Agenda item

The Boulevard, 6 Walkers Court London W1F 0BU 19/16285/LISEVN

1.

APPLICATION

The City Council (“the Council”) has received an application for a new Sexual Entertainment Venue (SEV) premises licence under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (the Act) for Boulevard Theatre, 6 Walker’s Court, London, W1F 0BU from The Boulevard Theatre Company Limited. The Applicant had applied for a new Sexual Entertainment Venue (SEV) premises licence to provide burlesque, nude cabaret, nude performances, plays and adult related theatrical performances and involve implied nudity, full and partial nudity. They have applied for relevant entertainment between the hours 10:00 to 01:00 on of the days Monday to Saturday and 10:00 to 22:30 on Sundays.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

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

Kevin Jackaman, Licensing Officer, introduced the Application as set out above The Metropolitan Police withdrew their representation following the Applicant’s confirmation to adopt additional Conditions. There was additional information received from the Applicant on 30 January 2020, 3 February 2020 and 5 February 2020. The submissions were circulated to all interested parties.

Alun Thomas, Applicant’s Legal Representative advised the Sub-Committee that the Premises was situated in a location which was both historically and widely associated with SEVs. He advised that the establishment had operated in the Sexual Entertainment industry for several decades and that the Applicant were responsible owners. Mr Thomas advised that the local surroundings had been improved by the Applicant. The Applicant was reported to have installed CCTVs and improved the lightings in the immediate areas. The Sub-Committee was informed that the Premises had a Security Team and a dispersal strategy. Mr Thomas advised that the immediate area was unpleasant prior to the numerous improvements that were made by the Applicant.

The Sub-Committee was informed that the Boulevard Theatre had received critical acclaim for its cabaret shows and was renowned for providing a platform for young artist and performers. The Premises has always operated as a Theatre and has adopted a pricing system which allows productions to be accessible to a wide range of audience. There are various performances staged at the Theatre which include comedy sets, live music and Musicals. These performances usually commence around 19:30hrs.

The Applicant had sought a SEV Premise Licence to enable forthcoming cabaret shows which involved prolonged nudity to be staged. The cabaret shows which involved prolonged nudity would be performed in an area which is not visible from the outside. It was stated that the cabaret performers will be in a designated area and will not roam around the Premises. Mr Nick Wilson, Applicant, advised that the performers of the ‘Black Cat Cabaret’ show were an established troupe and had performed in various establishments. The Troupe usually performs on Saturdays. Mr Wilson advised that Boulevard Theatre wished to produce a similar show and that the proposed production would include an element of nudity. He advised that an SEV Licence was sought in order to enable such performances and ensure that these productions were within the parameters of the Law.

The Sub-Committee were reminded that nudity in productions used to be exempt under various Statues for Theatres and that the Sexual Entertainment Venue Act 2010 had removed these exemptions. Mr Thomas advised that the Premises had been licensed for over two decades and that its licence was renewed annually during these periods.  He advised that The Boulevard, 6 Walkers Court London W1F 0BU was in fact the address of the Premises and that 7 – 12 Walkers Court London was the Area in which the existing SEV Licence covered. The Sub-Committee was advised that the Premises had two addresses.

Mr Thomas advised that the SEV Licence sought would replace the existing licence and that if granted the current Licence would be surrendered. Following questions from the Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee, Mr Thomas advised that the request to renew the current SEV Licence would stand if the Application was refused. The Legal Advisor r reminded the Sub-Committee that the Licensing Application for The Boulevard Theatre, 7-12 Walkers Court London W1F OBU was a different application altogether and would need to be determined separately. In response to questions from the Sub-Committee Mr Thomas advised that it was difficult to quantify what type of performance would be in breach of the licence and commented that it was those which were viewed as being ‘sexual stimulating’.

Following questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Wilson advised that the Box performance differed to other productions and attracted a different type of clientele. He advised that a ‘night club’ atmosphere was found in these events. The Sub-Committee were advised that the proposed shows would be similar to the ‘Magic Mike’ productions which were staged at the Hippodrome. The Cabaret shows will be ancillary to the Theatre productions.

Mr Thomas noted that the objectors had raised concerns over the Premises becoming a performance venue and commented that the establishment would operate under strict procedures and adhere to all Conditions. He highlighted that the Conditions suggested by the Metropolitan Police had been agreed and that the proposed entertainment would be restricted to the stage area. The Sub-Committee was advised that Walkers Court had a number SEV establishments nearby and in the local surrounding areas. These included vendors which sold sexual related merchandise. He stated that the character of the area had not altered and commented that the vicinity was nationally renowned for SEVs establishments. Mr Thomas advised that Walkers Court could not be characterised as having a ‘family setting’. There have been no objections made from representatives from places of worship which were located in the local surrounding areas.  

Mr Thomas advised that the Applicant had met with the Responsible Authorities. He informed that the current Licence allowed for lap dancing performances. The Sub-Committee was advised that the regulated area was on the first floor and could only be accessed through the main entrance. The internal area which leads to the stage are sheltered and cannot be viewed from outside the Premises. There are no leon signs outside the Premises or advertisements about the productions.  

