Agenda item
Sunset Strip, Basement, 30 Dean Street, London, W1D 3SA
App No |
Ward / Cumulative Impact Area |
Site Name and Address |
Application |
Licensing Reference Number |
1. |
West End Ward / Core Central Activities Zone North |
Sunset Strip, Basement, 30 Dean Street, London, W1D 3SA |
Renewal of Sexual Entertainment Venue Premises Licence |
19/12460/LISEVR |
Minutes:
LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE No. 6
Thursday 13th February 2020
Membership: Councillor Tim Mitchell (Chairman),
Councillor Jim Glen and Councillor Aicha Less
Legal Adviser: Barry Panto
Committee Officer: Kisi Smith-Charlemagne
Policy Officer: Kerry Simpkin
Presenting Officer: Michelle Steward
Objections: The Licensing Authority, 2 anonymous objections
Present: Ms Sarah Le Fevre (Leading Counsel, representing the Applicant),Ms Lana Tricker, LT Law (Solicitors, representing the Applicant),Mr Declan Forde (on behalf of the Applicant company), Ms Wells (Dancer at Applicant Company), Ms Angela Seaward (Licensing Authority), Mr Leroy Adedeji and Mr Martin Ratley (WCC City Inspectors).
Sunset Strip, Basement 30 Dean Street, London, W1D 3SA (“The Premises”) 19/12460/LISEVR
|
|
1. |
Renewal of a Sexual Entertainment Venue (SEV) Premises Licence |
|
The application was to renew the Sexual Entertainment Venue (SEV) premises licence made by Anthony Curran and Declan Forde for Sunset Strip, Basement, 30 Dean Street, W1D 3SA. It was noted that Sunset Strip had operated as a sex establishment since 2012.
|
2. |
Amendments to application advised at hearing:
Late submissions were received from the applicant’s solicitors on 10th February in the form of a supporting letter, a response from the United Voices of the World (a trade union representing the interests of the female performers) and supporting statements from four of the performers.
Late submissions were also received from the Licensing Authority on 12th February in the form of witness statements from two City Inspectors.
|
|
Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):
The Sub-Committee heard from the Licensing Authority and City Inspectors
Ms Seaward addressed the Sub-Committee and confirmed that the Licensing Authority had maintained their objections on the grounds that alleged breaches of the licence, witnessed by the City Inspectors, had taken place. She advised that the City Inspectors accounts of their investigations and statements had been circulated to all parties. Ms Seaward advised the Sub-Committee that the Licensing Authority also maintained their objections to support the Sub-Committee with any question and allow the opportunity for the City Inspectors to answer any questions.
The members noted the evidence contained in the report relating to the CCTV recordings of private dances that took place on 7th and 8th August 2019. The details are set out in pages 25 to 27 of the report. There was clear evidence of physical contact between the performers and the customers. Some of the touching appeared to be of a sexual nature, including a performer sitting on a customer’s lap, the touching of thighs, and the rubbing of breasts and buttocks against the customer’s groin and abdomen.
A remedial letter was sent to Mr Forde and Mr Curran on 14th August 2019 (page 21 of the report) and a follow up visit of the licensed premises took place on 30th August. On this occasion it was noted that there had been an improvement in the conduct of the performers. However, following the receipt of two anonymous emails on 14th October 2019, a further visit to the premises took place on 23rd October 2019. CCTV recordings were viewed of dances that had taken place on 18th and 19th October 2019. Once again, clear breaches of the no touching rule were observed, details of which are set out in pages 29 and 30 of the report.
Mr Martin Ratley and Mr Leroy Adedeji addressed the Sub-Committee.It was noted that on 31 January 2020 a letter was received from a member of the public by the Licensing Service stating a series of allegations concerning the conduct of staff and management at Sunset Strip. The allegations included a claim that cameras in the private booths were not working. Other allegations include physical contact between performers and customers, lack of adequate SIA security operatives in the basement dance area, lack of supervision and safety of the dancers in the private booths and reference to a fight that occurred between a customer and a dancer that allegedly took place on 17th January 2020 after midnight.
