Agenda item

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 the premises licence that ‘no provision of relevant entertainment, or material depicting nudity or relevant entertainment, shall be visible from outside the premises’ and also to respond to the comments of Mr Strange such as the concerns about the entrance door being open.  Mr McVitie responded that the external imagery at the premises had never previously been deemed a breach of condition 4 on the SEV licence.  Sunset Strip was not like any other SEV.  It was the only venue which did not operate a VIP area.  There was a traditional bar on the ground floor and the striptease area was in the basement, which contained four private booths.  There was no door to the ground floor.  The shutter went up when the premises opened at midday and came down at 01:00.  

Mr McVitie advised that the female performers on the ground floor were required to wear dresses.  There was a Council approved smoking area for female performers on the first floor and they were not permitted to smoke outside the venue.  Mr McVitie believed there was the possibility that Mr Strange had seen female customers smoking outside the premises.

Mr McVitie informed the Sub-Committee that the Applicant had sought mediation with Mr Strange.  However, Mr Strange had been busy and they had not been able to meet.  Mr McVitie said that the Applicant would try and resolve concerns raised by Mr Strange. 

Mr McVitie was asked by the Sub-Committee whether drinks were taken outside.  He replied that there was permission in respect of the Licensing Act premises licence for customers to do so.  There were two doorman monitoring the outside area, including the smoking area.

The Sub-Committee asked the Applicant how long the images had been present on the first floor of the premises which were visible externally.  Mr Forde replied that they had been there approximately ten to twelve years.

Mr Strange was asked whether the comments of the Applicant allayed his fears or whether he was still seeking modifications to the SEV licence.  He replied that the Applicant was implying that the status quo in respect of the premises was acceptable but Soho had changed a lot.  This was reflected in different type of businesses and the introduction of Crossrail.  There was a different type of visitor and tourist coming to Soho.

Mr Strange wished to stress that he was not being specifically critical about sexual entertainment taking place in the premises.  His opposition to the SEV licence renewal was due to the nature of the business being excessively visible from outside the premises.  If the SEV licence was renewed it should be the case that no-one should know what the type of business is that is taking place at the premises as was currently the case at Sophisticats.

Mr McVitie and Mr Forde were asked by the Sub-Committee whether they were willing to take action so that people were not able to see inside the venue, including seeing any scantily clad individuals inside which Mr Strange confirmed was a concern.  Mr McVitie re-iterated that performers were required to wear dresses.  He also responded that it was possible when walking past to see bar areas in other venues where men and women were sitting talking to each other.  There was no sexual activity taking place on the ground floor.  It took place in the basement.  The Sub-Committee requested clarification whether, whilst there was no performing on the ground floor, the performers were coming upstairs from the basement and not dressing appropriately.  Mr Forde denied this.  The Applicant had implemented a policy of female performers wearing dresses until 18:00 on the advice of the Police.  The Applicant had then asked the female performers to wear dresses after 18:00.  Mr Forde did express concern that if venues such as Sunset Strip were lost, the area would lose its identity.  He took the view that it created a more positive atmosphere if potential customers could see people in the bar area as opposed to the impression given by a SEV operating behind closed doors.  He added that there was no pressure on customers to sit with the performers or buy them a drink. 

Mr Strange expressed the opinion that there was an issue in that the solicitation of the sexual activity which was agreed between the Applicant and the performer could be seen on the ground floor in public view.

The Sub-Committee considered that a number of points that Mr Strange had made in his representation were valid.  This included that the nature of the area was changing.  However, the Sub-Committee was not of the view at this time that the change to the locality was sufficient to refuse the application.  It was appropriate to grant the application for the renewal of the SEV licence.  The Sub-Committee considered that it was positive that there had been the start of a dialogue between the Applicant and Objector.  Mr Strange clearly cared about the area.

The Sub-Committee gave consideration as to whether to impose additional conditions.  In particular, there was a question mark about whether the imagery on the first floor that could be seen from outside the premises was appropriate going forward.  The Sub-Committee decided not to impose a condition to remove the imagery at this time.  The Applicant was encouraged to think about whether it should remain.

In response, Mr Forde stated that he was volunteering to remove the imagery.  The Sub-Committee welcomed this pragmatic approach to the issue and also the policy that the female performers in public view on the ground floor would be wearing dresses at all times.  The Sub-Committee did, however, recommend that the Applicant think about whether the use of a steel shutter on the ground floor was appropriate.