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Wilson advised that the Premises had been in operation for over 4 decades. He advised that the proposed cabaret shows would be staged in the late evening and would be ancillary to main production shows. The cabaret shows are part of the Premises Business Plan and would ensure that the Theatre continues to remain viable.

Mr Ian Watson, Environmental Health Officer, confirmed that there were two entrances into the Boulevard Theatre and advised that the Premises previously had two sex cinemas and produced a private staged ‘strip tease’. He confirmed that a visit was undertaken to the Premises with the Licensing Service on 14 January 2020 to investigate any impact on the public. Mr Watson advised that the only area of concerns was a corridor and a window. He confirmed that the Applicant had agreed for this area to be covered and not be visible from the outside. The proposed cabaret shows would be restricted to the auditorium and stage. The Sub-Committee noted that a licence for the Premises to operate as Theatre was granted. Mr Watson advised that there was a discussion on whether a SEV Licence was required as the Play Licence covered a wide scope of entertainment. He advised that  he was satisfied with the Application  but  this was on the proviso that the proposed Conditions were accepted and that specific external windows were made opaque and designated corridors were covered.

Ms Karyn Abbott, Licensing Authority confirmed that the Premises was visited on 14 January 2020. Ms Abbott advised that the Premises operated predominantly as a Theatre and that the proposed cabaret shows would be ancillary to these productions. The Applicant had agreed to set Conditions. The Sub-Committee was advised that there had been amendments to some of the Conditions. She advised that the areas surrounding the Premises had undergone redevelopment and commented there were several sex establishments in the local vicinity.  There are also places of worship and a local school in the vicinity. The Application does not exceed the permitted numbers of SEVs in the local area. The Sub-Committee was advised that they needed to take into consideration Policy LO1 which required them to consider the characteristics of the area. The Premises currently had a Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 for various licensable activities and would need to take account of paragraph 2.5.1 of the policy if the Application was granted.

Richard Brown, Legal Representative for Objectors addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that his clients supported the Theatre and restaurant. He confirmed that the changing character of the locality was a concern and that the main contention was that the Premises may turn into a venue for lap dances and associated performances which are ‘overly sexualised’. Mr Brown advised that the Premises had been closed for a period between 6 to 7 years and acknowledged that the Venue had a long history with the sexual industry. He reminded the Sub-Committee that Westminster had a quota which limited the number of SEVs to 25 in one locality and stated that the Applicant’s surrendering the Licence would just amount to a ‘swap’ and could be viewed as a ‘dead letter’. Mr Brown advised that the Application should be considered on its own merit and alongside published policy objectives. 

Mr Brown advised that the Old Boulevard had a front entrance at Walkers Court and the Boulevard Theatre had a front at Peter Street. He advised that the character of Peter Street and the local vicinity had altered. Mr Brown commented that the wider locality needed to be considered and this should be done to a wide parameter. He commented that there were several residential properties in the area and that several developments had taken place which included a new hotel. Mr Brown acknowledged that there were several SEVs present in the locality and that there were concerns in granting new applications for these types of industries.

Mr Brown advised that it would be accepted if the proposed entertainment is limited by conditions. He advised that there were concerns that an ‘unfettered’ licence would be granted. Mr Brown advised that a Condition should be imposed which prohibited ‘strip tease’ and would be content with a licence which permits ‘bone fide’ performances which included nudity.

Mr Thomas advised the Sub-Committee that the Applicant would accept a Condition which prohibited ‘lap’ dancing, ‘poll’ dancing or similar entertainment. He commented that it was difficult to determine whether a performance could be viewed as ‘sexually stimulating’ as that was a matter of interpretation and highlighted that an ‘unfettered’ licence had not been sought. The Sub-Committee was advised that relevant entertainment would be part of a ‘bone fide’ performance. Mr Thomas commented that Soho was nationally associated with the Sex Industry. He advised that the new Licence would replace the existing licence and was not a direct swap as had been alluded to by Mr Brown.  Mr Thomas confirmed that the identified areas would be made opaque to ensure that they are not visible from outside.       

Having carefully listened to all parties and the evidence before it the Sub-Committee granted the Application. The Sub-Committee were persuaded by the Applicant that the character of the area which the Premises was located had not changed and met the Policy requirement.  The Sub-Committee noted that no representations had been received from the local Church or School. The Sub Committee also noted that the Application was within the limit of SEV establishment permitted in a locality. The Sub-Committee also noted that relevant entertainment would be restricted to the staged area of the Premises. In determining the Application, the Sub-Committee agreed to impose additional Conditions which required windows and corridors to be rendered opaque or obscured during ‘relevant entertainment’. The Sub-Committee noted that ‘relevant entertainment’ performances would be only be provided as part of a bona fide theatrical or staged performance, which included burlesque, cabaret and plays. There would be no ‘relevant entertainment’ which involved ‘lape dancing’ or similar entertainment.

The Committee agreed that the Application met the policy requirements and that the conditions imposed were appropriate and proportionate. The Committee also welcomed that the Premises would be staging new theatrical works and showcasing emerging artists.