Councillors to Consider Belly Dancing Venue's Licence Application

The Angels Club faces objections from police, council officers and residents

The premises is in a narrow alleyway leading to Maitland Yard and Leeland Terrace

June 9, 2026

The future of a proposed belly dancing club in West Ealing will again be decided by councillors this week, as a fresh licensing bid for The Angels Club returns to committee amid extensive objections from police, council officers and local residents.

The application, submitted by Bianca Ailincai, seeks permission for alcohol sales, recorded music, dance performances and late-night refreshment until 4am at the basement of 25 Broadway. It is the third attempt to secure a licence for the venue, following refusals in May and August 2024.

The premises sits beneath Merkur Slots and is accessed via a narrow alleyway leading to Maitland Yard and Leeland Terrace.
The Angels Club is described as a private members’ bar offering Bollywood and belly-dancing entertainment for up to 35–40 people. However, the Metropolitan Police, Regulatory Services, Environmental Health and the council’s Enforcement and Compliance team have all submitted formal objections, arguing that the proposed operation poses risks to public safety, crime and disorder, and public nuisance. Thirteen residents have also lodged objections.

Police officers who visited the premises in April 2024 and again in April 2026 raised serious safeguarding concerns about the welfare of female dancers, the suitability of the venue’s layout and the lack of functioning CCTV. Officers reported that the basement has no natural light, limited visibility and blind spots where supervision would be difficult. They also noted that dancers would have no private changing area, instead waiting opposite a single toilet used by patrons, leaving them exposed to unwanted contact.

In their written representation, police said they had “no confidence” in the applicant’s ability to protect performers, citing inconsistent explanations about how dancers would be recruited, paid and supervised. They also highlighted the secluded location and late operating hours as factors that could make the venue vulnerable to exploitation or criminal activity. “The Metropolitan Police see no evidence that the premises can ensure to our satisfaction the safety of the dancers,” the submission states, adding that the proposals may not align with the borough’s stance on tackling male violence against women and girls.

Council licensing officers echoed these concerns, pointing to the lack of clarity around membership controls, capacity management, smoking arrangements and safeguarding measures. They noted that the premises lies within Ealing’s Special Policy Area, where there is a presumption against granting new licences due to cumulative impact from crime, anti-social behaviour and late-night disturbance. Officers said the application failed to demonstrate how it would avoid adding to existing problems in an area already affected by street drinking, noise and disorder.

Environmental Health officers also objected, citing previous observations of intoxicated customers, late-night gatherings and anti-social behaviour linked to the premises during earlier enforcement visits. In one incident recorded in April 2024, officers witnessed a woman appearing to perform a sexual act on a man in the alleyway behind the venue, followed by vomiting and requests for money. Other visits documented groups of drunk patrons arriving by car in the early hours, loitering outside the entrance and causing noise disturbance.

Residents who submitted objections described the proposed 4am closing time as “excessive” and “wholly unsuitable” for a densely populated residential area. Several raised fears about increased noise, litter, street drinking and safety risks for families using the Broadway. Others questioned the repeated applications, suggesting that unresolved concerns from previous hearings had not been addressed.

The licensing sub-committee will consider the application this Wednesday (10 June), weighing the operating schedule against the council’s licensing policy and the 17 representations received. Councillors may grant the licence, grant it with additional conditions, remove certain activities, refuse the proposed designated premises supervisor or reject the application entirely.