Licensing Regulatory Committee - Thursday 18 September 2025, 6:17pm

Licensing Regulatory Committee
Thursday, 18th September 2025 at 6:17pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Votes

Speaking:

Welcome to our Webcast Player.

The webcast should start automatically for you.

Webcast cameras are not operated by camerapersons; they are automated and linked to speaker microphone units. The aim is to provide viewers with a reasonable visual and audio record of proceedings of meetings held in public.

Note: If your webcast link appears not to be working, please return to the Webcast Home Page and try again, or use the help email address to contact us.

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

We don't lose time, as I said earlier on.

I'm going to formally open the meeting and ensure that so that my colleague can join

us later on when he comes back from his break.

So let me do the formality.

May I welcome everybody to this meeting of the regulatory licencing committee, held today,

Thursday, the 18th of September.

My name is Peter Golds.

I am the chair of the committee and chair of the licencing committee and I've been doing

that for rather a long time, so it's quite possible many of you will know who I am, and

I apologise for that.

The meeting is being webcast live on the council's website and the public and press may follow

the meeting remotely.

Councillor Hussain is now joining us, but I advise everybody not to stand up and sing

the national anthem.

The meeting is being held in person with committee members and key participants present in the room.

We're now going to invite everybody to introduce themselves, starting from my right.

Can I say one thing of housekeeping? As you will see, we are at the meeting and we are doing things.

If you are addressing anything, you have to press the button to sign on, and you have to press the button to sign off.

If there are two brands pressed, nothing appears on the webcam.

So you may well see me saying, please sign off or please sign on.

I've signed on, you can see a red thing.

Now when I'm saying introducing people, I'm about to sign off so everybody can be introduced and you'll see it.

Introductions.

Hi, good evening everyone.

My name is a counsellor

Thank you chair evening councillor puddle charging probably southward. Thank you. Good evening

Councillor Sabina Acta, Stephanie Greenwood and I'm also one of the members for this committee.

Good evening.

Councillor Mushta Garmad, Bethnalton West.

Simi Asmin, Democratic Services.

Jonathan Melnick, Legal Services.

I'm Councillor Siu Garmad, Spiritaries in Banguishong Ward.

Councillor Shubho Hussain, Bromley South.

Councillor Farihugamit, Worship Award.

Councillor Abdi Mohammed.

Councillor Rebecca Sultana, Bethnalton East.

Councillor Ayasmiya from St Dunstan.

And there were two officers who didn't introduce themselves.

Apologies, Councillor Gold. Kathy Driver, I'm presenting the report for this evening. Thank you.

Tom Lewis, Head of Regulatory Services.

Thank you very much. I'm now moving to the formality of the agenda items. Do we have

any apologies?

Yes, Chair. We have received apologies for absence from Councillor Mina Ali and Councillor

Sabina Khan. Thank you, Chair.

We now move to an important one, because this is particularly important. Do any members

have a fiduciary declaration of interest? I have none.

No DPI.

Just for transparency, I received a few emails regarding...

Apart from nothing else, thank you.

It falls in my ward.

We have recorded a couple of Councillors, they are the local representatives

and I suspect that most members will have received emails,

so I think I'd like to record that.

but there are no decoration of fiduciary matter

if that could be recorded in a minute, thank you.

Note the rules of procedure for an SEV licence,

which are pages seven to 12 of the main agenda

for those of you on a paper one,

and the pages for that for those of you

who are more than able to use your laptop.

Can we agree, can you note that, thank you?

And members of the public do.

Can members approve the minutes of the meeting

held on the 3rd of June, 2025. May I have an agreement for that?

Thank you very much, Mr. Yasmin. They're all agreed and I'll sign the minutes afterwards.

Item 4 .1 on our agenda is the application for renewal of an SEV event licence for the

Nags Head 17 -19 Whitechapel Road, London, E1 1DU. I'd like to invite Mr. Yasmin to announce

everybody who is in attendance, please.

Thank you, Chair. For this application we have the following. Representing the NAGs

head we have Sarah Louise Taylor, who is leading from the legal side. We've got Mr Manpal Singh,

Mr Steve Woolman and Mr Andy Bamba. In terms of the objectors we have Deborah Malic and

Mr A. Kallisada and Mr Farhan Ahmed, who should be joining online but hasn't done so just

After the application has been presented, it's been agreed by all parties that they will be given a maximum of 20 minutes for each people to make their presentation.

I'll let each party know when you have one minute remaining. Thank you.

There is one matter. I received one email, which I think is particularly relevant via Ms. Yezmin, is that somebody making representation this evening will be dyslexic.

And I will take that in though, I'm a strong believer in public consultation and what I would see is natural justice.

And as far as the person who is dyslexic is concerned, let them continue.

Please say as much as you can as relevantly as possible.

And we will give you this person concerned as much time as possible.

Thank you very much. And thank you for letting us know.

I'll invite Kathy Driver, who is the licencing officer, to introduce the report.

Ms. Driver.

Thank you, Chair.

The application is for a sex establishment venue for the Nags Head at 17 to 19 Whitechapel

Road. This application is

to consider the renewal of the SEV for the period from the 1st of

June 25 to the 31st of May 2026.

The premises has a long history as a public house and has been operating as such for many

years with SEV provisions since at least 1996 from previous legislation.

The current licence is detailed at page 31 in appendix 1.

The consent order following appeal against the revocation and refusal to renew is given

at Appendix 2, page 36.

This details new conditions as agreed during that process and in addition to the Council

standard conditions that are also detailed in Appendix 1.

This was following the refusal and a revocation from last year, but we are only considering

with the renewal for this year.

The hours for renewal are unchanged.

These hours are Monday to Saturday 11 to 3am and Sunday 12 to 10 .30pm.

The renewal application is detailed in Appendix 3, page 50.

The venue holds a premises licence for the same hours as applied in terms of the SEV

as well.

Note the premises can operate as a bar without the need for an SEV to be in operation so

and essentially they can sell alcohol, et cetera, without the SEV being in place.

That premises licence is detailed at page 63, appendix 4.

The layer to the premises is at page 76, and photographs have been provided at the exterior at page 79.

The applicant has provided various policies and codes of conduct as part of their application,

and these are detailed at page 82.

And those include policies such as Code of Conduct, Code of Conduct for Performers and

Welfare Policies.

In Appendix 8, 107 gives a location map of its vicinity and in these cases these are

set at 100 metre radius of the premises.

The details at page 107 details notable premises within this 100 metre area and includes premises

such as schools, religious centres and other licenced premises.

Those are listed in point 10 .3 of the report.

The actual map, apologies, the map is at page 107.

Page 109 includes a local area profile.

This is the most up to date available, albeit it is dated 2014.

Point 12 of the report details the current SEVs held in the borough.

Currently those are only two premises known as the Metropolis and the White Swan for members' information.

In total some 299 objections have been received in terms of this application.

And of those, officers have determined that 30 of the objections were valid, 83 objections

were invalid, that's with no valid content, addresses or full names have been provided.

186 objections were based solely on moral grounds, which are not matters for consideration

by the committee.

Due to their repetitive nature, the valid objections have been consolidated into single

documents.

in appendix 12 from pages 127 to 188.

Two supporting representations from customer the venues

has also been received and those are appendix 13.

There's been no complaints about the premises

in the last 24 months alongside no enforcement action.

There has been a compliance visit on the 28th of November 24

which showed no, it was a compliance visit.

And finally, if members need to, the policies refer to Appendix 14 of the report.

In addition, the applicants have provided a supplementary agenda,

which has provided a witness statement and evidence of Andy Bamber,

who is the crime and disorder consultant on behalf of the applicants.

Chair, that really concludes my presentation unless you've got any questions.

Do any Councillors have any questions for Ms Driver?

There are no questions for Ms Driver.

Ms Yesme, will you record that in the minutes, please?

Thank you.

Mr Melnick, do you have any advice to members of the committee before I move now, before

So the committee nothing arises out of the report the chair, but obviously you're the end of the other members have any queries

During the meeting the multi please do ask

Thank you very much. I now invite the applicant to

Present I try to run these meetings

Both as collegiate and as informally as possible. We are not sitting in the House of Commons, so it is not confrontational

As I say, I wish the meeting to be collegiate.

If anybody wishes to address the meeting, get my attention, that is, wave a hand and

relevant, we will note it down, you will be called.

Please do not interrupt another speaker.

It does not help anybody's case and if people do interrupt regularly, then I'm afraid they

will be ultimately ignored.

We do have, I gather from this, potentially four contributors from the applicant, but

only one listed, who is Sarah Louise Taylor, whom we have seen here on a number of occasions,

and I know, so I'd say to Sarah, thank you for coming along. And you know the procedure,

and I'm sure if you have any parts of your presentation where you wish to invite anyone

of your colleagues to speak, you will do so, but you have 20 minutes to do so. Ms Taylor,

the floor is yours. Perfect, thank you very much, Chair, and thank

you, Cathy, as well, for that report. That was really helpful.

Chair, you've heard that we're here this evening to consider an SEV renewal of a premises that

has been operating since at least 1996, so we've got decades' worth of experience and

decades' worth of trade there. This renewal application does not seek anything extra than

what the premises have been doing before, it's for exactly the same hours. What we do

have this time, Chair, are some additional conditions and that is as a result of the

consent order which is shown within the Committee Agenda Pack 2. I'll begin to address the consent

order partially because we've mentioned it already and that is the reason why there are

additional conditions on there, but also, Chair, because it's referenced within the

representations, the fact that there had been previous issues with the premises. So on page

page 19 of the committee agenda pack, you will see that there are references to previous

proceedings. They were settled by way of a consent order, which is at page 37 of the

agenda pack. So those issues had arisen from a covert visit in August 2022. There had been

an incident at that time, as you are aware, Chair, because it's in the papers, we appealed

the decision to refuse to renew and to revoke the licence at that time. Thankfully, the

was able to agree additional conditions, there was a total overhaul of the management team,

there were various extensive policies and procedures that were then implemented at that

point and you can also see those in the agenda pack as well, Chair.

That was enough, it appears, because we have this consent order and a settlement of those

appeals to give the responsible authorities and the licencing authority the confidence

that this operator is able to operate responsibly and that there were no suitability issues.

On that basis, Chair, following that, because the appeals lasted for a couple of years,

unfortunately, we had to renew the licence each of the years, which meant that two of

those renewals were effectively held in the ethers until such time as we were able to

conclude the appeals. At that point, Chair, that we agreed that consent order and that

was signed by the District Judge. We had two renewals that had objections. One of them

had got an objection from the licencing authority and from the police and the other one it was

just from the licencing authority. Based on the work that had been done and the conditions

and the new management team and the everything else that the operators had done to get to

that point where we could compromise the appeals, the responsible authorities for all intents

and purposes were happy at that point. They withdrew their representation so that meant

that the 2023 renewal and the 2024 renewal didn't need to come to committee.

So we're now at a stage chair where we've got no complaints as you've heard in Ms Driver's

initial report.

You've heard that there was a compliance visit on the 28th of November which I also attended.

Officers from police and the licencing authority attended that compliance visit.

They checked things like CCTV, compliance logs, etc.

They looked around the layout of the premises.

they also checked the outside of the premises and everything was fine, there were no issues

to report. You'll see, Chair, at pages 16 to 19 of the committee agenda pack that there's

an extensive list of conditions there. One of the ones I want to draw your particular

attention to is the requirement for independently arranged covert visits to take place. You'll

see that I've got Mr Bamber sitting to my right, who I know that you're very familiar

with. I'll be asking Mr Bamber in a little while to just make some submissions regarding

his witness statement and the report that he's produced.

Just turning to the representations, Chair, they're at Appendix 12, so pages 127 to 188

of the Committee Agenda Pack. I don't propose, thankfully, because I've only got 20 minutes

to speak, to go through each of those individually. I trust that the Council will have read those

representations, but I think it's fair to say, and again you've heard from the initial

report, that there is quite a lot of duplication within those representations.

That's not to say that we discount them, I have to address them today, and I have to

give reassurance to the committee on those representations.

You will see, Chair, though, at page 52 of the Supplemental Agenda Pack, there's a witness

statement in there from Mr Clare, who is sitting to my left.

