Agenda item

12-14 Bath Road

The Licensing Team Leader introduced the report regarding an application made by Mr Lloyd Christopher Winstanley-Cox on 7 April 2017 for a Sexual Entertainment Venue (SEV) licence for the premises located at 12-14 Bath Road, Cheltenham, currently known as Fantasy. 

A copy of the application form was attached as Appendix A to the report, the premises layout was shown at Appendix B, the location map at Appendix C and a map of Cheltenham’s central shopping area at Appendix D, defining the area deemed appropriate for SEVs under the Council’s policy.

The Officer reported that there had been no objections from the Gloucestershire Constabulary, but five representations had been received from members of the public primarily concerning the character of the relevant locality, the fact that the premises fell outside the area deemed appropriate for a SEV and issues around gender equality.  The full summary was set out in the background papers.  The Officer advised members to consider the mandatory and discretionary grounds for refusal, to note the government guidance that moral objections to sexual entertainment were not relevant and to note the council’s Public Sector Equality Duty.

In reply to a question from a member, the Officer confirmed that the Council’s Policy was not gender specific and thus could allow male or female performers and customers.   One member commented that the committee needed to consider whether the location of the premises would cause any harm to the area, in that the premises fell on the other side of the road to that in which a SEV could be granted. 

Councillor Garth Barnes, a member of the Licensing Committee but also ward member for the area in which the premises was located, spoke as an objector, and subsequently withdrew from the debate.  Cllr Barnes stated that this was the 3^rd or 4^th application of this kind for this premises and that none of them had stayed in business very long.  He expressed concern following the site visit of evidence around the building of what had gone on in the past and the state of the building both inside and out.  He was concerned about no visible fire escape and the flat roof with no safety barrier where people could smoke and was in view of residential properties.   He objected on grounds of locality it being near residential areas and questioned why the licence was needed 365 days a year with opening times of 9pm to 4am when it was mainly targeted at race week.  Cllr Barnes recognised it was a legal activity and stated he was not arguing on moral grounds, but suggested there was no public interest in this club, that it was in the wrong place, that he was not convinced the applicant would substantially improve things and ultimately it was against council policy.

The Chair invited Tess Beck and Leslie Painter, two objectors, to address the committee.  Their objections were mainly based on location, being in a residential area, the negative impact a SEV would have being near to a wine bar and other local businesses  and in an area defined as having zero SEVs and on gender equality, stating that although the activities were gender neutral, it was usually always women performing and men watching.  It was pointed out the Fire Officer and Environmental Health Officer had had concerns about these premises last time and that the building had not been looked after.  The objectors recognised that Cheltenham had been awarded the Purple Flag for its diverse and attractive offer within the night time economy, but they felt a SEV was not appropriate in this location, that consideration should be given to females living and working in Cheltenham and questioned why some areas of the town should be off limits for girls.  Leslie Painter confirmed that she had not opposed the SEV licence at the Two Pigs as the premises was in the centre of town and not in a residential area.

The Chair invited Mr Winstanley-Cox to speak in support of his application.  He thanked members for making the site visit and agreed that the venue needed a large amount of work, but felt there was an inherent opinion based on the previous owners.   He pointed out that he had only been aware of one objector speaking and was unaware one was a councillor.  However he wanted to be transparent and wanted the committee to learn a bit about his background. He stated he was 36 years old and had been in the licensing trade for 18 years and was currently the premises licence holder of two pubs in Worcester which he owned and had turned around in the last three years.  He had no criminal convictions and had been a Support Manager for a centre for offenders, which assisted with women victims of abuse. He had also worked with charities and was a co-owner of a security company which had supplied security to a venue in race week in 2016 and 2017.  Primarily he was a businessman who could see potential for this form of entertainment and he welcomed the challenge to improve this premises and alleviate previous perceptions of it.  He had noted the objections to the venue, location and previous owners, but stated he wanted to make it more up-market, a gentleman’s club with an offer to a certain section of the community.  He pointed out to members that the premises was merely 12 metres outside of the zone permitted for SEVs and that he would ensure that there would be nothing on the outside of the premises indicating the nature of the entertainment.  He understood people’s concern on the morality issue and that Cheltenham prided itself on its Purple Flag award and stated he wanted to enhance this by providing a safe environment for customers and public.

In reply to questions from members about his business plan and opening times, Mr Winstanley-Cox stated that with business rates of £26,000 he would have to open the club as soon as possible and could implement a turnaround of the premises within 3 weeks to get it in a state fit for opening.  He said he wanted the flexibility of a 7 day licence, although in reality the club may only open 4 days a week on a regular basis and that he wanted earlier opening times for race days.  His opening times had been based around the Two Pigs SEV licence that had been approved.   He confirmed that the lease would be for 10 years during which time he wished to build up the business, unlike previous business models and owners who had closed down the club for reasons other than business.  He suggested that around 20-25 customers per night would be sufficient to break even over a one year period.    The Officer confirmed that the application requested opening times from 6pm on race days.

There being no further questions to the applicant, Mr Winstanley-Cox summed up by reiterating he was aware of the concerns, but asked members to see it as a business matter not a moral one and stressed that if the premises was on the other side of the street then the location would be acceptable and that there was no further cause for concern with the location being where it was. 

During the ensuing debate, some members felt the business case was not sufficiently robust to succeed, however the Licensing Officer pointed out that the viability of a business was not a consideration for the committee to take into account.  Other members felt that a lap dancing venue in this location was no more intimidating to women than the presence of the neighbouring Bierkellar and pub and that the opening times of the club from 9pm to 4am would have little or no impact on other businesses in the area.  There having been no objections from the Police, members felt it was in the best interests of public safety to have licenced SEVs where conditions and policies could be regulated, rather than sexual entertainment taking place randomly 11 times a year.  The view was expressed that there was no additional harm to the area being that the line drawn in the policy permitting SEVs fell on the other side of the road and thus it could be viewed as irrational to refuse on this point. As the council policy on equality allowed for either gender of performers or audience, some members felt due consideration had been given to the Public Sector Equality duty of care and also felt that although each application was taken on its own merit that as this premises had been granted a licence previously, that it would not be entirely rational to refuse and it was difficult to find reasonable grounds for refusal.  If granted, members requested that the following conditions be added to the licence:-

·         There be no external indication as to the type of premises and all advertising and signage be regulated and approved by the council

·         Works relating to the state of the interior of the building be approved by the Environmental Health Officer.

·         There be no smoking on the roof of the premises

·         Amend standard condition 21 to include the wording of no exchange of information by email or social media

The applicant stated that he would be happy to accept these conditions.

There being no further debate, the chair moved to vote on the approval of the application, with the addition of the above mentioned conditions and including the additional hours for race days.

Upon a vote, it was 4 for, 2 against.

RESOLVED THAT, an application by Mr Lloyd Christopher Winstanley-Cox for a Sexual Entertainment Venue Licence at the premises located at 12-14 Bath Road, Cheltenham, be approved subject to the additional conditions as outlined below:

·         The licence is granted subject to the approval and sign off by the Senior Environmental Health Officer of Cheltenham Borough Council in relation to the satisfactory completion of the works required at the premises.

·         There will be no smoking on the roof of the premises.

·         An amendment to standard condition no. 21 to read “Performers must not solicit, divulge or exchange with customers any personal contact information including but not limited to: addresses, phone numbers, email address or social media profile information. Performers must not liaise with customers off the premises or incite customers to purchase alcoholic drinks”.

·         All signage used at the premises and on its liveried vehicles must be approved by Cheltenham Borough Council licensing officers.