Agenda item

The Licensing Team Leader reminded Members that under the constitution of the Council, the licensing committee acts as lead consultee to the Cabinet Member for Development and Safety.  A consultation on the revised sexual entertainment venue (SEV) policy has been launched, and Members are invited to feed in comments and put forward any recommendations to Cabinet.   The substantial changes are listed in the report.

A Member said he could not see any reference in the report, but when licensing committee is required to review SEV policies through scrutiny sessions and interested parties are invited to address the committee, he would like legal representation to be present.

In response to Members’ questions, the Licensing Team Leader confirmed that:

-          once the consultation is complete, the report will go to Cabinet and then to full Council for debate in the new year;

-          the ‘relevant locality’ will take in Bath Road from Vernon Place to Sandford Park entrance;

-          the shaded area on the map is where policy designates SEVs to be appropriate;

-          officers will look again at when and where fliers can be distributed, and make it clearer;

-          proposed Condition 20 relates to the requirement for SEV premises to maintain a refusals log;

-          under discretionary grounds, the authority can adopt a policy approach saying an 8.00pm start time is appropriate – to protect children and vulnerable people from harm from SEVs;

Members pointed out the following typographical errors:

-          Page 49, line 7 – ‘Town’ means Cheltenham and refers to it on in its entirety;

-          Page 44, line 11 – ‘The authority recognises however that the Central Shopping Area offers a more varied unique situation…?;

-          Page 44, para 12.3, where ‘council’ has been amended to ‘authority’, ‘recognise’ needs to be amended to ‘recognises’;

-          The last paragraph on Page 47 is numbered ‘19.  Specific Conditions’, and the first paragraph at the top of Page 48 is numbered ‘19.  Duration of Licence’;

-          No. 14 in the Purple Flag map is not listed underneath;

-          Page 39, under No. 2 Definitions, ‘The Authority means Cheltenham Borough Authority Council’

A Member suggested that, given that paragraphs 12.4(c) and (d) state that licences could be refused in sensitive areas, and The Two Pigs has been granted a licence on several occasions despite being close to the children’s library, these paragraphs may need different phraseology as CBC could be going against its own policy if it grants a further licence at this location. Leaving the wording as ‘sensitive areas’, rather than specifying churches, schools, mosques etc., would be better.

In further response to Members’ questions, the Licensing Team Leader stated that regarding distribution of flyers, which are currently distributed on free buses, this type of bus may not be allowed in future, potentially addressing concerns about flyer distribution, subject to conditions.

The Chairman raised the following points:

-          Page 50, para. 18, ‘no children/children and young adults’ would have higher impact than ‘person under the age of 18’, and Challenge 25 rather than Challenge 21 should be adopted;

-          Page 51, para. 30, needs to be updated to reflect modern availability of electronic communication identifiers, such as Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp;

-          Page 51, para.35, should also include reference to people who are victims of modern slavery/domestic abuse/human trafficking – the risks are similar to those highlighted by GRASAC, and access to information should be available to anyone at risk.  Some authorities also give advice on contraception etc., though it is wrong to assume that SEV performers are involved in other activities.  Members discussed the possibility of providing performers with leaflets, useful telephone numbers, details of organisations etc. – to be placed in the changing rooms, for example;

-          regarding the community impact assessment, it is worth noting that our policy applies equally to performers of all genders, though is not sure how to phrase this; there are always a lot of objections to venues with female performers, but negligible objections to venues with male performers.  The Licensing Team Leader confirmed that the impact assessment states that the council is non-discriminatory.

The Chairman concluded the discussion, saying that officers can take away factors about which Members are concerned, and think about how to re-write the report.  There were no further comments from Members.