The Sub-Committee were advised that a visit was carried out to Sunset strip by the City Inspectors on Saturday 8th February 2020 at 13:32 to investigate the alleged breaches stated in the letter. The city inspectors were met on arrival by the duty Manager, Helena Martins and a SIA security personnel, Besnik Halilaj. The content of the letter was discussed with Ms Martins and a walk through was conducted. Following a walkthrough of the venue with Mr Halilaj, larger ‘No Touching’ signs were only noted in one of the three private booths. Cables attached to the CCTV camera in one of the private booths was seen to be hanging out.
The City Inspectors advised the Sub-Committee that they requested to view all the CCTV cameras in the private booths, and it was gathered that camera 5 attached to one of the private booths was not operational. As a designated manager by the Licence holder, Ms. Martins was not fully conversant with the operations of the CCTV system. She admitted that it had been a while since she operated the system.
It was noted that Mr Forde was contacted on the telephone and the City Inspectors explained their visit to the premises and the lack of qualified member of staff to operate the CCTV system. Mr Ratley advised that Mr Forde admitted the cameras were faulty but were rectified a week ago. The City Inspectors then requested to see the incident book to ascertain if there were entries made regarding the faulty cameras. As alleged and stated in the letter received by the Licensing Service, the City Inspectors requested to see the entry for the 17th of January 2020.
Mr Adedeji advised the Sub-Committee that there was no entry for fighting on the date stated. He advised the Sub-Committee that he had viewed CCTV footage for the 17th of January from 23:30 to 00:55 and there were no fights seen. It was noted that the issue of SIA personnel was also raised, Mr. Halilaj confirmed there are two SIA personnel every night. Mr Ratley advised the Sub-Committee that according to Ms. Martins, the premises is confirmed to have 16 operational cameras. During viewing of the CCTV screen, he noted that cameras 5, 10, 15 and 16 were not fully operational.
Mr Ratley advised the Sub-Committee that the lack of operational CCTV cameras and a staff member not conversant to operate the CCTV system were breaches of condition 10 and 11 of the SEV licence, which requires:
10. The premises will install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system as per the minimum requirements of a Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Officer that ensures all areas of the licensed premises are monitored including all entry and exit points will be covered enabling frontal identification of every person entering any light condition. All cameras shall continually record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises. All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of 31 days with date and time stamping. Recordings shall be made available immediately upon the request of Police or authorised officer throughout the preceding 31 day period together with facilities for viewing.
11. A staff member from the premises who is conversant with the operation of the CCTV system shall be on the premises at all times when the premises is open to the public and this staff member should be able to show Police recent data and footage with the absolute minimum of delay of the request.
Mr Adedeji advised the Sub-Committee that there was also a breach of condition 12 (f) of the Applicants SEV licence, which requires:
12. An incident log shall be kept at the premises, and made available on request to the Licensing Authority or the Police, which will record the following:
(f) any faults in the CCTV system or searching equipment or scanning equipment;
Whilst the above breaches of conditions had been identified, it was noted that there was no further evidence of any breaches of the no touching rule.
The Sub-Committee heard the Applicant’s Case
Ms Sarah Le Fevre addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the Applicant and advised that the City Inspectors could verify, the venue’s policies are enforced by a serious of procedures ranging from mere interventions, verbal and written warnings to the termination of a performer’s contract. She advised that newperformers sign a contractual agreement, attend an induction meeting, and staff stress that Sunset Strip is a no touching club. Ms Le Fevre reiterated that there was full CCTV in the venue, which is available to be viewed at any time by the Responsible Authorities.
Ms Le Fevre advised the Sub-Committee that there are always a minimum of two SIA supervisors on duty at the venue when it is trading. One is stationed at the entrance and one is roaming within the venue. She stated that there is also a CCTV monitor at the entrance to the premises, which shows the cameras recording in the basement of the premises. Ms Le Fevre advised that security and bar staff can view the CCTV monitor and, as officers will know, there had been moments when security and/or management have gone downstairs to view dancers more carefully based on observations from the monitor. She stated that security staff are employed to enforce the rules of Sunset Strip more than for crime and disorder purposes.