So Mr Clare is the director of the applicant company.

That statement makes reference to a Facebook post and I've put a screenshot of that post

at exhibit MSC01, which is at page 54 of the supplemental agenda pack.

So members will see that many of the representations that are within the agenda pack are in fact

a copy and paste of the text that is in that Facebook post.

Now Chair, for total transparency, I have put a screenshot of that Facebook post within the bundle.

What I have not done is given you all of the comments to it.

I think it's for members to decide whether they want to go and look at that post and what weight they give to the comments within that post.

Some of them are quite inflammatory I would say on both sides because obviously the strength of feeling is quite a lot in terms of a sexual entertainment venue licence,

which I can totally understand, but the reason that is in their chair is to illustrate the

point that there's clearly been some discussion in the community about this renewal. Lots

of the representations appear to not have understood that the premises has operated

for many, many years, which is a good thing, but is surely testament to the fact it's not

noticeable from outside and nobody really knows potentially how it operates, but I'll

address you on that a little bit more later on.

You've heard in the initial committee report that lots of the objections are based on moral

grounds, Chair, and again sexual entertainment venues are something that bring up moral issues,

they're very divisive in terms of people's opinion, but the legislation and also the

guidance is very clear that we're not permitted today to consider anything that is on moral

grounds, all we can look at is the suitability of the applicant and the locality.

It doesn't appear chair from the representations that the suitability of the applicant is really in question.

It appears that the majority of the representations relate really to the locality and also to moral grounds.

I'm sure the committee's legal representative will be advising the same that we need to concentrate really on the points that are for consideration this evening.

Therefore I'd ask you to discount anything that you perceive to be a moral objection.

To address though, because they are in the committee agenda pack, the moral aspects of

the representations, I'd just draw your attention, Chair, to again Mr Clare's witness statement

and the exhibit which is marked MSC02, which is at page 55 of the Supplemental Agenda.

So you will have seen that that is a letter and this is from a person who effectively

runs a union of performers who work in SEV venues. I think, Chair, that letter is quite

powerful in sort of debunking some of the myths about people who work in SEV venues,

the type of work that they do and also the type of treatment that they're sometimes on

the receiving end of. What I will say to you, Chair, is as much as there may be strength

of feeling against this type of premises for moral reasons, it does provide employment,

it provides flexibility for people and ultimately it gives them a choice and if

they want to go and do that kind of work I would hope that that letter gives you

a little bit of comfort in terms of the moral objections that you have received.

Just turning to the locality point then because that is a thread throughout the

representations that are in the Agenda Pack. There are various allegations

throughout at Appendix 9 of the Agenda Pack, page 110, you've got a report from the Council

on the locality and it gives you the data within their chair.

Both the committee report, the initial committee report and this report at Appendix 9 also

confirm that there have not been any significant changes in terms of the locality.

On paragraph 11 .2 on page 24 of the committee report, you've got a bullet point there that

confirms that the locality is overwhelmingly commercial. So this is not chair a residential

area, it's not an area where there's a high concentration of schools for example or religious

venues, it is and it confirms in the report overwhelmingly commercial. You also have chair

paragraph 10 .1 on page 20 of the committee report and again that is talking about the

vicinity of the premises, it confirms that there have been no significant changes to

the vicinity since the first SEV application in 2014 and that was at the time that the

Council adopted the newer SEV legislation.

Another point, Chair, that's raised throughout some of the representations is the Council's

policy.

Now the Council's policy states that the number of appropriate SEV venues is zero and it's

to me throughout the representations that those making the objections have

looked at that and thought that this area is not suitable partially for that

reason. What I would say to you chair on that point is that this was an

existing premises as you've heard it's open it's been open for many many

decades now and it was already existing at the time that that policy was

implemented so I'd therefore ask the committee chair to disregard the fact

that we've got this zero cap in terms of the representations and to appreciate

that it was an existing venue that was already there.

The representations referenced at various points, things such as the premises being

responsible for harm to children, crime and disorder, etc. but there's actually no evidence

chair to support that that's before the committee today.

You've heard in Ms Driver's report that there have been no complaints, there's been no cause

for the authorities to be called to the venue and in fact the only time they've visited

in the last three years is during that compliance visit on the 8th of November 2024.

The responsible authorities also, Chair, have not seen fit to object to this application.

They are clearly quite happy with the changes that have been made to the management team,

with the policies and procedures that have been implemented, and they were comfortable

enough that they didn't feel that they had to object to this application, Chair.

So we don't have either the police or officers from the licencing authorities we've had before here to tell us why this application should be refused.

The last issues that were noted at the premises were in August 2022, so we're now three years beyond that.

So I would suggest to you chair that the proof is in the pudding, there really are no issues with this premises and a lot of the objection is actually just moral, which we can't consider.

To reassure the Committee on the locality point, which I also must address, I've got Mr Bamber with me today, who you're very familiar with.

Mr Bamber's carried out a report with regard to the locality. That can be seen at page 4 of the Supplemental Agenda Pack.

Mr Bamber, as you know, has got vast experience in Tower Hamlets, which I will ask him to speak to you about in a moment.

But just to draw your attention Chair to paragraph 65 of the report which is on page 14 of that

supplemental agenda, it confirms that members of the public pay no attention to the premises

when walking past and I'd suggest to you that's because you cannot tell that it's an SEV venue.

You will see the photographs that are in the renewal application, those are in the agenda

pack and it's very, very clear from the outside that the premises has blacked out windows,

it's not obvious at all that it's a sexual entertainment venue, performers are not outside

and never are outside chair while they're in the attire that they were performing. And

that can also be seen within the two covert reports which we've annexed to Mr Bamber's

statement. Those are examples of the covert visits which I'll ask Mr Bamber to talk to

you about in a moment. The photographs, chair, in case you want to look at those, are at

page 79 of the committee report as well. So those are my submissions in terms of the history

of the premises, where we got into with the appeal and any previous issues, the locality

and the moral objections or the moral elements of the objections that have been received.

I'll just ask Mr Bamber if it's okay, Chair, just to give you an outline of his past experience

with the premises and also in Tower Hamlets and to talk to you about the locality.

I will be brief. I'm very familiar with Whitechapel, the entire area. I was the Safer Communities

Service Head for Tower Hamlets between 2007 and 2016 and I've got a lot of experience

around the community issues in that particular area. After leaving Tower Hamlets I set up

a small company as a crime and disorder consultant.

I was asked to do some work for the NAG's head,

and that was to look at the licence to see how to improve

their compliance issues and make sure that there were no issues

with the conditions on the licence,

and everything was to be transparent and open.

And to that end, I advised that the operators should

have compliance physics.

And those compliance visits are overt in the sense that they know they're going to happen,

because there are certain things that you can test covertly and there are certain things

that you can only test overtly.

So I would do, personally, I would do the overt visits and that's the sort of thing

I would enter.

I'd cheque that all of the signage was right, I'd cheque the CCTV was working, I'd cheque

all of the things that would be clearly visible and understandable to cheque from an overt

point of view.

And then I would organise covert visits.

Now clearly I know the owner and so something that somebody might levy at me was, you know

when the visits are happening so what does it really matter?

Well actually it does matter and I have a firewall between myself and the people that

I do the covert visits and so I will commission a covert visit

and I have got no knowledge at all when that visit will take place.

I don't know what time of the day it will take place

and I do not know what day of the week or the month it will take place.

I ask for it, people that do those visits will go off and do the visit

and come back to me and give me a report.

So I have a complete firewall between myself and the owner over those covert visits.

Throughout all of my overt visits since 2016, and indeed the covert visits, part of that process is to walk around the immediate area.

Because you'll see on the conditions, that one of the conditions is there should be no advertising or anything like that on street furniture,

no touting, that the door supervisors shouldn't come out.

And so the first part of both those sorts of visits are to observe the premises.

And I can confidently say, without exception, on none of those visits, whether it be covert or overt,

Has there been any indication that people that walk past that premises are upset, are annoyed by it, or try to question its existence?

It is a very, and you know the area intimately, far more intimately than I do, but it is a very, very busy thoroughfare on both sides of the road.

In fact the side of the road of the Nags Head is slightly busier pedestrian -wise than the

side of Alta Bally Park.

So throughout the years that I've been doing some work for this venue, I've not seen anything

where people object to the presence of the venue.

Notwithstanding that, I took two nights, well, one afternoon and one evening to go and sit

in Alta Valley Park or sit on the wall and watch people walking past.

You'll see in one of the photographs, and I was reluctant to take any real photographs

because I'm always conscious that I don't want people being shown in photographs

that come before committees and things like that because of data protection,

but I did take one and it's consistent with what I was seeing.

Two women walk along the pavement and they stand outside the nag's head.

They stand right next to the door.

They've got no idea what it is.

You can see that.

And they stand there for maybe 15 minutes.

They have a conversation.

They look at their phone.

Then they walk down to a shop and then they come back and they stand there again and then

the gentleman walks up and then they walk off together.

Children were walking past.

Tourists were walking past.

Women, lone women, were walking past. Not one person in those two visits stood and looked at the venue and seemed to question the existence of the venue.

When you look at the venue, and I'm sure that you know the area and that you've seen it, it looks like a closed building.

And the foyer is painted black and the door supervisor wears black and sits at the back of the foyer.

And so when you walk past, if you're walking fairly briskly or even slowly, you don't notice who's in the doorway.

You can't see into the premises, you can't hear anything from the premises, it just looks like a boarded up building.

So I think that's as much, Chair, as I'd like to say.

I'm obviously happy to take questions.

But it's from my observations and knowing the area and working in the area for a considerable

period of time, it's never been a community problem.

Chair, if I can just, thank you for that Andy, that was very good.

If I can just add to that as well, just on the covert visit aspect again, just to give

some reassurance to members. Mr Bamber helpfully mentioned that there's a

firewall when these covert visits are instructed and so the report is done and

then it's sent to him but again just as an extra layer of protection that

report is not disclosed to the licence holder until the period for the CCTV

being kept has expired and the reason for that is to ensure that the licence

holder and their management team and the staff at the premises and the performers

are never able to identify who the covert operative is. So that is always kept again

behind a firewall as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Have you got anybody else?

No, that's everything. Thank you, Chair. That concludes my submissions for now.

I have to say, Ms Taylor, as always brevity is much appreciated.

We move to questions and the first question I've got, I've got a couple and then I shall

invite all my colleagues to put questions.

I can see Councillor Hussain immediately signalling.

We sometimes use legalistic terms.

If we turn to page 37 of our main bundle, we will see basically the consent order, which was granted in Stratford Magistrate's Court,

though it's called a consent order, basically it was an appeal against a decision in which after hearing evidence,

The district judge granted the application subject to several pages of conditions, am

I correct?

That's not entirely correct, because it was settled by consent. There was no actual hearing,

so the judge satisfied themselves that the order was appropriate, but they won't have

heard any evidence.

Okay. I'm not saying there was a hearing, but this was agreed in the court and the district

subject to several pages of conditions which are attached to our bumble, that is absolutely correct.

It was, Chair. So Mr Melnick and I had several discussions, lots of discussions, with a view to how we could potentially compromise it.

So just as I advised my client, Jonathan Melnick's client is the Councillor and the Licencing Authority, so there was liaison on both sides.

We agreed a set of condition and then the processes that we drafted consent order and Jonathan

I did actually go along to a hearing in front of the district judge, but it was purely administrative for her to sign that off

And but that's correct

Okay, I'm trying to say there was a hit ultimately hearing this was signed off by a judge subsequent to appeal and conditions

Thank you very much let me now turn to

Questions the first one I spotted was counsellor Hussein who anybody down here wishes to put a question

So it's the cloud facts had you me castle Mohammed, maybe yeah

Thank you for that's really helpful to understand and I just want a question one question to miss you mr. Bumper and

Your report helpfully when you did the overt visits was on a Tuesday and a Friday so different dates.

Could you just clarify the covert visits? Obviously I appreciate the safeguards you put in place to delete it so you don't have access to the information.

I'm slightly hard at hearing so I do apologise.

No that's fine. So I appreciate the safeguards. Is that better? Can you hear?

visits, were they also on different dates?

And just to help us understand another safe part of that.

