other Sexual Entertainment Venues (‘SEVs’) in Soho had images such as those on the glass on the first floor which are visible from outside and which he believed were suggestive.  Mr Strange also commented that none of the other SEVs had a shutter which was always open so that it was possible to see inside.  He had regularly seen the female performers inside the premises on the ground floor of the premises wearing limited clothing.  Mr Strange also believed he had seen female performers standing outside smoking with what he perceived to be customers.

 

Mr Strange explained that he was not looking for the business to be removed or to impact on anyone’s livelihood.  However, if the application was to be renewed, he was seeking significant modifications to be made to the venue so that it was more in keeping with Soho.

 

The Sub-Committee asked the Applicant as part of the submission at the hearing to comment on whether Sunset Strip complied with condition 4 on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.