In relation to the Licensing Authority’s objection to the renewal of the sex establishment licence, Ms Le Fevre felt that the physical contact outlined are not in any way performers/customers engaging in sexual activities. She advised that her Client, Mr Forde, acknowledges that some clips show deliberate touching and that the performers involved have been reprimanded. Ms Le Fevre noted that the 2 dancers from the 19 October footage were dismissed from the venue as their conduct was not acceptable. Since the complaints, the venue has improved signage and ensured that the refresher training is carried out on a more formal basis with the performers having to re-sign the codes of conduct. Supervision in the basement has also improved and at busier times security will also be positioned in the basement.
It was also noted by Ms Le Fevre that in between the visits of August and October 2019 the inspectors attended the venue and checked CCTV and watched dances taking place. There were no issues raised during this visit and the inspectors witnessed and commented that a number of dancers were self-monitoring each other for compliance with the code of conduct- a practice the operator discussed with the dancers as another way to ensure compliance with the rules and regulations. Ms Le Fevre advised that this visit was not mentioned in the inspector’s statements but felt that it was important to mention it.
Ms Le Fevre stated that in considering the physical contacts described by the Inspectors, the City Inspection Team previously in charge of Sexual Entertainment Venues had not viewed casual brushing as serious or worth remarking on during their inspection visits. She advised that this was not an excuse and the licence holders are aware that moving forward no touching means ‘no touching’. She confirmed to the Sub-Committee that if there had been any doubt about that in the past the licence holders are clear going forward and, on that basis, it is important to note that the licence holders have not had any issues at the venue over the previous months.
Ms Le Fevre advised the Sub-Committee that in relation to the anonymous objections, they appeared to have been written by the same person when considering language, punctuation and content. She said that the complaints made by the objectors do appear serious on the paperwork. However, the inspectors have visited the venue on numerous occasions each year and they have not raised any concerns about drug sales, overcharging, fake drinks etc.
In reply to the matters raised by the anonymous objector/s Ms Le Fevre raised six key points:
1) Drug sales: this is vehemently denied. No previous concerns of this kind have been raised by inspectors or police. Staff and management are anti-drugs and any performers or staff members found holding or taking drugs would be immediately dismissed and the Police called. Nevertheless, the venue has introduced a weekly drugs swiping regime where public and back of house areas will be randomly tested to prove this is not the position. 2) Exchanging numbers: Again, this has not been raised previously. The prohibition of this is covered in the dancer induction and refresher training as well. 3) Payment via own phone apps/overcharging: in the 20 years that Mr Forde has operated Sunset Strip he has never witnessed this activity and it is denied that it takes place. The pricing is displayed at the venue for customers and this is also told to customers. 4) No duty manager: the officers will be aware that there is no merit in this claim. Mr Forde spends time in the venue in the day and evening and in his absence one of the managers is appointed the duty manager. Officers and Police have always known who is in charge when they enter the venue. 5) No dancer schedule: the dancers are self-employed, and they may inform the venue if they are attending on a day/night (there are 2 shifts in a day), or they can just turn up (there is no requirement to tell management). This process has worked well over the years and the dancers and management know regular patterns of the performers, meaning that the venue always has performers in place. There is no requirement to have a formal performer rota and the business model of Sunset Strip does not require this. 6) Selling fake drinks: this is not true and has no evidential basis. Trading Standards visited some time ago (6 years ago) and no issues were found, and Mr Forde would have no difficulty should they attend again. Ms Wells addressed the Sub-Committee. She advised she was a dancer and has been in employment at the premises for over five years. Ms Wells confirmed that every dancer had been notified of the no touching rules and added that the dancers were told to ensure that the CCTV is able to capture all dancing clearly, e.g. to ensure hair was not obstructing view. Ms Wells informed the Sub-Committee that many of the dancers were policing this rule themselves and ensured that new dancers were made aware of the club’s rules. Ms Wells felt that there had been a big difference in the club since August 2019 and all the dancers were happy, comfortable and felt safe working at the club. She advised the Sub-Committee that all the dancers are self-employed and that this was rare, she also noted that if the club was not in operation most dancers would be unable to work.
The Sub-Committee queried the total number of CCTV cameras and the number that were in operation during the city inspectors’ visits. Mr Ratley confirmed that there are 14 Cameras with 16 channels. With regard to the allegation of a fight taking place at the premises, he advised the Sub-Committee that during the visit on the 8 February there was not evidence that an incident took place. The Sub-Committee asked the city inspectors if any other breaches were witnessed on the 8February. Mr Ratley advised that no other breaches were observed, however he was focused on searching for the alleged fight.