Yeah, yes, I mean, I do lay down some parameters for the covert visits.

So for example, I would say, look, please don't do them all on the same day.

I'd rather you don't do Mondays or Tuesdays because they're quiet days.

I'd like it when it's really busy.

I'd like some early evening, I'd like some late at night, but that's as much as I would

say to anybody and then I sit and wait until I get the report.

Then when I get the report, I'm basically a post box, I wait till I get the report and

then I send it to the solicitor.

So there's, other than knowing the conditions on the licence demand that set of visits,

I then go, it's about time I had a visit, will you do a visit, do it when you like,

send me the report, I give it.

So it's a fire, there's lots of firewalls in there because obviously I need protection

as well.

Sorry, Councillor Mohammed, just to hopefully assist you as well.

So the report comes to me, I then hold it until the CCTV period has expired.

Just in terms of the report that Mr Bamber's done that's in your supplemental agenda pack,

the reason why we've done one in the afternoon and one in the evening and on different days

is the representations talk about schools, religious venues, etc.

What I wanted to be able to give you is an overview and a snapshot of what the outside

of the premises looks like at any particular time and I was particularly conscious of we

needed a time when school children or younger children would be around so that we can demonstrate

to you how the outside of the premises looks at that time and whether it has any impact

which we submit that it doesn't. So hopefully that helps. Thank you.

Ms Taylor I'm sure you forgot to signal that you were intervening but I take your point.

Thank you, Chair.

Just a question.

I think Councillor Mohammeda briefly asked on it.

The culvert situation, obviously it's done on a different day.

But Mr Bamba, you're a consultant, so who pays for them to sort of visit the consultants?

Who gets paid by?

Who do they get paid from to visit?

Who do they get paid?

Well, they get paid by me.

Okay.

Thank you.

Just to clear that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Sultana and then Shubha.

Councillor Shubha Hussain.

Thank you so much, applicant, for describing all your, you know, the agenda.

I've got few question.

One is obviously this application has generated a high number of objection compared to others.

I've seen in, as a licencing committee, licencing committee member since I was a member, I was

residents have raised concerns about safety, comfort and the overall impact on the area.

With so much opposition, how do you justify pressing ahead with this proposal and why

should the committee support it? The first question and the second one. As we all know,

Wechabul is one of the most densely populated parts of the borough, with families, schools,

places of worship and small businesses all close together.

Many residents have told me that they feel this application could change the character

of the community and put extra pressure on local shops and services.

So what can you say to real estate people that this won't negatively affect everyday life or locals or the small businesses? Thank you.

Thank you for that Councillor Sultana. Just to address your first point which is the how can we justify pressing ahead with the application when there's so much opposition.

I think it's fair to say that previous renewal applications, they've not always been smooth

and we've been quite open about that and we've referred to the consent order that's in the

agenda pack.

But prior to that it was very unusual to get any representations to a renewal application.

This is a premises that's been operating for nearly 40 years without any issues and it

was only really in 2022 that we did encounter issues and again I won't go back over those

points because I've already made them. So I think in terms of us pressing ahead, this

is not a situation where it's new and we're trying to bring this type of entertainment

to a community that doesn't want it. I totally understand that there will be moral objections

and as I've already stated, it's to be expected that this type of application does drum up

a certain strength of feeling. What I would say to you is there have not been any issues

that we've been reported to certainly in terms of residents saying that they've seen things outside the premises or that they've felt unsafe.

And as I made the point in my submissions, the responsible authorities have not had any cause to visit at all

with any types of reports that this premises has been an issue.

So rather than as pressing ahead with something that the community doesn't want,

what I'd suggest to you is it's just a continuation of what is already there and what has never caused a problem.

And then just to clarify the second question, you mentioned Whitechapel is densely populated,

lots of residents, schools, religious venues and what sort of reassurance can we give you

in terms of safeguards to make sure there's no issues.

Have I understood that correctly?

The second question, you stated that Whitechapel is densely populated, there's lots of residents,

schools, religious venues and you wanted some comfort in terms of the measures that are

in place, what we can do to ensure that it doesn't cause an issue, is that correct?

Perfect, okay.

So we've got quite an extensive list of conditions as you can see in the consent order that's

within the bundle.

Mr Bamber's covert visits, overt visits that he arranges are an integral part of that.

So what they do as part of the covert visits as well that the operatives do is they look

at all of the conditions that are attached to the SEV licence and when they do a visit

they assess the premises on each of those and the reports and you can see a

couple of examples that are exhibited to Mr Bamber's report and they set out

some narrative on each of the conditions so every time a covert visit is done the

premises are assessed on those and they also include how the premises looks from

the outside, are the door staff there, are there any performers outside that are in

the types of clothing that they were performing and the answer to that is

always know. The other thing as well I would say Councillor to reassure you is

the appearance of the venue I think is integral to the premises being able to

have an impact or indeed not on how people feel when walking past and you've

already heard evidence from Mr Bamba and that people are standing outside they're

not really taking any notice of the venue and that's because it doesn't even

look like it's open. You've got various policies and procedures Councillor

within the bundle that state how the management team operate, how the performers are looked

after, how the outside area is managed and the appearance of the premises as well.

So I would hope that that would give you enough comfort along with the evidence that we've

got, which is before the committee, and you've heard it from Ms Driver earlier on that there's

not been any complaints or any issues with the premises.

I would hope that that would give you some reassurance.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

I now call Councillor Schubert, who's saying that after that.

Sorry, mr. Melnick then councillor Hussain then councillor Salutarme. I just thought it was probably sensible to add one piece of advice following

councillor Sultana's questions, which is

There may well be strengths of feeling but sheer numbers of objections alone and not necessarily relevant what this committee obviously

Ultimately has to look at is what's said in those

representations both for and against because you must also remember there are

representations in favour of the premises and how if at all in particular relation to the objections how those relate to the

statutory grounds for refusal which is ultimately what you must be concerned

with not necessarily wider general issues that don't directly relate to the

SEV licencing. Thank you Mr. Melnick. I now turn to

Councillor Schubert who's saying followed by Councillor Salih Ahmed. I want to ask

if the covert visits were in place around 2022 as well?

My first engagement with the owner was late 2016.

I made the recommendation that he should consider visits

to cheque the compliance of his venue.

and so those visits have been in place since late 2016.

Just to add to that Councillor as well, if I may, Chair.

When we agreed the conditions as part of the appeal,

we put in a condition that we would have additional,

so extra, covert visits over and above the previous ones that were in there.

So that is documented on the licence and that's a condition. Thank you.

Any more councillor Hussain?

Is that okay?

Now, Councillor Salih Ahmed, I apologise for not...

Thank you, Chair.

My question is to the applicant.

It's mentioned in the statement of Mr Andrew Barmart that

it's more than once several times that the venue itself is quite covered

windows are shut, the doors, I mean there's no signs or anything like that from the perspective

of the outsiders who can view what it is.

Does this affected your business at all during recently having those shut everything and

painted in black?

Okay, so this isn't the only venue that I work with.

I could give you some examples.

This particular venue is just bland.

And the conditions are no advertising outside, no indication of what it should be.

On Friday last week I was working elsewhere in London and I drove past a similar venue.

And it had pink strip lighting, subtle strip lighting around the pavement.

It didn't advertise what it was but it left no doubt that you'd know what that venue was.

because it didn't have the adverts but it had lots of gaudy lighting and everything like that.

And lots of venues around the country do that.

This venue in Whitechapel has nothing.

No lighting. It is just a black...

It's a bit like that wall behind you with a door.

And so there's no lighting, there's no advertising, there's no touting.

the door supervisors don't stand on the door.

My question was, did it affect anything in the running of the business at all?

Sorry, Councillor, can I just clarify, do you mean...

The main thing is I was just trying to find out, are you sacrificing anything by shutting

down all the windows?

OK, I understand.

So it's a standard condition on the SEB licence and this is for all licences within

Tower Hamlets because it's Tower Hamlets standard condition that there won't be

any advertising or anything of the sort outside the premises and that they

effectively can't advertise their services so it's not something that's

new and I think the premises has always been that way it's always appeared that

way and it's appropriate for it to appear that way because if it were not

so we'd be having very different conversations this evening about the

representations that have been received in terms of the impact potentially that

could have on children, people going to religious venues etc because they would

be able to see in, as you do in the likes of Amsterdam for example, into windows

and that's never been a possibility here so it's not, we can't measure that

it's affected the business because it's never changed it's always been that way.

Thank you. My second question would be what is your, what way do you actually extract

customers, what's your main advertising way of dealing with the business?

Thank you Councillor, it's generally word of mouth I think because the premises

has been there for so long, word of mouth regular customers. Nags Head has got

quite a community feel I think in comparison to a lot of other SEV venues

and Mr. Claire's other venues as well, it feels more of a community

premises, there's lots of regulars, so it's word of mouth.

But again, just to reassure you, there's no advertising outside,

there's no flyers within the borough, for example,

and there's no plan to be because, again, it's a condition

that there cannot be.

Thank you.

My final question would be, do you believe that,

since you mentioned, or we know it,

that the business has been there for such a long period,

over 40 years, and we cannot compare it

when the business was started back in 30, 40 years ago, or 20 years ago, it was quite open those days.

You could have done a lot of things at the windows until the new legislation came in force.

So, what I'm trying to get to is the businesses, do you believe that the business is already

well advertised?

Sorry to interrupt, Councillor, but I'm just not entirely certain where this question is

going or how it's relevant.

I mean, obviously, what the business was doing 30 or 40 years ago, the only real key point

is that it's been operating as some form of SEV, because technically SEV's only came into existence in about 2010.

But the venue itself has been operating and doing this form of entertainment for some 30 or 40 years.

What the venue was like 30 or 40 years ago doesn't really have any bearing on what's happening today.

Can I just put my point there?

because the reason I'm saying is because the venue itself,

I mean, whatever you're doing now,

the venue is already established and well known in the area,

which all the residents, even a child,

and I live in this area,

if a child know about this, what's inside,

so it doesn't have to be opened up or advertised

or it doesn't give any credit to.

That's what I'm, do you believe that?

that the venue is already well known in the area,

like my fellow councillor mentioned,

about the people living in the area,

our children, I mean everyone I work with,

I just wanted to clarify that it's very well known.

Anyway, thank you.

I appreciate the point, councillor,

but strictly speaking, it's not a relevant question.

I mean, obviously, no one's suggesting,

and they've misunderstood your part of your question,

if I have, I apologise.

But it sounds to me at one point,

you're suggesting that children might get inside.

I mean, no one's suggesting that.

And whether a venue is necessarily well known,

most venues, whether they're SCVs, whether they're bars,

whether they're clubs, whether they're pubs,

there'd always be a degree of knowledge

about different venues, simply because of where they operate,

their clientele, and a myriad of other factors.

but the suggestion that any of that could possibly have a...

How well known in the area the venue is,

is relevant to what this committee has to decide tonight,

is strictly speaking not a relevant consideration.

Sorry, Jonathan, I was only just...

Because the statement says the venue is not visible,

it's blank, no one knows what's inside.

So I'm just trying to clarify that the...

Could I just add something that might help?

So the premises as is is regulated within the regime that sets out various standard conditions

and one of those conditions is in relation to advertising.

So the premises has never advertised, it's done perfectly well without that.

And I think Councillor Ahmed, I think the question that you're asking me,

Councillor Ahmed, is there any plan to change that in order to get more business in the

future or is there any plan to change that that might have an impact on residents or

children and the answer to that is absolutely not because they can't. One they don't need

to but also it's prohibited by the conditions as well just to give you some reassurance

on that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I've now got a list. It's Councillor Meir, Councillor Actar and

and I go back to Councillor Hussain and then Councillor Frucon.

Thank you.

Since you have started, I believe in 1996,

Watcher Police now become different

in term of demographic and population.

It's one of the historic and densely, heavily residential

area and historic in many communities,

especially the Asian community.

And I believe people are coming from across the country

to visit some of the heritage in this area.

Recently, the town hall moved in

and because of the Royal London Hospital,

so there is a people are walking on the street,

I believe 24 hour a day.

So when you finish at 3 a .m.,

I believe there are some people come out from your venue

with heavily overdose of drinking alcohol.

