Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr Boyes and Cllr Steinhardt attended as a substitute. 

Cllr Sankey declared a personal interest as she knew one of the speakers.

Copy of the letter that the Chair of the committee has sent to the Secretary of State.  As yet no response has been received.

The Chair addressed the committee with regard to the letter that he sent to the Secretary of State (that has been published as part of the agenda) on behalf of the committee.  He confirmed that as at the time of the meeting he has received no response.

The Head of Public Protection introduced the report as published.

There were no questions either from the Members or the representatives who were speaking on the application, both in favour or objectors speaking against.

One of the objectors addressed the committee stating that she had an exchange with the licensing team the day before the committee and had raised concerns about the late delivery of the disclosure from the applicant.  She stated that it was unfair that the evidence was only put in at the last minute.  She requested that the hearing adjourned so that the objectors can respond appropriately.

The Head of Public Protection confirmed that the applicant had complied with the requirements of submitting the information within 2 days of the hearing.  In the interest of fairness the applicant was asked to respond, although it was deemed to be perverse to defer when the applicant complied with the Councils requirements.

The barrister on behalf of the applicant stated that this is an administrative hearing where you have an application and they have responded to the objections within the time frame and as the applicant that they get the last word.  The article 6 rights are covered and it seems a dreadful waste of peoples time and money to adjourn.  The Members of the committee were then asked if they had read the information.

The Chair confirmed that he had read the papers and didn’t find it excessively long and was not minded to adjourn.  The other Members on the committee confirmed that they had all read the papers – ranging from retired Members and Member who works full time.  The matter went to the vote and the Members voted unanimously to proceed.

There were 6 speakers in objection and 1 speaker in support.  Members asked questions after each speaker.  Speakers were reminded to be courteous with their language.

The first speaker was objector 35, they made the following points:

-       With reference to touching - the licences issued in Cheltenham contain conditions 18-25 prohibiting touching between performers and between performers and customers.  These are good conditions and essential for the regulation of SEV’s and protects the performers and customers.

-       Despite the above conditions during March race week there was touching observed by police and council officials at Under the Prom and a written warning was issued to the licence holder.   Touching was also observed at Moo Moo who operate under the exemption.

-       With regard to condition 25 a variation has been requested appearing to ask that sexual or simulated sexual activity between performers outside of the performance area be permitted.  Given the breaches that occurred in March any variation of this condition does not seem justifiable.

-       Currently the licence stipulates that signage has to be erected and moved within 20 minutes of opening and closing, they are now asking for a 60 minute window which seems too long.  The objector felt that there were no exceptional circumstances that justified that amount of time.

-       With  ...  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

This vote was not taken to enter exempt session as the matters that were due to be heard at the committee were deferred at the request of the legal representatives to the next committee in December.

This item was deferred to the Full Committee in December.

This item was deferred to the Full Committee in December.

There were none.