The Sub Committee also sought further clarification on the actions taken against Dancers and Customers. Mr Forde explained to the Sub-Committee that he had a warning system in place, and this was dependent on whether these were one-off offences or someone who was a repeat offender. He advised the Sub-Committee that if a customer committed the offence once, then there would be no action, if the customer did this again, there would be a warning. However, if this continued then the customer would be courteously ejected and recorded in the incident book. Mr Forde went on to explain that if a dancer broke the no touching rule, then they are warned. If the dancer continued then they are fined, as most of the dancers had been at his club for a long time and he did not want to lose them. Mr Forde concluded that dancers who repeatedly touch customer are asked to not come back to the club.
Summary – Ms Sarah Le Fevre
Ms Le Fevre summarised the submissions that had been made by the Applicant. With regard to the objection relating to breaches of conditions 10 and 11, she considered that the venue further takes performer welfare very seriously and has welcomed Soho Illuminate into the Sunset Strip every week for some time. Members will have private conversations with the dancers to discuss safety and any other needs they may have. They usually come on a Thursday evening and the dancers are aware of this - it provides another avenue to check on performer welfare and provides an inclusive environment for the dancers. Mr Forde is not a known rule breaker and there is no evidence or accusation that either Mr Curran or Mr Forde knowingly permit breaches of the licence conditions to take place. Ms Le Fevre closed by stating that her clients were very willing to work with the Council to ensure that their venue operated in the appropriate and expected manner set out in the sex establishment licence.
Mrs Le Fevre offered the following condition “An SIA trained doorman shall be based in the basement at all times when relevant entertainment is taking place”.
Chair Summing Up
The Sub-Committee thanked everyone for their submissions and commented that the process for licence renewals was different from other licensing applications, as the presumption was that a renewal of a licence would be granted unless there was a reason not to do so. The Sub-Committee had considered the material in detail, with additional submissions having also been received. Members of the Sub-Committee had read through everything prior to the hearing, and if a particular piece of correspondence had not been specifically mentioned, it did not mean that the issue had been ignored.
The Sub-Committee had noted the objections that had been made in relation to the applications. With regard to the breaches of conditions 10, 11 and 12. The Committee noted the serious breaches of the existing licence and considered that the premises had not been diligent in observing the conditions, which included the CCTV system. There was a particular concern that breaches identified in August 2019 were repeated in October 2019, despite warnings being given to the applicants.
The Licensing Sub-Committee was going to grant the renewal on this occasion but wanted to make it clear that if similar breaches of conditions are identified in the future it was highly likely that renewal would be refused. This was an opportunity for Mr Forde to ensure once and for all that proper arrangements were in place to ensure compliance with all the conditions on the licence at all times. No further excuses for any breaches of the no touching rule or for full CCTV coverage not being in place at all times would be acceptable. The Sub-Committee advised that regular checks should be carried out by the City Inspectors and it expected that at next year’s renewal, the premises should have an unblemished record.
The Sub-Committee confirmed that the licence would be renewed subject to the Standard Conditions applicable to licences for sex establishments in Westminster as prescribed by the Council pursuant to Paragraph 13 of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. The Sub-Committee agreed to amend condition 12 to add (j) any breach of licence condition by a performer. The Sub-Committee also amended condition 24 so as to read “An SIA trained doorman shall be based in the basement at all times when relevant entertainment is taking place”.
|
Supporting documents:
- Sunset Strip 20 report_Redacted, item 1. PDF 1 MB
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 1./2 is restricted
- 1.1 Sunset Strip submissions- SEV Renewal 2019, item 1. PDF 81 KB
- 1.2 Sunset Strip SEV Application 2020, item 1. PDF 18 KB
- 1.3 sunset support, item 1. PDF 331 KB
- 1.4 FW Sunset Strip - 1912460LISEVR, item 1. HTM 47 KB
- 1.5 1912460LISEVR - SUNSET STRIP - 30 Dean Street London W1D, item 1. HTM 52 KB
- 1.6 Sunset Strip 30 Dean Street London W1D 3SA, item 1. PDF 64 KB