So do you have any preventive measure in place to minimise any antisocial behaviour

or to maintain the safety and security of the resident?

Thank you, Councillor. Yes, we do.

So door staff are present at the premises and again that's part of the plan of management.

you've also got members of the security team and management team that are present.

They deal with dispersal from the venue.

You've also got various policies and procedures in relation to the sale of alcohol to ensure

that that is responsibly retailed.

And ultimately there is an obligation for the operators to make sure that one, alcohol

is not sold irresponsibly, but that's a premise licencing act 2003 separate issue.

but I suppose for these purposes in terms of the SEV,

there's never been any suggestion that customers

are causing a disturbance when they leave.

They've operated until a terminal hour of 3 a .m.

for many, many years.

Again, all we're doing with this application

is seeking to replicate those.

So there's no data really or evidence, Councillor,

that our customers leave and cause problems.

General experience with SEV venues

is that people leave fairly happy.

So hopefully that gives you some reassurance.

Thank you very much. Any more?

Councillor Acton.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for answering some of the questions on ASB and in terms of advertising.

So I wanted to ask about the noise.

So we've heard a lot of objections written to us about nuisance, so I won't go on the

ice because you've touched on that.

In terms of noise, such venues sometimes do have a lot of entertainment obviously and

the sound.

Are you saying that anyone walking past or living nearby, they can't hear the noise?

Is there kind of a noise cancelation, like something there in place?

Also, in terms of regulating people entering and exiting, presumably you do have your method of advertising and invitation as well.

How many people can enter and how many people can exit at the same time? Just kind of finding out the nuisance that could be causing, you know, large people coming in and out together.

Also in terms of consultation, something that you don't have to do, but is there something that you've done with the community people around,

especially with the diverse community that we have in Tower Hamlets, the kind of feeling that people do have about SCV venues as such.

In terms of have you gone about kind of reassuring people, having the feedbacks or kind of questionnaires

to people living around the area perhaps, if there is such things that you have done, please do let us know.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Just to address on noise, there just generally hasn't been any, again there's no evidence before committee this evening

that there's been any complaints to environmental health about the premises.

We did have a compliance visit in November 2024 and that's referenced within the agenda papers

as well. So that was attended by Levine Miller -Johnson from the Licencing Authority

and various police officers. They checked the policies procedures CCTV during that compliance

visit and there was no discussion about any noise complaints or anything. Mr Wilmot is sitting to my

right hand side so Mr Wilmot is the operations manager at the premises as

well and there's a contact number that's available from Mr Wilmot if anybody

needed to get in touch with him I don't believe that you've ever had any noise

complaints have you? No not at all. Okay perfect. How is the noise kind of controlled or

amplified inside? So there's music that that plays inside whilst performers are performing.

Could you turn the thing off?

There's a

There's amplified music inside when performers are performing

But again, there's never been any reports of that causing an issue or any any noise leakage as people leave

For example when the doors open or close and so that's not really something that's ever been an issue

and so the evidence suggests that it's it's not been an issue and therefore it's not something that needs to be

changed. I would expect that if it had been an issue that we would hear about it from

the Environmental Health Department, but that's not been the case.

And then in terms of, does that answer your question on noise? Perfect, okay. So in terms

of liaison with the community, there's a statutory process for the renewal application, we have

to put a notice outside the premises and we have to advertise that in a local newspaper

and you can see examples of both of those within the committee agenda pack. So in terms

of the application that is the consultation in terms of the renewal and

is there anything you've done or would do in terms of speaking to members of the

community? Do you think you want to? Yeah I speak to my local neighbours quite

regularly, the shopkeepers, you've got residentials behind Queen Dragon Yard

and they have never had any complaints so the local immediate residents we've

been there for so long, no complaints at all. Also as well Councillor just to add

you'll see again in the agenda pack there are two support

letters that were submitted as part of the consultation and some of the support

letters that we received it was a bit difficult to get people to send it

directly to the council what they did was they sent it to Steve and I so I

have included those within our evidence so you've got regulars but also people

that operate businesses around as well that are giving endorsement of the

and how it operates and the fact that it doesn't cause an issue.

So there is that community engagement there.

I'm not sure for the purposes of today whether I'd be suggesting conditions that we have,

sort of residence meetings and things, but that's all for discussion, we're in your hands

on that, but again I would suggest that it's not been an issue previously.

This is the first renewal application where we've had such a vast amount of objections

to it but I as I'd stated in my submissions I think that's because there

was a Facebook post and therefore more people have become aware of it. I don't

think there's any suggestion that it's because the premises has become a

problem suddenly. Thank you.

One more question that wasn't answered.

The control of how many people can enter and exit the venue in terms of kind of reducing the nuisance.

I know you're addressing today that there hasn't been a complaint but obviously

we know with there there has been some objections and people have expressing

concerns so there has been complaints there's a maximum capacity of a hundred

people that can be in the premises at any one time so it is a relatively small

venue yeah 100 thank you

I'm sure I have to say next and then counsellor for a comment

Thank you for answering my first question. I had one quick follow -up question. I think

you partially answered it from Councillor Acton. You know in your supplementary pack

Mr Sinclair's representation about the Facebook post and there being a lot of copy and pasting.

So it's helpful that you brought that to our attention. Could you just maybe speak a bit

more or clarify how you generated? So from pages 63 to 87 is a number of supportive statements,

obviously all in the same form. So technically for the balance of being fair you could argue

it's a similar form so how have you generated it? So I think to make that argument as a

to detract from people who have got

amazing concerns.

It would be helpful if you could just talk

about how you've done that then.

Yes, thank you, Councillor.

So what we did was speak to regulars,

local businesses.

It can be quite difficult because if people

don't have that strength of feeling against

something, I think there's a tendency for them

to be a bit less engaged sometimes.

So what we felt it was appropriate to do was

talk to them and say, you know, would you give us

some support, but for ease to type something out

which they could then sign and then decide

whether they wanted their details to be disclosed or not.

I take the point, I understand the point that you're making as we've got a similar thing

of a potential copy and paste.

But you do have those supporters and I think I would suggest that a business or a local

resident or a regular wouldn't put the name to something that they didn't believe was

true.

So you've got those in the agenda pack.

Of course we don't have as many letters of support as we do have residential objections,

But again, history dictates that residents historically have not felt that this venue

was an issue because we've not had anywhere near the number of residential objections

to previous applications or in some years any at all, which suggests to me that this

Facebook post has been the reason that there are vast numbers.

I'm not discounting by any means the fact that there are representations.

We have to address them.

They're in the committee pack and it's only right that we do.

But I think there's definitely been some discussion within the community.

and as I've said before everybody will have a view on SEV venues, people will have moral views on them,

they'll have religious views on them, that's fine, nobody disputes that that should or should not be the case,

but certainly for the purposes of this evening obviously we can't consider any moral objections, thank you.

Councillor Mohammed, I do apologise, no I'm sorry, I do apologise, I get very fooled about these things,

I'm trying to peak round and as all I would say for everybody sitting here and publicly

I do tend to have a habit of referring to people by their first name so I was doing

that and I was going beautifully and I do apologise for getting your surname in correctly

and I won't do it again.

Councillor I'm going to say Farouk but I say Councillor Farouk.

I can't make it which I've got wrong.

Thank you chair.

One of the questions is asked.

So it's a couple of questions.

The first one is, could you talk us through that?

How will this business contribute to the local community?

And also, are you aware there are a number of meetings

or get together or demonstration

which is right opposite to your venue?

have you ever been disturbed or spotted anything that is concerning?

Sorry Councillor can you just clarify the first question for me? I just missed the end.

How will your business contribute to the local community?

In terms of how the business contributes to the local community I would suggest that it

employ it provides employment for many people it provides flexible employment for people

within the community. Also it's a business, you know, people have their views but at the

end of the day it's there, it contributes, it's a premises thankfully that's not empty

and left to go to rack and ruin because it is there, it pays rates to the council. So

it's a, again I totally understand the strength of feeling, I completely understand why but

at the end of the day it's a legitimate business.

Sorry I mean it's a simple question so you did explain what value it will bring but my

The second question will be what you're trying to say.

So go on, carry on.

Sorry, Councillor, do you want me to answer your second question?

You can.

Confirm what your second question was, so I'm clear.

Opposite to your permisses.

Sorry, excuse me, Councillor.

I think the first question is, again, we're kind of going off topic.

What a business does and whether it contributes, you know, to a, you know,

to the air is not really an issue, and certainly not for the sexual entertainment venue licencing.

I mean obviously as Ms Taylor has answered, she says it does contribute to the local economy

in some ways, but there's not a requirement on any of these businesses, whether it's an SEV or any other business,

to have some sort of moral imperative to improve the borough. The key thing is obviously that the premises

aren't negatively impacting on the locality in which it operates.

And that's really the key thing.

So again, it's not going to relate to the mandatory,

sorry, the discretion of grounds for refusal

and what you and your colleagues really need to be considering.

The second question, again, I'm not necessarily sure of the relevance,

but maybe Mr Taylor can answer that one anyway.

I'll answer it anyway, Jonathan, if that's okay.

So in terms of the park...

So, before you answer, can I?

Chair, shall I answer?

Thank you.

In terms of the park that is opposite,

I think your question was, if there are protests in there,

does it impact upon the premises at all?

The answer to that is no, it doesn't.

It's quite separate, and the activities that go on

within that park are very separate to the premises.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Chair, my question, the first one is

what I've been explained by Jonathan,

it doesn't mean that in the race about objection

or anything, it's just I want to be clear

to know what they could, it will contribute

to the community or even the council if you think so,

if you do think what they're contributing is,

you know, they're doing it.

Ultimately, Jerry, as a matter of view,

I've given my advice on the point of the question,

if you wish to allow it, then I think

That's a matter for you.

I think we really must remain with what around the legal things we can question and not question on.

And we have to be careful. There are many, many questions I would love to ask, but I look at the narrow legalities of what we can and can't do.

I think, have any colleagues got any further questions?

Sabina?

Well, this is the end of the applicant, so if you've got a question now to the applicant, that's it.

You'd better ask it.

Can we not ask the applicant later, after having no objection?

We're on rules of procedure.

Have you got a further question

Thank you chair just a quick one have you obviously been in business for almost 40 years

Have you ever completed or done a survey customer survey?

Ever that you can share with us

Customer survey on what counsellor you're providing or customer survey

like a lot of businesses do that.

In terms of satisfaction of customers?

Just a feedback from customers.

I think he meant...

of the community there were of customers.

So I think by mistake, it's not the customers,

It's kind of bringing the community, similar to my question, how can we, or has there been

such interaction to kind of bring the community together with this journey, you know, despite

some of the concerns or issues some of the people might have in the community?

Just in terms of that, not the actual customer satisfaction.

I think the public details of the premises are on Google, so if any members of the community

have an issue they're welcome to get in touch with the management team. Mr Wilmot is here

this evening, he's very proactive in terms of dealing with any issues that are raised

and I know that he's done that at various hours of the morning and various premises

throughout his career so he's very used to doing that. In terms of approaches from the

community as far as I'm aware there have not been any. The other avenue for the community

to be involved and provide feedback on the premises is either to the licencing authority

the police or environmental health generally. And once again I'm not aware that members

of the community have this application and the number of objections is really the first

sort of steer we've had from the community that there's been any issue. And I'd suggest

as well that within the representations that are in the Agenda Pack that there aren't any

specific substantiated issues which reference the premises or are related to the premises.

There's no evidence of that. Thank you.

Are we okay on questions for members? Because this is it for the applicant. Once we move

on, we're now going for the objectors and it's then questions for objectors. Thank you

very much. Mr Melnick, do you have any legal questions for the applicant?

No, I mean, there's one point, and I understand Mr Banders's point in relation to preserving

I'm not effectively telling the licence holder about any potential breaches until after the CCCB period for operational reasons for himself.

But I'm also thinking aloud about obviously the need for the licencing authority potentially,

I've become aware of that, but I'm not going to, it's something I'll obviously be thinking about maybe advising members upon later,

but it might be helpful, Ms. Taylor, if there's something you can think about,

possibly in terms of a way that that could be addressed so that at least the licencing

authority have the opportunity potentially to look into that?

