Agenda and draft minutes

There were none.

There were none declared.

There were none.

The Licensing Team Leader introduced the report as published.

The responses to Members questions were as follows:

-       There have been no reports of any incidents at the property, the police have not objected to the renewal application and there have been no other crime and disorder issues.

-       The Licensing Team Leader stated that he was not aware of any  mandatory grounds for refusal.

-       Discretionary grounds are discretionary, they are a may not a must and the committee have to balance that out. 

-       The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) must be given due regard and the committee must show that they have considered these matters,

The solicitor on behalf of the applicant was then given the opportunity to ask a question of the Licensing Team Leader, she had no questions but stated that in terms of the renewal they had updated the drawing on the layout.  There are no structural changes being applied for.

The objectors were then given the opportunity to address the committee.

The first objector could not attend the meeting so her representation was read by a democratic services officer.  She was objector number 5 and made the following points:

-       In the SEV policy that Cheltenham Borough Council adopted in 2020 it states that there should be no SEV’s outside of the permitted zone, this application is outside the zone, therefore there are grounds to refuse the application.

-       A licence has already been granted to a premises within the permitted zone – therefore there is no rationale for granting this licence.

-       From the plans it is not possible to establish if the customers are far enough away from the performers to allow no touching.  There needs to be assurances that this is not possible.

-       It would be good to know how many booths are included in the area.

-       The temporary structure looks like performers and customers will both be in close proximity to each other, the committee needs to satisfy itself that this is not the case.

Objector number 8 then addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       Lap dancing is harmful , can cause emotional, physical and financial harm.

-       The authority is aware that females feel disadvantaged by the licence of SEV’s.

-       People feel unwelcome near SEV’s,  it is inappropriate for children, old and young people to feel unsafe.

-       The objector believed that SEV’s should be treated as a public protection issue like smoking.

-       Controls that are in place are not enough to mitigate harm.

-       Surely an unmarked car would be better than the branded mini bus that travels around the town and surely the performers are in very close proximity to the customers in the bus.

-       The applicant will claim that the leaflet distributors are trained, however if you google the telephone number then you will immediately find Eroticats.  If leaflets get into the wrong hands this is an issue. 

A Member explained to the objector that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

That in accordance with Section 100A(4) Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the remaining agenda items as it is likely that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, if members of the public are present there will be disclosed to them exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 and 2, Part (1) Schedule (12A) Local Government Act 1972, namely:

Paragraph 1; Information relating to any individual

Paragraph 2; Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual

The committee voted unanimously on the following:

That in accordance with Section 100A(4) Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the remaining agenda items as it is likely that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, if members of the public are present there will be disclosed to them exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 and 2, Part (1) Schedule (12A) Local Government Act 1972, namely:

Paragraph 1; Information relating to any individual

Paragraph 2; Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual

The Licensing Team Leader introduced the report as published.

After the applicant addressed the committee and the matter went to Member questions and debate.

The Members then the following decision:

-       That the committee are satisfied that the applicant is fit and proper to hold a licence and that it was just an error on his part.

-       The applicant was not advised correctly, he was new to the country and was unlucky with the insurance product that he chose.

-       He was not dishonest he bought the insurance thinking that it was the correct product, he did not knowingly purchase the wrong product and Go Peri did not tell him that the insurance he had was incorrect.

-       The applicant made a genuine mistake and the committee do not believe that he was a safety risk to the public subject to all other tests being passed.

-       The applicant had gone above and beyond and had bought extra documents to the committee which had been very helpful.

-       Members decided that the applicant would be asked to sit with licensing officers to check his insurance before he starts driving.

-       The applicant is to bring his documents to the Council in 6 months time for checking to ensure that he has the correct documentation and that the payments are being made.

The matter went to the vote on the decision above to grant:

For: 5 – unanimous.

There were none.

There were none and the meeting ended at