Skip to main content

Agenda item

Platinum Lace Gentleman's Club, Unit 33, Trocadero, 13 Coventry Street, London, W1D 7AB

App

No

Ward /

Cumulative Impact Area

Site Name and Address

Application

Licensing Reference Number

3.

St James’s Ward/ St James’s, Core CAZ North

Platinum Lace Gentleman's Club, Unit 33, Trocadero, 13 Coventry Street, London, W1D 7AB

Sex Establishment

Licence

18/10134/LISEVR

 

Minutes:

LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE No. 6

Thursday 28 February 2019

 

Membership:              Councillor Melvyn Caplan (Chairman), Councillor Heather Acton and Councillor Aicha Less

 

Legal Adviser:             Barry Panto

Committee Officer:  Sarah Craddock

Presenting Officer:      Kevin Jackaman.  Daisy Gadd in attendance

 

Objections:                                  Objector 1 (wished to remain anonymous) and Licensing Authority.

 

Present: Mr Stuart Jessop (Counsel, representing the anonymous objector), Mr Philip Kolvin QC (Counsel, representing Mr Simon Warr on behalf of Platinum Lace (Management) Ltd), Ms Lana Tricker (Solicitor representing Mr Simon Warr on behalf of Platinum Lace (Management) Ltd), Mr Simon Warr (Platinum Lace (Management) Limited), Mr Steve Rowe (Licensing Authority), Francis Keegan (City Inspector) and John Oddi (City Inspector).

 

Platinum Lace Gentleman’s Club, Unit 33, Trocadero, 13 Coventry Street,

W1D 7AB

18/10134/LISEXR

 

1.

Renewal of a Sexual Entertainment Venue Premises Licence

 

The application was to renew the sexual entertainment venue premises licence made by Platinum Lace (Management) Limited to continue to operate the premises as a sexual entertainment venue between the hours of 15:00 to 06:00 on each of the days Monday to Saturday and 15:00 to 03:00 on Sunday.  The Applicant did not request to change the relevant entertainment or to remove any standard conditions on the licence in the event the application was granted.  Objections to the renewal application had been submitted alleging serious breaches of the conditions on the licence and, in particular, alleged breaches of conditions that prohibit contact between customers and performers.

 

 

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

 

None

 

 

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

 

Mr Jackaman, introducing the application and advised that Objector 1 had not waived the right to anonymity.

 

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

The request for an Adjournment of the Hearing

 

Mr Jessop (Counsel, representing the anonymous objector) referred to the recent application for an adjournment of the hearing due to the investigators and the objector not being available on the scheduled date for the hearing.  He advised that the application had been refused by the Chairman.

 

Mr Jessop then advised he would like to renew the application for an adjournment in the interests of justice and the interest of fairness as the Sub-Committee may wish to hear from the investigators because of the very serious nature of the allegations and give them the opportunity to respond to questions from the Applicant and Sub-Committee.

 

Mr Philip Kolvin (Counsel, representing Mr Simon Warr) advised that the notification of the hearing date had been sent out to all parties two weeks ago and that the applicant’s evidence had been served to the Licensing Authority in the correct timeframe.  He requested that the hearing proceed today.

 

Mr Panto advised that the Sub-Committee would consider the submissions from both parties and if the hearing proceeded it would be conducted under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. He pointed out that, under that legislation, objectors are not entitled to a hearing, though it is the normal practice to allow objectors to attend and give evidence if they are available.

 

The Sub-Committee considered that they had all the evidence before them and that it was for the applicant to respond to the allegations made by the objector and the representations from the Licensing Authority.  The Sub-Committee refused the application for an adjournment of the hearing.

 

The Application for the Renewal of the Sex Establishment Licence

 

Mr Jessop spoke first on behalf of the anonymous objector stating that the evidence on behalf of the objector was that there had been serious and significant breaches of the conditions to the premises licence and that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a sex establishment licence.  Mr Jessop advised that the evidence should be the focus of the hearing and not the supposition that the objector was a competing commercial establishment. 

 

Mr Jessop referred to the evidence contained in the witnesses’ statements. These appeared as Appendix D1 to the report.  He advised that on the 11 and 12 July 2018 independent ex-police officers visited Platinum Lace and witnessed a number of serious breaches of their sex establishment licence (conditions 17 and 22).  Mr Jessop explained the breaches included touching of customer bodies, allowing the customers to touch the bodies of dancers, touching customer bodies with the naked genitalia of the dancer that involved prolonged sexual contact and sexual bodily contact between the dancers themselves. The visit had lasted for about two hours.  