I can address you on that on my SRA and obligations in terms of advising clients. So the reason

it's been kept back for 31 days or sometimes a little bit longer is to preserve the integrity

of the covert visit reports. I wouldn't be able to comply with my professional obligations

if I get a report that says it's got breaches and then I don't advise my client of that,

I don't think that would be the right advice. So for that reason I think we would, it's

not happened yet is the truth, all of the covert visit reports have revealed that there's

been compliance on every single visit. If we were to get a report that says there had

not been compliant with something. That would be something that I would raise with Mr. Claire,

but what I perhaps wouldn't do is necessarily initially specify the date and time so that

they could identify the covert officer. I would just broach it in such a way of there's

been an issue, we need to identify and at the end of the day Jonathan we don't want

to ever end up back with a refusal or with an appeal.

You probably don't want to end up on the wrong side of the SRA either, so fair enough, thank you for that.

I think we've absolutely, we're okay now, because I want to make sure everybody has a right to asking what they want to do,

and we're going to move now to the objectives, and follow the same process.

Good evening, objectors. You've seen how the meeting runs.

We're going to... You've got up to 20 minutes, so that is about six, roughly seven minutes each.

Mr. Pohun, I haven't joined, hasn't joined.

Oh, so it's... Look, you've got 20 minutes between the two of you.

Each. So Miss Malik will go first and then Miss Malik after.

Lovely. So it's Miss Malik will go first and then Mr. Kallis the second.

Mr. Kallisada will go first.

Oh, Mr. Kallisada will go first, yeah.

That's perfectly okay. Mr. Forehan hasn't joined us, so the 20 minutes is shared between you two.

And look, I try and be fair, so I'm not going to go like that, but everything?

Okay, so Mr. Kallis Adel, welcome. And I have got your name right, and I do apologise, I've got it wrong.

You have indeed, Chair, thank you. In fact, you pronounced it better than myself.

But it's always a pleasure to be in your presence,

Councillor Galt. You've presided over many such meetings,

and I do like the way you conduct these affairs.

It's not easy, both for the applicants

as well as the objectors.

So once again, thank you, everyone, respected members.

I am conscious of time.

I will try to keep this time restrictive.

So I'll go straight into the points.

I completely accept the applicant's point about disregarding moral, ethical, general value systems.

Because it's not the scope of this committee to explore that.

We're being recorded by our objectors on their phone.

I was recording here.

I said at the beginning, look, we have a webcam system. I said at the beginning we operate under the webcam which is within the law.

Please follow everything we can do. Tower Hamlets is very, very open on what we do.

It is not right while somebody is speaking to try and film individual members.

As you will see, the camera, I'm speaking now and you can see the camera is on me.

When Mr Callister starts, it will move to him.

It is not to film individual members, so please do not do so.

Otherwise, I will have to say, you will have to turn your phone off and I'm inviting council officers to come and assure us that you've turned your phone off.

So please, and I did explain that at the beginning,

you heard me say right at the beginning of the meeting,

be very wary of phones.

We are bound by law, GDPR is the name,

and so please everybody observe it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jay.

So I think my position very clearly is one from

both a policy and a legal perspective.

I think I speak today as an objector

against the SEV licence application for the Nags Head

at 17 to 19 Whitechapel Road.

For me, this application must be properly treated

as a new application.

And I say this under Schedule III

of the Local Government Act,

open brackets miscellaneous provisions,

Close Bracket Act of 1982.

The previous licence was revoked,

albeit then resurrected through a mutual consent order,

Insofar as the law is concerned, the previous licence was revoked.

That is a position that we as objectors hold.

That revocation extinguished itself and disqualified the operator.

It cannot lawfully be treated as a renewal or reinstatement.

The policy position, the well -cited policy position Tower Hamlets adopted back in 2014,

the SEV policy, makes the council's position unequivocal.

The appropriate number of sexual entertainment venues

for the whole of the borough is nil.

This nil cap is binding

and reflects a deliberate policy choice.

And if I was to cite case law,

we could use the example of Regina

on behalf of Alistair Thompson

versus Oxford City Council 2014, which

confirms that local authorities may adopt and strictly enforce

such caps.

And that renewal is not automatic.

I have, for the benefit of Mr. Melnick and the members here,

printed out a list of all the authorities

that I will be citing, which will

made available for yourselves, for your reference.

So no exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated in this application to justify

a departure from the nil cap.

On this basis alone, I would say refusal is required.

And the reason why I say this is because revocation amounts to new application.

The law is very clear. Under Schedule 3, when an SEV licence is revoked, the holder is disqualified from obtaining another SEV licence in the authorities area of 12 months.

That disqualification confirms that the previous licence has been extinguished.

Any subsequent submission is, by law, a fresh application, subject to the current policy.

And I'm not just saying this, courts have reinforced this.

In Thomson and in CDE versus Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council 2023,

it was confirmed that there is no presumption of renewal,

no acquired rights and no entitlement to reinstatement.

Further, if we look at the historical context, then it cannot be looked in isolation or separate

to the track record of the current operators.

In 2023, the NAGS -Ed licence was revoked for serious and repeated breaches, including failures

in CCTV coverage and noncompliance in monitoring private dance areas.

These breaches undermined public safety, created risks of crime and disorder, and demonstrated

disregard for licence conditions.

And those licence conditions are there for good reasons.

Schedule 3 expressly requires the committee to consider the applicant's suitability.

Past conduct is directly relevant.

The very fact of revocation is compelling evidence that the operator is unsuitable to hold a licence.

No exceptional circumstances have been offered by the applicants.

This application offers no credible evidence of exceptional benefit to the community, economy

or local area.

Instead, it risks undermining regeneration efforts, contradicts the letter in the spirit

of the council's policy, and disregards the history of non -compliance by the operators

at these premises.

There is no lawful or policy -based justification

to treat this case as an exception.

So members, I respectfully submit

that the position is straightforward.

This is a new application following revocation.

The council's nil cap policy applies strictly.

Case law confirms there is no presumption of renewal or reinstatement.

The operator has a clear record of serious breaches.

Not just in this administrative area, but in other local councils.

I don't want to mention that. It may fall outside the scope of this licencing committee.

But if necessary I can provide

evidence and substantiate what I'm saying.

Therefore, the operator has a clear record of serious breaches

and makes them unsuitable.

And for those reasons, legal, policy and suitability,

I urge the committee to refuse this application outright,

in line with the Council's adopted policy,

national legal framework and the public interest.

Furthermore, I know the applicants have mentioned they have put extraordinary measures in place.

I also understand they've applied a lot of resources in the appointment of Mr Bamba.

I also understand Mr. Bamba, my apologies, Mr. Bamba has been in contact or perhaps in

some form of contractual relationship with the premises owner since 2016.

Which further begs the question, if he has been directly or indirectly advising the premises

owners, then let us not think of the breaches that took place when it did was separate or

outside of the knowledge or proximity of Mr Bamba, which gives me no confidence in the

measures that Mr Bamba has put.

I also have issues when we refer to one as expert witnesses.

And what I say, and I mean that with absolute respect,

if I as a businessman appoint a consultant,

I as the client would offer a brief to the consultant.

And the brief is then taken away and translated

and subsequently narrated to fit my narrative.

Otherwise I wouldn't employ them.

So this is more of a deeper philosophical issue

around the legitimacy of impartiality

when appointed by anybody and subsequently presented as impartial.

That said, I also want to quote my lady friend, sorry I didn't catch your name,

who has fairly and rather eloquently highlighted the fact that up until now,

this level of objection from the community has never been witnessed.

And I suppose that is perhaps a reflection of the demographic changes of this area.

What was once upon a time a Soho style model perhaps is no longer consistent with the economic,

the cultural vibrancy of the area.

I would go as far as arguing it is now inconsistent with the cultural, the

regeneration of aspirations of this borough. And I would refer the committee

members back to your own adopted policy of 2014. You would have, when we talk

about economic value, I think often we refer

to single bottom lines.

But as a local authority, you are not

a commercial enterprise.

You need to test everything against multiple bottom lines.

The economic value against the harm that it brings,

or possibly tested against the harm of social outcomes,

multiple social outcomes.

So when the council adopted its policy,

it would have in its wisdom carried out a cumulative policy impact assessment

against things like crime and disorder, against public safety, the impact the

the patrons have on their way out on the public realm, the environmental damage or

crime that is committed. I'm not attributing any of that to the

applicants' patrons. I'm saying generally that is the science behind which

policies are tested when legislation is enacted by local governments.

So I am pretty certain when the council adopted its zero nil cap policy, those cumulative

impact assessments would have been conducted.

And time does not permit me to assess each and every one of those policies.

But if necessary, I would be more than happy to look at the individual strands of those policies that were tested and subsequently mitigated against, where necessary.

So for me, furthermore, I think it was Mr Bamba who said he carried out a field exercise where he stood outside the premises

and he wanted to take a quick assessment of how the behaviour of pedestrians.

I grew up in that area. I have always been aware of the fact that the Nags Head is a strip club.

I have always looked the other way when I walk past. Not in disgust, just in denial.

Not in contempt, but purely because of my own value systems.

and my value systems are not the religious values or the cultural ones,

just generally growing up I was taught by my father that you do not objectify

women. You do not look at them as disposable commodities or disposable

objects of pleasure. Equally I want to teach my son the same thing that you do

not objectify women in this way.

I completely respect the applicant's position

that there are two schools of thought, one

from a moral perspective on why concupiscent businesses are

perhaps frowned upon by the other camp.

But there is a third camp, and the camp

that I belong to, which is exploitation of any nature

is unacceptable.

whether it's gender on gender exploitation, whether it's opposite

genders, whether it's domestic violence, aggression against women. Now I can cite

hundreds of academics that have not just anecdotally have carried out field

research in this field where they confirm that this is an industry that

that thrives on sexual exploitation of vulnerable women and girls.

Now for me this is very concerning when we live in a borough

where the council has in fact adopted back in October of 2024

the revised VAWG strategy, Violence Against Women and Girls.

We sit in a borough that has the second highest rate of domestic violence and abuse, sexual abuse against women.

Now of course it is not for this committee to try and solve all of the problems.

It is for this committee to look at the scope of what its legal obligation is.

And I would respectfully remind this committee that your legal obligation is to test against existing policies,

not just the licencing, but looking at the overriding policy objectives

behind why this Council adopted the 2014 zero cap on SEVs.

And with that, I will bring my submission to a close. Thank you.

OK, Mr Melnick, but I won't take it off the next speaker's time.

Just to bear in mind some of the assertions made by Mr. Calisadaris as to what the law

actually is or isn't.

I am your name and advisor.

And some of those points I'm afraid have been completely misstated.

Firstly the suggestion that the revocation once it takes effect is finite.

It is not.

It's paragraph 27 subsection 10 of schedule 3.

where a licence is revoked or an application for the renewal of a licence is refused,

except under the grounds that don't give rise to a right of appeal,

the licence shall be deemed to remain in force until the time for bringing an appeal under this paragraph has expired,

and if such an appeal is duly brought, until the determination or abandonment of the appeal.

What that means is that when Mr. Clare appealed the revocation and refusal to renew back in 2023 within the statutory time limit,

the licence continued and Mr. Clare continued to trade lawfully underneath that licence.

That licence continued because the renewal applications that were then required to follow for each year were subsequently also put in

and they were effectively held in abeyance by that appeal.

And that appeal was determined by District Judge Holden

in March of this year, when the consent orders finally

signed by the courts.

As a matter of law, that revocation decision

never took effect.

This is a renewal, and you have to treat it as such.

Thompson is correct in that one can strictly

enforce a licencing policy.

It doesn't say that there's got to be exceptional circumstances.

But what happened in Thompson, one of the key considerations

was that there were changes in circumstances.

Thompson confirms that the licencing committee

can properly, with good rational reasons,

depart from the decision of the previous subcommittee.

Sorry, not subcommittee, committee.

It has to where it does so.

And particularly where there has been no change in circumstances,

It must give reasons for that and it must give due weight to the fact that the application, or rather the licence, has been granted for a considerable period of time.

