The Licensing Sub-Committee of Tower Hamlets Council met on Tuesday 26 July 2022 to consider two applications for premises licences. The first application, for The Hungry Tummy at 24A Wentworth Street, London E1 7QF, was for a new premises licence. The second application was for a variation of the premises licence for Studio Spaces Limited (E1) at 110 Pennington Street, London E1W 2BB, to remove a condition prohibiting nudity or semi-nudity.

The Hungry Tummy Premises Licence Application

The committee considered an application for a new premises licence for The Hungry Tummy, a small canteen/cafe at 24A Wentworth Street, London E1 7QF. The applicant, represented by Liliana Martins, sought permission to sell alcohol and provide regulated entertainment. Representations were received from the Licensing Authority, Environmental Protection, and residents.

The applicant stated that The Hungry Tummy is a small cafe specialising in Hungarian food and drinks, not a pub, and that the alcohol offered would be special Hungarian products, intended to be consumed with food. They proposed to limit alcohol sales to between 10 am and 9 pm or 8 pm, aligning with their current opening hours of 10 am to 8 pm, Monday to Saturday. Measures to prevent crime and disorder and protect public safety were outlined, including not serving intoxicated individuals, displaying rules, notifying authorities of disturbances, and operating CCTV. To prevent public nuisance, the applicant stated that quiet background music would be played indoors, with no outdoor speakers, and that the premises' small size (maximum 10 people indoors, 4 outdoors) would limit noise. They also committed to keeping the area clean and installing an outdoor bin. To protect children from harm, they planned to operate an active CCTV system and display a Challenge 25 sign, with no alcohol served to those under 16.

Representations from the Licensing Authority, through Lavine Miller-Johnson, raised concerns about the premises being within the Community Impact Zone (CIZ) and the lack of provisions for ensuring no vertical drinking. Environmental Protection, represented by Gail Sherlock, also cited the CIZ location and insufficient information in the operating schedule regarding the prevention of public nuisance, particularly from increased footfall and patrons smoking outside. Environmental Protection recommended conditions including no loudspeakers in the entrance lobby or outside the building, and limiting patrons leaving to smoke to five at any one time.

During the discussion, councillors sought clarification on the music volume, management of external congregating, and past operations. The applicant clarified that the music would be very low-level, intended to mask kitchen noises, and that they would manage capacity strictly. Regarding past operations, it was clarified that late-night refreshment licensing is only required after 11 pm, and The Hungry Tummy closes at 8 pm, so no breach of that specific licensing requirement had occurred. The applicant also explained that the small outdoor seating area was for accommodating a few more people, particularly for enjoying coffee in good weather, and for allowing small groups to converse more easily.

Following deliberation, the subcommittee would make a decision and communicate it within five working days.

Studio Spaces Limited (E1) Premises Licence Variation Application

The committee then considered an application to vary the premises licence for Studio Spaces Limited (E1), located at 110 Pennington Street, London E1W 2BB. The application sought to remove the condition: No nudity or semi-nudity permitted. The application had attracted significant interest, with representations from the Licensing Authority and 203 supporters.

The Licensing Officer, Mohshin Ali, explained that the application was for the removal of this specific condition. He noted that the existing licence details and maps of the vicinity were provided in the report.

The applicant's representative, Leo Sharalambides, argued that the condition was vague, unenforceable, and discriminatory. He highlighted that Tower Hamlets has a history of hosting and promoting kink events and similar adult entertainment, citing venues like Backstreet and Crossbreed. He stated that Torture Gardens, a promoter using E1, has operated for over 30 years with police awareness and risk assessments. Mr. Sharalambides contended that the current licensing policy, which focuses on lap dancing, does not adequately address other forms of adult entertainment involving consenting adults. He presented an equality impact assessment and argued that removing the condition would uphold the Mayor of Tower Hamlets' pledges on diversity and inclusion. He also noted that the police had not made any representations against the application, indicating no concerns about crime and disorder or public safety.

Representing the Licensing Authority, Gary Grant, invited the subcommittee to delete the reference to semi-nudity due to its vagueness but proposed modifying the nudity condition to be more precise, aligning with definitions in sexual entertainment venue licensing legislation. The proposed condition would define nudity for women as the exposure of nipples, pubic area, genitals, or anus, and for men as the exposure of pubic area, genitals, or anus, including those who self-identify as a man or woman. Mr. Grant stated that the Licensing Authority's concern was that the premises had not been properly regulated and had knowingly breached the existing condition. He presented photographic evidence of nudity and sexual behaviour at events held at the premises, arguing that allowing the removal of the condition would undermine deterrence and potentially encourage other licence holders to breach their licences. He also raised concerns about the applicant not applying for a Sexual Entertainment Venue (SEV) licence, which would impose stricter conditions.

Several supporters of the application spoke, including individuals who identified as queer refugees, social workers, nurses, and residents of Tower Hamlets. They emphasised the importance of venues like E1 for providing safe spaces for self-expression, community building, and celebrating diversity, particularly for LGBTQI+ individuals. They argued that policing what people wear or how they express themselves in private, consensual environments was discriminatory and contrary to the borough's values.

During the question and answer session, the applicant, Yuval Hen, stated that he had never intentionally breached the condition and believed it was intended to prevent strip clubs, not consensual adult activities. He explained that events were risk-assessed, and the police were informed. He also stated that they had not applied for an SEV licence because they believed it was not necessary given the borough's historical tolerance of such events and the lack of specific guidance in the licensing policy. The Licensing Authority maintained that a breach had occurred, citing photographic evidence.

The subcommittee was asked to consider the impact of removing or modifying the condition on the licensing objectives, particularly crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance, and protection of children from harm. The subcommittee would deliberate in private and issue a decision within five working days.