 

 

 

Mr Jessop stated that these visits clearly identified breaches of the licence conditions and the applicant’s attempts to impugn the character of the ex-police officers by suggesting that they were lying on behalf of the objectors was far-fetched.  This was especially true as the Licensing Authority had corroborated the evidence contained in the ex-police officers witness statements.  Mr Jessop made the point that even if there was a link between the investigators and a competing commercial establishment, it was difficult to see the relevance of this to this hearing.  Mr Jessop further added that ex-police officers would be very aware that it was a criminal offence to make up evidence. 

 

The Sub-Committee heard from the Licensing Authority and City Inspectors

 

Mr Steve Rowe (Licensing Authority) advised that the Licensing Authority had maintained their representation pending investigations into compliance with licence conditions and suitability of the applicant.  He advised that Mr Francis Keegan and Mr John Oddi (City Inspectors) had carried out the investigation and they would advise the Sub-Committee of their findings which were outlined in their witness statement which appeared at Appendix D3 of the report. He added that the venue had been co-operative with the investigation. 

 

Mr Keegan advised that following a departmental re-organisation his Team became responsible for Platinum Lace in September 2018.  Mr Keegan explained that he had visited the premises and had obtained a number of disks showing images from the venue’s CCTV system covering various areas within the club over three sample dates chosen at random.  The CCTV images related to periods on 28 August, 12 September and 21 September 2018 and on each of the dates, these images viewed by Mr Oddi revealed numerous breaches of the ‘no touching’ condition.  Mr Keegan advised that a shortlist of 10 incidents that were considered to be the most serious and significant contacts/breaches had been documented and sent to the venue who had not disputed their accuracy.

 

Mr Oddi advised that he had spent 40 working hours viewing 9 hours of CCTV images over 3 separate dates during which he discovered 454 physical contacts: 379 initiated by the performer to the customer and 75 initiated by the customer to the performer.  Mr Oddi stated that out of 454 physical contacts viewed, 105 were considered as serious contact, in which it could be considered that the contact was simulating sexual arousal in the customer.  Mr Oddi advised that these 105 incidents were then narrowed down to the 10 most serious incidents documented in the witness statement.

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Keegan advised that the venue had been monitored quarterly and had found it to be well managed. No previous breaches had been identified. He further advised that the dates and times of the CCTV footage viewed had been chosen at random.  Mr Keegan confirmed that he could not corroborate the ex-police officer’s witness statements as the venue’s CCTV footage for July had already been destroyed.  He added that the venue had stated that if they had been aware of the incidents/allegations earlier they would have kept the CCTV disks for viewing by the City Inspectors.  Mr Keegan advised that the Licensing Authority had not previously objected to the renewal of this licence. 

 

The Sub-Committee heard that the City Inspectors had recently reviewed CCTV images at the applicant’s other venue (in Leicester Square) and had found no matters of concern.  The City Inspectors were therefore confident that the other premises were being operated in accordance with their licence.  Mr Keegan then referred to both the number and nature of the incidents at Platinum Lace and stated that it was clear that there had been a management issue at the premises on these 3 dates.  Mr Keegan confirmed that the 9 hours of CCTV viewed was a dip sampling and that the City Inspectors considered that it was possible for the applicant to operate Platinum Lace in accordance with the licence conditions as they did at their other venue. 

 

In response to questions regarding the operation of Platinum Lace, Mr Keegan advised that there was always someone monitoring the CCTV footage who would radio security or management to intervene directly if they saw something concerning on the CCTV screens.  Mr Keegan added that there were always security staff and management patrolling the corridors and areas outside of the booths and any incidents were recorded in an incident book.  Mr Keegan confirmed that there was a system of tariffs enforced when the rules were broken in the premises.

 

Mr Keegan confirmed that he had worked for the Council for 29 years and that in his opinion there would be the occasional incidents between a performer and customer due to the nature of the business, however, these incidents would be minimised by good management of the premises.  He advised that it would be very unusual for the breaches to be initiated by performers as this would indicate a management problem at the venue.

 

The Sub-Committee heard the Applicant’s Case

 

Mr Philip Kolvin QC (Counsel, representing Mr Simon Warr), advised that under  the Local Government (Miscellaneous) Act 1982 there was the presumption to grant or renew the licence except for the reasons set out in (Para 12(3) Schedule 3 LG (MP)A 1982).  He referred to the only ground that could be applicable, namely ‘that the applicant is unsuitable to hold a licence by reason of having been convicted of an offence or for any other reason’. 