That's ultimately a matter for the committee but the effect of Thomson has been slightly overstated.

CDE is a slightly different one, I mean, because that's really more concerned with policy and in particular about the PSED, the public sector equality,

the duty has it applied to the bringing in of a new policy within the council

as opposed to the application of an existing policy.

In relation to Mr Bamber, and obviously this isn't the point that's raised,

but you do have to consider that there is no evidence of Mr Bamber

doing anything other than acting appropriately and properly

in accordance with his duties and his contract with the client,

and certainly no other responsible authority who might be the ones

is best placed to deal with this, has suggested that there is in any way anything improper

about the covert or overt visits that have been undertaken.

I think the only other point to mention in relation to the SEV policy itself is that

in any event cumulative impact assessments aren't relevant, they have no place in sexual

entertainment policies, and the policy itself recognises that when the policy was determined

back in 2014 there was not overwhelming support for an LCAP and that is clearly stated and

I think it's obviously very important that members bear those points in mind when they

raise their questions for the objectors.

Thank you.

Just before I start my speech, I would like to say that this was advertised in the eastern

the Nags Head, why they didn't choose to advertise it in any Bengali or Bangladeshi print media,

which is more exclusive to the residents of Spital and Bangla town, or anything that is

available for the residents and why they chose the Eastern advertiser, which is not accessible,

especially with this advertisement of the renewal of the licencing.

Okay, so my name is Diba Shrida Malik.

I'm a resident of the borough, in the borough, and vice chair for Balance Road, Old Montague

Street.

Please don't give details of your address.

We're delighted to know you are a resident of the borough.

Thank you.

Okay, brilliant.

I wish to directly address the recent statement made by Mr Andrew Bamba in his report in support

of the licence renewal.

notably Mr Bamba claimed, often people stand outside or adjacent to the building

appearing to be completely unaware of what the venue is.

The appearance of the site, the black facade and lack of lighting gives the impression

that the building is closed, especially after dark.

Throughout my observation it was obvious that the existence of Nags Head is not a community problem.

These statements are not only misleading but are directly contradicted by the volume and substance of public opposition.

So a total of 299, however they said only 30 valid.

Regardless, 30 is more than enough against the application, which is strong evidence that community does not consider NAG's head to be considered.

that nag the head to be a problem. As such, I urge the Licencing Authority to consider the following grounds for refusal.

Proximity to sensitive land uses. Nag heads is located in an area saturated with sensitive receptors,

including places of worship, East London mosque, Brick Lane mosque, multiple churches, historic synagogues too in Brick Lane,

all within a short walking distance, educational institutions such as London East Enterprise Academies,

Swanly School, Cannon Barnard Primary School, Christ Church Primary School, Global Kids,

Olghe East Preschool, Rainbow Nursery and Iqra Preschool, public libraries, Idea Store,

Whitechapel amongst others, residential dwellings, the premises are surrounded by family homes

with children, elderly and multi -generational households living directly above and adjacent.

Under Tower Hamlet's SEV policy, such proximity is incompatible with an SEV licence.

The policy clearly discourages such venues in areas of concentrated sensitive land uses.

Waichubo is a diverse, family orientated and a vibrant, multicultural community.

A significant proportion of residents come from faith -based and culturally conservative backgrounds.

The operation of an SEV in this context is culturally insensitive,

likely to cause offence and distress in conflict with the Council's obligation under the Equalities Act 2010,

particularly in promoting respect for protected characteristics, damaging to community cohesion

and trust in local governance.

Watchful is undergoing major regeneration, including the opening of Elizabeth Line, investment

in health and academic institutions, upgrades to public realm as part of the Watchful Vision

Master Plan.

An SEV at the gateway to the renewed area undermines regeneration goals, discourages

family -friendly businesses distracts from the inclusive and safe night -time economy

the Council seeks to promote.

SEVs, especially those operating until 3am, can attract serious issues, drunkenness and

disorder, public urination and defecation, noise disturbance, increased risk to vulnerable

individuals, particularly women and children.

As noted by Mr Bamba himself in paragraph 26 of his report,

the area has significant residential community,

both north and south of Whitechapel.

This acknowledgement alone underlines the inappropriateness

of the placing of an SEV in such a sensitive location.

The Taahamlet SEV policy allows the licencing authority

to set an appropriate number of SEVs per locality,

Given the density of families, schools, religious sites and residential dwellings,

I strongly submit that the appropriate number of SEVs in Whitechapel is zero.

This aligns with the spirit and intent of councils, licencing objectives and community visions.

Whitechapel, Bagel Town, Spitfuls and Brick Lane are iconic locations nationally and internationally.

The operation of an SEV in such a high -profile gateway location damages the images of the area, risks civic unrest, community protests and reputational harm to the borough,

is not conducive to public safety or Council's equality, inclusion and community wellbeing priorities.

Again, I refer to Mr Bramba's statement on paragraph 27.

The area is well known for its historic links to Jack the Ripper and street tours are often seen in the local area with guides and leading groups of foreign Tories.

Using such historical reference to justify the presence of sexual entertainment venue is not only inappropriate,

but deeply tone -deaf to current community realities.

In conclusion, for the reasons outlined above, including the impact on sensitive land issue uses,

cultural and religious incompatibility, conflict with regeneration goals, risk to public safety,

and overwhelming community opposition, I respectfully urge the licencing authority to refuse the renewal of the sexual attainment venue licenced for Nags Head.

Also, I would like to add that Spitfore Banktown has been a hub for the migrant communities for centuries.

in particularly in the 60s, the Bangladesh community when they migrated, there was a big number of community that were not savvy, so they had low literacy.

So suggesting that, oh, we've done everything to advertise the renewal is simply not true and is inadequate and you didn't look out for the betterment for the community.

it suggests that you're looking out for your own pockets.

Secondly, I'm a child of Smithfield, Bangalowtown,

and in the 90s I always saw Nags Head as a negative place.

And the noise level, while I was a child, I had a peak when the door opened.

That was traumatising for me, as well as when the security guard is there.

It's not pleasant seeing a security guard in an area like that.

So I would humbly request that these things are also taken into consideration when children like myself, now an adult, is using this platform to object to the licencing of the SEV.

Go to Councillors. Mr Melnick.

Just one, I think, two points that arise out of that.

Firstly, in relation to the advertisement process,

it's a statutory advertisement process.

They're required to advertise in one local newspaper, of which

there are very, very few these days,

because it is a problem that's common among all

of the licencing applications, all of which

are required to be licenced.

Sorry, not all of which are required to be licenced,

all of which are required to be advertised

in a local newspaper, and a lot of applicants struggle.

If there is only one, they are only required,

I'm afraid, to do that in the English language.

and they are required also to put the notice up at or near the premises.

They have complied with those statutory obligations

because those will have been checked by licencing officers

because also if that hadn't been complied with,

that period would have either been extended or other action taken.

In relation to the last point suggesting,

that isn't mentioned in Ms Malik's representation at any point,

is the issue of noise from the premises.

As a child I'm going to suggest that you should disregard that.

It's unfair to the applicant to have that brought up at the last minute with no reference to it and no opportunity to properly respond.

Those are the only points I wish to make before you go to questions, Joe.

I would like to go back to, we're now going to questions from members.

I was one of the people that promoted the new SEV new applications,

but I fully understand that you can't nil something that exists.

If something exists, you can't unexist it.

And indeed I remember the Home Office guidance at the time,

which is published today.

One of my delights is section 27 of it,

and it really refers to our dear old friends, the European Convention on Human Rights.

I'm afraid sexual entertainment venues actually have protection under the European Convention on Human Rights.

I was staggered to do it, it's here, I don't really want to read.

When determining a licencing application, the local authority must have regard to any rights the applicant may have

under Article 10, Right of Freedom of Expression, Article 1, Protocol 1, Protection of Property

of the European Convention on Human Rights, and then there's a subset, and it gives a

whole series of applications where SEV refusals have been lost because people have ignored

the ECHR. Absolutely staggering. But we are really, really bound. Equally, I have to say

we cannot accept religious views whatsoever because one religious views is another person's

non -religious views. And again I have particular religious views which are not necessarily

entirely sympathetic with those of SEVs, but I'm here absolutely impartially to observe

the law on all sides. Can I go back to...

Sorry to be a pain -champ, but on a slightly coming the other way, the House of Lords did

consider the ECHR point, and specifically with regard

to article one of the first protocol in relation

to property rights.

They doubted in the misbehaving case

whether those property rights were necessarily

engaged on such an application.

But they didn't need to decide it.

But they did say if they were, then they're obviously

engaged at a low level.

You obviously have to have regard to the fact

as part of your decision making.

and as I've said previously, giving weight to the fact that the licence holder has held

that licence for a number of years, but that's what the effect of the ECHR actually says

in the misbehaving case as far as that's concerned.

Pity it was included in the bundle I've just read on, which I've had before me today.

That's the actual guidance, that's the up -to -date guidance, it's not necessarily poorly done.

I'm reading from a document I've got in front of me. I do not like being interrupted on that one.

I really would like to turn to the question. We really, really, really must drill down.

Where do you feel the NAG's head has contravened the law, the actual law of SEVs,

and they are quite strictly managed, etc. etc. What they can do, we have very strict rules what they can advertise,

there is no advertising on them, they operate by word of mouth, there is concealment as you see them,

nowadays there is no idea that anybody can walk out the door and they can see in, because there is, anybody entering

the premises and it can be seen on our maps here, enter through a series of entrances

to make sure that it can't be seen from the road. Can you give our members any actual

evidence of illegal activity that can affect residents? And I do not, I mean I don't really

want to be drawn about the legal case which was not particularly successful. And I know

I know that because I read every paper of it.

So can you tell us where you feel that it is contravening,

the only question I'm going to put on to you this evening,

where the NAGS head is contravening the law

as the law stands on SEVs? Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Gault.

I completely take your point about concupiscent.

inconspicuous versus ubiquitous.

The nags head do very well in trying to conceal

the activities outside of public view.

And credit needs to be given where credit is due.

You do do a tremendous job in that.

The concern isn't what is displayed and what is seen

in terms of public perception.

The concern is what takes place inside and I can only cite

the council's own investigative officers

Whose

investigations concluded and as a result the licence was revoked

I don't want to go into how mutually things were then

Reinstated or resurrected but if the question is what are the concerns in plain English?

The concern isn't what takes place outside the venue, what is perceived by the public.

The concern is what we don't get to see and what is actually taking place inside.

Because the licence, as I understand it, is a permissive right of conduct inside the premises.

So we understand because of the council's investigations the licence was revoked in 2023.

What we also know is that the same establishment of HOVTA, Mr Singh Clear, Vanity Licence Limited,

had its licence revoked back on the 25th of May 2023 for serious breaches.

I think we need to be very very careful.

For serious breaches?

I'm now ruling. I'm listening to an application before the licencing committee of the London

borough of Tower Hamlets and if somebody can give me absolute proof of something and I

need advance notice of it, I don't think we should be saying that about that.

Okay, if we can in that case, if I did that, the previous statement.

Oh, don't interrupt. I am told that what you may have just said is not entirely accurate

and I know that from paperwork I saw before this agreement was done.

So I'd like to stick to the application that is before us on the London Borough of

Tower Hamlets. There's plenty for us to talk about and plenty for you to talk about.

Thank you, Councillor Galt. I'm not privy to the paperwork that you've seen, and I won't.

I will respect the caution that you've just put out. What I will say, I will try to rephrase

and try to be as vague as possible.

But what we see is a track record of breaches,

not just in this jurisdiction, but others.

And if it needs to be substantiated, no problem.

I shall be happy to do that.

And anything I say is acting in my own personal capacity.

And if the applicants feel that they want to test this further,

please disclose my details. I have no problem with that.

But to respect the remits of this committee,

Would refer every single member back to your own investigation officers report on the misconduct

number of misconduct that took place at the next hit

Thank you

That appears to be the answer my question now who is going to be the first

So I'm going to try and go from side to side so I'll start with Councillor Harold Mia

And then I'll go to Councillor Sabina act on who's the next?

So there was somebody else over there, Shubha?

Saluk, you got anything?

So you got a question.

So I'm moving from side to side.

So far, I've got Ayas, Sabina, Abdi, Mushtaq and Saluk.

Anybody else?

I think I've got everybody then.

So right.

Ayas, off you go.

Thank you Mr. Halister for your presentation.

Some of the objections I have gone through and key concern of the parents or the guardian

or the residents, they have mentioned this is one of the key poorest community hubs,

long standing heritage and family friendly space area and densely populated residential

area where sex establishment would not be entirely out of character and highly inappropriate.

And there are a number of schools, especially secondary schools, within the few hundred

metres.

So these are the key issues local people mention.

I'm not discussing about the moral issue, this is not the disclosable here.

So in your point of view, how you think it will affect socially to those stakeholders

or the resident student and the local resident, how it will impact them on day to day life.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

If I understand the question correctly, I think we could cite a number of concerns.

One, safety.

Safety not necessarily because of the conduct of the app.

Okay, just for a moment.

Yeah, he's coming back.

Okay, go back and come back quickly.

Chair.

Okay.

Five minutes.

Thank you.

My kindness is going like a rubber band.

It's about to snap.

I want everybody back, come on.

I think she's maybe just having a little bit

of difficulty getting in.

Well, she can't get in.

There we are.

All right.

Don't jump.

Oh, no, it's the child.

There's a baby.

There's a small child has arrived.

Okay. Okay.

I think we've got everybody back, haven't I?

Can I...

I'm very unhappy with this issue of the mobile phones and photographs.

I'm sorry.

I really am unhappy about it.

We are bound by GDPR.

I am not... I am extremely unhappy.

I'm sorry, it's...

I want the people out there to understand you cannot take pictures.

Is that clear?

I've just seen somebody walking along with a phone.

Cheque, can I intervene?

My child is neurodiverse and he's using the phone

to play games.

That's the only thing that's keeping him focused.

It's nothing about that, but I have said several times,

we must understand we cannot use mobile phones here.

Please understand this.

Please just understand that.

Respect us all.

We've got to abide by the law and GDPR is incredibly strong.

If a photograph appears that's wrong, we get done.

And I want to protect all of you. I do not want the fire.

So that is it. Please can we understand that photographs are not permitted.

Now we've got the interruption. We've had the interruption.

Can we do fairly prompt answers, if possible, fairly succinct prompt questions?

What else have you done?

Do I need to put it?

I think that won't be necessary. If I'm not mistaken, in summary, your question was how does an SEV establishment have an adverse or negative impact on children, school children effectively?

and other stakeholders.

In summary, Chair, I will try to keep this

as brief as possible.

I think in terms of aspirations,

life aspirations, employability, prospects,

educational attainment, all of those things

which we understand disproportionately affects women.

I don't have the data to hand,

but I can always revert back with the data.

but I don't think anybody would doubt or deny the fact that in certain sections of the community,

in society generally, in particular to our ambulance, women are disproportionately affected

with low life aspirations, low life skills, low education attainment levels.

When you have a sexual establishment venue, that essentially survives and sustains itself

by attracting and recruiting vulnerable young women. And let's call a spade a spade.

Please, sir, we have the application before us.

Do you have evidence that the nags' head are recruiting vulnerable young women?

Chair, no, I don't have any evidence, but you asked me to...

Allow me to finish, please. You asked me to stick to the question.

I'm trying to address the question.

If you keep repeatedly asking me for evidence,

then what you're actually doing is trying to suppress me from responding to the best of my ability.

So let me start again.

I'm not, no, no, allow me to finish.

I am running this meeting so you will listen to what I'm saying.

I'm sorry, I cannot have anecdotal evidence.

Many people, we fully understand, can you turn that off because it's not appearing on the thing.

We fully understand that people get trafficked into terrible circumstances.

It's a matter of public record, but we are considering the NAG's head.

Is there any evidence that there is anybody on the NAG's head?

I'm not referring to anyone in particular.

It's a general question, insofar as the impact that this application,

and if the licence was granted, would have.

If it's a hypothetical question, then naturally my response would be a hypothetical one.

I will try to keep it as intelligently informed as possible,

but naturally there will be an element of assumption.

However, I'll avoid that completely.

I believe, in my opinion, as the objector,

in my opinion, I strongly believe establishments like that attract women.

Women are disproportionately affected by this industry,

vulnerable women and therefore I would cite public and community safety

as one of the key drivers of why establishments like that should be refused being granted.

Thank you.

I fully echo that.

I'm Kat Sabina.

Thank you, Chair.

Hello to the objectors.

So you've come today and you said you've heard about this renewal and that's quite...

So my first question is how did you guys hear about this renewal as a resident or in the newspaper as an advertiser?

And also can you elaborate more about how you think more people would have come out to express their views or kind of known about this renewal?

I know that we mentioned the applicant could just have advertised in one newspaper, but do you believe that if there were...

Can I intervene at this point? I think we've made it explicitly clear that we have complied with all statutory obligations to advertise the application.

I'm very conscious this is going down again a moral route of we should have done more to advertise and that is not the case.

Sabina, I'm sorry. You've had the answer, please. Can we get to the question?

I was going to ask a question about do you think people could be reached out more to kind of give the views if they were?

But I understand the requirements, like the applicant just needs this one, but I'm just asking to the objectives,

because she expressed a view that a lot of people don't come across because they're not aware of it.

That's all. My other question is about, similar to Councillor Ayasmeer's question about the locality,

having a lot of school nearby or faith venues.

Why do you think that they haven't kind of expected,

because in the report we haven't seen kind of a statement from them or whatsoever.

Why do you believe so?

Because we are in the objective, we've seen a lot of people like schools,

there's a lot of nearby schools, children nearby,

but we haven't seen as much of objections coming directly from any schools.

I don't know why.

Why do you think maybe?

Again, it's a hypothetical point I do sometimes raise and advise on at subcommittee on a regular basis.

You can't factor in why people didn't necessarily respond.

All you can take from the application is that you've got the various objections that are there

and they make reference to the schools and the religious centre and that's absolutely fine.

What you can't do is invite conjecture on why those institutions haven't...

We haven't seen any schools come forward to have a view.

We haven't seen any schools because there are no objections.

I know, but the objections, they raise the issue of a lot of schools nearby,

concerns from the schools, but we haven't seen any, that's all.

Sorry, we've got to be absolutely clear.

I mean we have no objection from any schools.

There isn't any.

There aren't?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying, there isn't any.

But we can see a lot of the objections when they spoke.

They're saying a lot of schools nearby, a lot of children nearby.

Similar to the council that asked me this question.

I've done these for umpteen years and school governing bodies are very careful on what they intervene on.

And a school some considerable distance away, it is quite likely that no parents, no pupils, ever go near

this particular place on the Whitechapel Road. I mean, you've got the, look at the map, you've got the circle,

you can see where schools are included. The issue is schools haven't objected. We have objections from people

which are in our bundle, I think we should keep to those objections and look at the objections

we have in our bundle.

I understand in the report we haven't had any objections from the school, but we keep

hearing today from members and the objectors that a lot of schools, a lot of children haven't

That's what I'm going to say.

The object is what you're saying.

Isn't the fact whether there's the number of schools in the area,

I mean that may well be a matter of dispute as to precisely where they are located,

but isn't that really more of a matter for the council's knowledge of their own particular wards

and the area anyway as to whether a school is or is not within the vicinity?

As far as I'm aware there's no schools within the immediate 100 metres surrounding...

If that's correct then that's simply that.

It is. It's Helen Barnet.

It may well be that there are others further away, which is absolutely fine,

but then that begs the question are these venues,

sorry, are those schools within the locality or the vicinity,

and most likely not.

That's all we can take from that.

I don't really see that there's, it's hard to see what the question actually is.

You can still take into account the fact that there may well be schools within X distance

of it.

But then that comes down to still how you then apply that in relation to the Section

12, the Schedule 12, sorry, Paragraph 12 rounds.

And keep this on.

The absolute things that we can reach a decision within law.

And I'm just looking at one thing.

Case law indicates a relevant locality cannot be an entire local authority or an entire town or city

so it suggests that there are pretty strict guidance of how far you can say.

Okay, can they ask the first question?

How you heard about this renewal and why you felt so strongly to come here today?

So one of the residents highlighted it, sent a text over saying that this is happening

and because I'm an active resident and also it resonates with me from previous years while I was growing up seeing Nags Head,

I felt strongly to object against the renewal of the licence.

Now as to schools, like I said in my statement, statement that Nags Head did not adequately engage with the community in Spitful, Bangalatown,

and I appreciate you saying that it has been advertised in a newspaper,

but not a newspaper that will reach to the community.

And I also accept and understand that because they will lose money.

That's the reason why they will not put it in a popular newspaper,

because they know they will get several hundred objections.

And with the community, they are very much vocal.

The only problem is we have low literacy, low online residents

who are not savvy when it comes to the logistics and the policies in regards to processing

an objection.

We also have residents who are more than happy to put their names down.

As you can see in the 299, they put their names down for the objection and followed

the template because, again, they are low literacy.

They are unable to write an objection or they don't know what to write.

But we did have 299 people who have written in.

Regardless it being same or on moral grounds,

these people did take effort to write to the Council,

which speaks volume.

Just very quickly, I'll keep it short.

I regularly go for lunch in that direction.

And I did see your well -displayed public notice.

I think it was on the door of the establishment or on one of the lampposts, I can't remember.

But I'm somebody who keeps an eye out for these things, not because I'm officious or

a troublemaker, but I just like taking pride in where I live and where I work.

So I think insofar as the statutory obligation, one could argue that that's been met.

Why schools and other establishments or stakeholders haven't responded, we only go by what we have.

And they haven't responded. Why they haven't is perhaps for the Democratic Services team to think about going forward,

how you ensure cross -sectional representation to a community where language is a key barrier. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for coming in and making your presentation.

So as the chairs kind of outline, there is very limited reasons why potentially could

object to an application or decline an application.

So I want to focus the minds on very factual points.

So if you've got a bundle in front of you, the kind of the agenda pack, if you go to

page 108, which one of them is, a lot of your representation has been about the character

of the area and the changes.

We have the focus on the vicinity.

So you gave, in your representation, you spoke about Whitechapel station for example and you spoke about an ever -changing area

but Nags Head is on 17 -19 Whitechapel Road. Within that vicinity, it would be really helpful if you could clarify of that list the places you were talking about

because Whitechapel station is 277 Whitechapel, I think you did mention Whitechapel station because you talked about Elizabeth line, that's where the Elizabeth line is

So you did. Within this vicinity is talking about the character, talking about from that long list you gave.

I think you spoke about schools and I appreciate schools being mentioned and I want to keep it very factual, sort of 108.

What, within that vicinity, do you have concerns about?

So in that context it was about the regeneration and the community image.

So, Nags Head, if you look at Whitechapel, we are going through a series of regeneration

and we want Whitechapel to look welcoming, we want Whitechapel to look clean and amazing,

you know, for the residents and for the tourists.

So, when you said, sorry, so going back to Whitechapel, Elizabeth line is, when I quoted Elizabeth line,

it was to do with the regeneration and really and truly, this, you know, Nags Head sits opposite Whitechapel

where once this great chapel used to stand, now it's Al Tabali Park,

and Nag's head looks like an eyesore.

It's all black, it's an eyesore.

It's not something that contributes beauty to white chapel, isn't it?

So, you're not quite answering my question,

and I think your points you're making are quite subjective,

and I want to be quite factual about the points I'm making.

So again, if there are any areas that you're particularly concerned about,

So you mentioned schools and you, like, as the chair said, there's very limited reasons

for potential weakened, the classroom.

So a mosque, a synagogue, a church is irrelevant to this and regardless of the committee's

personal opinions, it's irrelevant.

So again, I ask you, within that vicinity, is there anything in particular that makes

you particularly concerned or around the development, is there anything in the next year that you

think is going to be massively impacted?

Because again, this licence would be for a year, wouldn't it be?

So it's helpful to understand in that context.

And if you're going to keep it very factual,

that'd be very helpful.

So, Chair, thank you.

Sorry, I'm Councillor Mohamed.

I got that right.

Yes, if we talk about iconic locations and adverse impact

and eyesore or urban renaissance,

I think is the correct term.

This is how, in terms of built environment,

how pleasing or displeasing it looks.

If we stick to facts,

you're familiar with the Al Tabali Park?

You are? So I don't need to refer you to that.

That place attracts international dignitaries,

from Nobel Laureates to heads of states.

Every year you have commemorations, vigils,

and all sorts of other local to international protests that take place.

It attracts an international audience.

It has global coverage.

There is not a place on earth that where that I've been to that have not heard of

East London and the Alta Valley Park. Often I have staged events at that park

where the backdrop of the stage is literally opposite the Nags Head.

Nagshead historically is synonymous with strippers

and strip club.

Is that the kind of image one wants to portray?

Is that the kind of, so I'm just giving you one factual example

of how strategically, visually,

the Nagshead sits directly opposite an international stage.

And that I think is sufficient to reconsider how these establishments or certain types of trade is operated and where they are located.

This is not so, that is also a fact. Thank you.

I do, sorry, one more question. That's helpful clarification and again, I stay completely

neutral in this but I think an international event is what you've given example of. From

what I can see from these pictures I see all black facade so I suppose it's just interesting

that's the kind of example you've given. Actually, do you know what my second point

Thank you.

That's fine.

Thank you, chair.

My question actually has become redundant now.

Councillor Abdi Muhammad has covered it.

Thank you.

Councillor Salih Ahmed.

Thank you, chair.

I've got two questions.

One is, maybe it's a very short one,

but I just want to clarify something

between the two questions.

our present lawyer and yourself.

You mentioned very earlier at the beginning of a statement

that the application itself is a new one.

And I think it was an agreed by the legal representative

from the council.

But I just want a little bit of clarify on that first question.

Second one is...

I'm sorry, Councillor, I'm your legal advisor, I will give you direction on the law.

I did not agree that it's a new application, it is not, it is a renewal application.

No one here is under any illusion that that is what we are here to consider.

If Mr Kallisadhar wishes to have a different opinion, that's obviously a matter for him,

but as a matter of law and as a matter of who directs you on the law,

That is my function and you have my advice on that.

I'm sorry, I don't want to keep interrupting,

but I really need to emphasise it.

Thank you, Jonathan.

Okay, and the second one is,

we all know that how this SEV trade

is being shortened from 80s and coming down to,

and also we implement a zero target,

target, we only have three or four left in the borough.

So what makes, I mean, do you think that,

I mean, why this special improvement in NUGSED,

how did it survive all these,

going through all these years, and it still exists?

What do you think the survival, the secret of that venue?

Thank you, Councillor Ahmed.

I think there's no secret in terms of how the trade survives.

How they have been able to survive this long

is not a mystery either.

And see for me, living in a pluralist, inclusive society,

we have to accommodate for all sorts of aspirations

and lifestyle choices.

I'm not against anybody's individual right

of how they do or conduct themselves.

That is entirely up to them.

But with the changing times,

I think we have now reached a point

where this conversation is actually rather prudent.

How they have survived as a business,

it's only they know.

What we can say is yes, clearly there is a demand

from a consumer perspective, there is clearly demand.

But whether that is consistent with the character

and all the other issues that I earlier touched on,

is really, that's my position, which is I believe

trades like that and activities like that will remain,

but it is for decision makers, policy makers, politicians,

like yourselves, to take pragmatism.

It takes a level of pragmatism to ensure

that we are inclusive as a society.

I'm not saying bar people from that.

It needs to be regulated.

And we're saying we have an application

where there's been breaches.

And what we are also saying is I think

it's inconsistent with the changing demographics

of this area.

So how they've survived I have no idea, but is there room going forward?

I would honestly hand on heart, I would tell the applicant to genuinely reconsider this

type of business in this area.

Sorry, can I add, it seems like for the applicant he has more than one SEV licence, so it seems

like it's a lucrative business, hence he's holding onto these licences.

Thank you, chair.

My question to the objectors.

Obviously you mentioned 299 residents objecting to this.

Do you have a breakdown of this ethnicity of the people objecting to this?

Sorry, Councillor.

Those objections are not before you and they weren't before you for various reasons but

ultimately they are not relevant.

You cannot consider them.

You put out of your mind the fact that you may have had that many

Objections you have the ones that are in your pack both for and against and those are the only ones that you can

Thank you. Sorry

Thank you, sir. I

I'm sitting on a tightrope here

I want to keep this council as tight and as legally accurate as possible on whatever decision make I want our league our

Decision to be absolutely legal. We must take rules on what questions are relevant. We now move to them

We now move to the concluding remark and I will give the applicant...

Oh, sorry!

So we have the objectors first and then the applicant.

I merely read on the...

Would you like to make your concluding remarks?

Yes, I would. I would like to appeal to all the councillors here who will make a decision

in regards to renewing the licencing. A statement I would like to stress to you is when the

measures he's taken in place, sacking the three women, who have now become jobless and

there's exploitation there.

And then also, if you look at the table, it's all men.

This speaks volume.

So please look at all these aspects of it and the previous representation and make a

judgement and not make it wholly because the facade is all blacked out and they have a

and security guard. Thank you.

Thank you everyone. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, committee members, even the applicants, thank you.

I think you've been very honest and thorough in how you've tried to present and mitigate the concerns.

For me, what I would like to remind every single elected member here, you're all elected members,

that whilst the scope of this committee is to consider granting a licence based on your legal duty and obligation,

I would appeal to you to display an element of pragmatism and realism.

You're elected members because you represent the aspirations of each and every one of your constituents and ward members.

and any decision you make has to be translated

and enacted based on those aspirations

insofar as legally it is permissible.

I can tell you with absolute certainty

that I have legal authority here.

Yes, my friend, learned friend, Mr. Melnick

and I may be deferring on this,

may have deferring views,

but the legal position is very clear.

I have authorities here, judicial reviews,

where applicants, the court has upheld the decision

and have clearly directed that a revocation

amounts to a new application.

We can agree to disagree on this,

but I would remind each and every one of you,

please, your decisions are, you are expected

to make decisions based on the aspirations

of your constituents.

and let the lawyers and legal experts worry about the law. Thank you.

Sarah, who I think is a woman.

The last time I checked, Chair.

I'm sure you're on the floor.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair.

I didn't ask questions of the objectors because I thought I would deal with the points that have been raised within the objections in my closing submissions because I'm conscious of time.

Just to confirm first and foremost the legal position, so we are here today to consider

the renewal application.

It is definitely a renewal, this is not a new application.

The only things that are before you within the evidence pack in terms of representation

raise suitability of the applicant, locality and their moral grounds.

We are only in a position where we can consider suitability of the applicant.

I would suggest to each other that the strength of that in the representations is not particularly

strong and that that's already been dealt with. That brings us down to locality really,

so they are the only matters that we can consider today.

Just to confirm, I do agree with Mr Melnick on section 2710 of schedule 3 of the Local

Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982, that does confirm that where an appeal against

a revocation is submitted, then the licence is deemed to remain in force until the determination

of that appeal, so the suggestion by the object is that this is a new application, or that

that licence was revoked and no longer had effect is just simply incorrect, Chair.

Just also as well on the case law, the Thompson case was cited, that does confirm that committees

have wide discretion, however I can distinguish it because what the judgement actually says

is that the council in that case were considering future developments. Now whilst a council

can consider future developments, what the judgement also goes on to state is that that

can't be open ended, i .e. it can't be developments in five years time, we have to look at the

locality at the time that this decision is being made and therefore upon that basis chair

I have to disagree with the objectors. Just in regard to data, you've heard various

conjecture throughout the representations that have been made and that have been amplified

at this hearing about data but there's no solid data in front of each chair.

I would suggest to you that the Nags Head is not a problem premises. I've openly

acknowledged in my submissions and you can see in the agenda pack that there is

a consent order there. Nobody has tried to hide whatsoever that there have been

issues in the past. They have been resolved. You've heard from Mr Bamba that

he does the covert visits. Those operations are checked on a regular

basis. That is a condition of the licence and there is absolutely no evidence that

there has been any problems. Just in terms of the moral side of the

objections I don't want to get too much into that but I will address it because

it's been raised. You do have data from the applicant at page 55 of the

supplemental agenda. Now this is evidence from somebody who works with performers

in SEV venues. There's lots of information within that letter about

various pieces of research that have been done and it does confirm within

that letter that many assertions that are often made have actually been

debunked with the relevant research so I would invite members to consider that

letter also. There's been mention of religious grounds to refuse the

application which again is not something we're able to consider. Just for context

Chair, the East London Mosque has been in existence for 84 years, the Nags Head

has been in existence for 40 years so the fact is that the premises have been

able to coexist very peacefully with the East London Mosque for many many years.

Beyond that chair, the Brick Lane Mosque has been open since 1743.

I will not do the maths on how long the Nags Head has coexisted prior to and after the Brick Lane Mosque opening.

But just to give context, Chair, there are religious venues in the wider vicinity, there are not religious venues within the immediate vicinity,

which is what we need to look at today, but the evidence is everybody has coexisted very peacefully.

The only issues we've got of note are those which arose in 2022 and as a

consequence the licence was revoked in 2023 but I think we've dealt ad nauseam

with those issues. The premises has traded for decades it's been relatively

incident free. The responsible authorities are happy they are not here

today again there was some suggestion that they'd not been proper consultation

either with the authorities or with the residents. I find it a bit of a bizarre

suggestion chair that we've got the volume of representations that have been

received yet at the same time there's this suggestion that it's not been

adequately consulted upon. Those two conclusions can't be the same at any one

time. The applicant has complied with the statutory obligations to advertise

the application. The simple fact is chair, even if we advertise to the local

community and invite them in potentially they're never going to agree. There are

clearly opposing moral views here and they are things that we cannot consider

today. The locality has not changed, that is confirmed on page 24 of the committee report

and that is the licencing committee's report in respect of this application. You've also

heard evidence from Mr Bamber today of his observations and his experience within Tower

Hamlets that the locality has not changed and that ultimately, Chair, is what we need

to really consider today. Is there any evidence before you that the locality has changed which

would determine that you could refuse this application. I would suggest to you

chair that that is not the case. The premises cannot be readily identified

outside. I'm not aware of any global dignitaries that have been offended by

its presence while they have been in the park that is located opposite the

premises and indeed if there had been any issues I would have expected it to

have been raised by the licencing authority or the police or one of the

responsible authorities or by one of the residents directly. That has not occurred chair.

The other aspects of the representations are on moral grounds and we are not able to consider those today.

So on that basis, Chair, I would request that you grant the application. Thank you.

This has been a very long evening. May I thank everybody for coming and occasionally it's easy.

But look, my position is to try and herd the cats and keep this on a pretty even keel and ultimately make sure that this meeting is run properly and legally.

I think everybody has had the right of address and has said something and I would hope that is.

Now for the councillors to adjourn in a private session and deliberate and reach a decision.

After this Ms. Yasmin will write to you with the decision within five working days and it will show whether the decision was unanimous or by vote.

up to what the decision is. Of course people may take subsequent action upon that decision,

but that is in their hands and not ours. Our decision will be everybody considering what

they have heard tonight and on the legal advice that is before them. Thank you for your attendance.

So I can ask Jonathan to extend the meeting time.

Can you extend the meeting time?

I thought it was okay, so once we adjourn to the public.

Okay, well then we formally extend the meeting to one hour.

I hope not for an hour.

The London Borough of Tower Hamlets provides us with no reception, we don't refreshments, we don't even get a glass of water.

So you actually have lots and lots of councillors who are sitting here with their tongues hanging out and their stomachs rumbling.

So for those of you who are concerned rate payers and taxpayers, if you would like to tell the authorities that we've got 16 councillors and officers sitting here with stomachs rumbling and their tongues hanging out, please do so.

Thank you chair, thanks very much.

Please leave feedback relating to the quality of the webcast (i.e. audio visual elements) only. Comments relating to conduct or contributions of attendees or political statements will be deleted.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Licensing Regulatory Committee - Thursday 18 September 2025, 6:17pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Licensing Regulatory CommitteeThursday, 18th September 2025 at 6:17pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Leave a comment on the quality of this webcast

Votes

Licensing Regulatory Committee
Thursday, 18th September 2025 at 6:17pm