 

Mr Kolvin introduced Mr Simon Warr, the owner of Platinum Lace (Management) Limited.  He advised that Mr Warr was of good character, had no criminal convictions or bankruptcy and had worked in the sexual entertainment industry for 18 years.  He had formerly been the European President for Spearmint Rhino and had established the Lap-dancing Association in 2006 to promote best practice in the Industry.   Mr Kolvin advised that Mr Warr had established Platinum Lace in 2009 and that he currently owned two venues in Westminster as well as sexual entertainment clubs around the country.  Mr Kolvin added that Mr Warr aimed to provide the best customer experience in terms of service and facilities in a well-managed compliant environment and operated in complete openness with all the Responsibility Authorities.  Mr Warr called his approach ‘Open Book’. 

Mr Kolvin stated that Mr Warr had never been subject to a licence review in any of his clubs because he had strict policies that were enforced by management and security staff.  Mr Kolvin made the point that new performers had to sign a contractual agreement, attend an induction course emphasising that ‘this was a no touching club’ and were paired with experienced dancers to learn the club’s culture.  He emphasised that the venue’s policies were enforced by a serious of procedures ranging from mere interventions, financial penalties, verbal and written warnings to the termination of a performer’s contract.  He advised that there was full CCTV in the venue, which was available to be viewed at any time by the Responsible Authorities.

 

Mr Kolvin made the point that there was never any trouble in sexual entertainment venues and that the security staff were employed to enforce the rules of the venue.  He confirmed that CCTV constantly monitored the booths from the moment the venue opened to the moment it closed.  Mr Kolvin advised that during the day shifts (3pm to 8pm) three security guards were employed along with one manager, on Sunday and Monday nights (8pm to close) six security guards were employed along with two managers and on Tuesday to Saturdays (8pm to close) there were 7-8 security guards employed along with two managers.  Mr Kolvin stated that mystery shoppers were also employed who visited the venue monthly to report on any physical contact or any conduct relevant to the licence.  Mr Kolvin emphasised that Mr Warr understood the licence conditions, had successfully operated six venues across the country and had no previous issues regarding the renewal of any of his sex establishment licences.

 

Mr Kolvin referred to the Licensing Authorities objection to the renewal of the sex establishment licence.  Mr Kolvin respectfully advised that the physical contact outlined the 10 most serious and significant contacts/breaches to the licence ranged from two seconds to nine seconds which was momentarily brushing and not in any way performers/customers engaging in sexual activities.  He further advised that, in his opinion, it was not clear in some clips if there had been physical contact and in others whether the contact had just been accidental brushing.  Mr Kolvin did make the point that there had been some clips showing deliberate touching and that the performers had been reprimanded. 

 

Mr Kolvin advised that the Licensing Authority had not informed the applicant that they had witnessed 454 physical contacts on the CCTV footage: 379 initiated by the performer to the customer and 75 initiated by the customer to the performer until today and the number had come as a complete surprise to the applicant.  Mr Kolvin respectfully advised, in considering this number of physical contacts, that the City Inspection Team previously in charge of Sexual Entertainment Venues had not viewed casual brushing as serious or worth remarking on during their inspection visits.  Mr Kolvin then made the point that if these short casual accidental brushes were not going to be tolerated now then the venue would adjust their operation. 

 

Mr Kolvin referred to the other objection to the renewal of the sex establishment licence.  Mr Kolvin advised that the evidence presented by the objector was hearsay evidence and what was very troubling was that the witnesses’ statements were unsigned and the language in both statements was identical.  Mr Kolvin made the point that Westminster City Council had taken 400 hours of CCTV footage over three nights and had uncovered at best very brief casual contact between performer and customer.  He added that these men, however, had come into the venue and in one evening had experienced prolonged deliberate sexual contact for a few hours.  Mr Kolvin stated that if these witnesses’ statements were correct such activity would surely have been discovered during the nine hours of CCTV footage watched by the City Inspectors.  Mr Kolvin further advised that the allegations were inconsistent with the records kept by the club (and made no reference to interventions which are recorded by the club for the dates concerned) and completely inconsistent with the conduct of all of the applicant’s venues over the past nine years. He described the evidence as an aberration.  Platinum Lace had strict policies and procedures in place that included the training of performers and the recording and monitoring of activities within the club.  Mr Kolvin stated that the objection was served after the 31 day retention period for CCTV footage had lapsed and it was difficult to understand why the incident not been reported straight away if there had been genuine concern for the performers so the CCTV footage could be viewed by all parties.

 

Mr Kolvin stated that it appeared that Westminster’s operators were turning against each other and hoped that this would discontinue as all sexual entertainment venues had to operate within the licence conditions.  Mr Kolvin confirmed that Mr Warr had been distressed about the allegations against Platinum Lace and Mr Warr wanted the Sub-Committee to know that he was dedicated to compliance and managing the venue to the highest standard.

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Warr advised that there had been approximately 22 dismissals at Platinum Lace over the past 12 months for a number of different reasons and approximately 10 dismissals at his other venue.  Mr Warr advised that he was embarrassed by the high number of incidents uncovered by the CCTV footage but emphasised that the venue had operated to a standard agreed by Westminster City Council.  He further advised that the mystery shopper scheme had been very useful and had identified potential breaches of the licence conditions that had been eliminated by the termination of the performer’s contracts. 

 

In response to questions regarding the 454 physical contact incidents witnessed on the CCTV footage, Mr Kolvin advised that it was difficult to account for the incidents as this was the first time they had been mentioned today.  Mr Kolvin made the point that if the 10 incidents listed were the most serious, and it was difficult to see actual physical contact on some of the 10 clips, then the other incidents would be less serious.  He suggested that the experienced City Inspectors who had previously visited the venue would have looked at the same CCTV footage and considered that there was nothing of concern within the clips.  Mr Kolvin confirmed that he could not provide a response on the 454 clips as he had not seen or known about then until today.  Mr Kolvin further confirmed that the venue was very happy to comply with this stricter approach to the licence conditions.

 

The Sub-Committee asked for an explanation about the 374 incidents witnessed on the CCTV that had been initiated by the performers.  Mr Kolvin advised that there was a massive difference between a performer who sat down on a customer lap or put their breasts into a customer face to the kind of conduct that had been viewed in the clips from Platinum Lace where there was only slight contact (brushing) in the majority of the 10 most serious incidents identified by the inspectors. 

 

The Sub-Committee further asked about the two witnesses’ statements from the ex-police officers who the Sub-Committee considered were credible witnesses.  Mr Kolvin advised that it was regretful that the witnesses were unable to attend the hearing but emphasised that the witnesses’ statements had not been signed, were hearsay and Mr Warr believed that they had be paid for by a rival competitor to deliberately damage Platinum Lace.  Mr Kovlvin made the point that the statements were completely contrary to all the systems, procedures and management style in Mr Warr’s clubs and therefore it was very difficult to understand how over a 2 hour period there had been consistent serious breaches of the venue’s rules that had not been identified in any other evidence produced against the club. 

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Keegan advised of his visit to the venue, the viewing of the CCTV and the conversation he had with staff who considered slight brushing as accidental and not deliberate contact.  Mr Keegan confirmed that the licence conditions were clear that during Regulated Entertainment there should be no physical contact between the performers and customers.  Mr Keegan further confirmed that he stood by the 454 incidents of physical contacts witnessed on the CCTV footage and that the 10 incidents listed in the witness statement were the most serious breaches to the licence conditions.

 

In response to questions from Mr Panto, Mr Kolvin advised that the performers identified in the statements produced by the ex-police officers had been spoken to but could not recall the incidents, but they had confirmed that they did not conduct themselves in the manner described in the witnesses’ statements. Mr Kolvin confirmed that none of the perormers identified in the statements had been dismissed. Mr Panto asked some further questions about the charging regime as he wondered whether a customer’s expectation of what might be involved in the performance would vary depending on the amount being charged, especially as the charges varied from £20 to £600. Mr Kolvin further advised that performers charged £20 for a 3 minute dance and up to  £600 for one hour for a sit down with a performer.

 

Mr Jessop was given the opportunity to make some closing remarks and advised that it was his view that Mr Kolvin had not taken the allegations contained in the witnesses’ statements seriously and emphasised that the witness statements had come from ex-police officers who knew that making up evidence was very serious and a criminal offence.  Mr Jessop further made the point that serious breaches had taken place at the venue that had been corroborated by the Licensing Authority and that 374 incidents of physical contact initiated by performers indicated management failure in the venue.

When making his closing remarks, Mr Kolvin emphasised that Mr Warr was not a rule breaker and there was no question of Mr Warr knowingly permitting breaches of the licence conditions.  He advised that Mr Warr had a good reputation in the industry and was very willing to work with the Council to ensure both his venues operated in the appropriate and expected manner set out in the sex establishment licence.

 

The Sub-Committee had regard to all the submissions made at the hearing and to all the written documentation that had been submitted, including the statement and exhibits from Kenny Favel, the Director of Operations and the General Manager at Platinum Lace. Everyone present at the hearing was aware that the applicant had expressed a clear view as to who the “anonymous” objection had come from, the suggestion being that it was a competitor to Platinum Lace. However, at no point did Mr Jessop confirm that view. The Chairman had made it clear, therefore, that he wanted the applicant to concentrate on the actual evidence that had been presented about the alleged breaches at the premises. Mr Kolvin respected that view in presenting the case for his client but questioned the weight that could be attached to the evidence submitted by the two ex-police officers, calling that evidence an aberration compared to the evidence submitted by the licensing authority itself. There was a clear suggestion on the part of the applicants that they had been “set up” by the anonymous objector. 

 

The Sub-Committee considered that there had been clear breaches of the conditions at the premises and emphasised that the licence conditions were not open to interpretation and that no touching meant ‘no touching’.  If there had been any doubt about that in the past it would be clear going forward so as to ensure that there was absolutely no doubt about the requirements of the licence.

 

The Sub-Committee considered that the evidence from the ex-police officers was credible (in the sense that the members did accept the truth of what the officers had witnessed) though it was also noted that there was no reference to alleged interventions by the Platinum Lace security staff. However, the  Sub-Committee was most concerned as to why it had not been submitted earlier in view of the serious nature of the breaches identified in the witness statements and therefore gave it less weight than might have been the case if it could have been corroborated by both the applicant and the Licensing Authority. As it was, the evidence of the two ex-police officers did appear to be an aberration (as suggested by Mr Kolvin) compared to the evidence obtained by the licensing inspectors from viewing a considerable amount of CCTV footage thereafterl. 

 

In deciding to renew the SEV licence for Platinum Lace, the Sub-Committee wanted to emphasise that that the decision was based on the evidence as submitted and not on the basis that Platinum Lace had been “set up”. The Licensing Sub-Committee made no specific finding on that point other than to recognise that the allegations were being made.

   

Having regard to the entirety of the evidence, the members were of the view that the threshold for revocation had not been reached, despite the fact that there were a large number of undisputed breaches that had been identified on the CCTV viewed by the licensing inspectors. Very few of these appeared to be of a particularly serious nature and none of them bore any resemblance to the evidence submitted by the ex-police officers. On one of the three dates no breaches were identified at all and an analysis of the evidence of the 10 incidents presented to the Sub-Committee, which were described as the most serious breaches identified from the CCTV footage, indicated that the physical touching ranged from 2 seconds to 9 seconds.

 

The operator had acknowledged the breaches that had taken place but was surprised at the number of the alleged breaches observed by the licensing inspectors (though this data was only given by the licensing service at the hearing itself) and had given evidence of how the premises was managed and the actions that were taken when breaches had been identified (including evidence regarding interventions by security staff and of the dismissal of a number of the entertainers). It was also noted that there was no evidence of any breaches at the other Platinum Lace premises situated at 14, Leicester Square.

 

In the final analysis, the Licensing Sub-Committee did retain confidence in Simon Warr, the owner of Platinum Lace. They recognised his active role within the business and accepted that he had a leadership role as a regulator of the industry itself. There had been no prior allegations against his premises that had resulted in objections being lodged to the renewal of any of his licences in Westminster. Breaches had been identified and admitted but it was considered that the clear indication that no touching was to be allowed under any circumstances would be understood and complied with going forward. There was an expectation on the part of the members of the Licensing Sub-Committee that random viewings of the CCTV at the premises would be undertaken by the licensing inspectors and the Sub-Committee wanted to make it absolutely clear that any further breaches of the no touching rule would be taken very seriously indeed, even if the evidence of those breaches was similar to the evidence presented at this hearing. It was possible that similar breaches in the future might result in the licence not being renewed or in the licence being revoked.   

 

For the record, the members of the Licensing Sub-Committee wanted to emphasise that this decision, as with all decisions, has been taken on its individual merits and is based on the evidence presented to the Sub-Committee regarding the renewal of the licence for these particular premises. It is also based on the individuals who are involved in the running of these premises and the responses that they have given to the allegations made and the further questions posed at the hearing itself. This is not a precedent in relation to any other premises in Westminster and it must not be assumed that a similar decision will be reached if similar allegations are made in relation to other SEV premises within Westminster. Any other matter that arises will also be dealt with on its individual merits.       

 

The Sub-Committee confirmed that the Licence was renewed subject to the Standard Conditions applicable to licences for sex establishments in Westminster as prescribed by the Council pursuant to Paragraph 13 of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.

 

 

Supporting documents: