Agenda item

The Licensing and Public Protection Manager introduced the report as published.

 

There were no Member questions.

 

The first objector addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       It was requested that the conditions are not watered down by the committee.

-       The council itself has said that it is aware of the problems that surround SEV’s.

-       Women are being objectified.

-       Working in a strip club is not like being a Dream Boy or a drag queen.

-       Lap dancing is not an easy way to make money in some cases performers will pay the operator or perform and 70% of women do not get any money at the end of the night. 

-       There was acknowledgement that the house mother at Eroticats has said it is the best organisation that she has worked for.

-       She would like to see the council enforce the limits to include no leafletting or advertising.

 

The responses to Member questions to the objector were as follows:

-       Neither of the two options that are available are not good options but would prefer that SEV’s are regulated.

-       The leaflets that are being handed out do have the name of the club on them and Eroticats can gain the contact details of the customers.

-       The objector acknowledged the effort that the Council has made to get the law changed and really appreciated that Cheltenham is getting “a raw deal”.

 

 

The next objector addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       There is a national emergency for the treatment of women and girls.

-       There was concern raised that there were breaches in March 2024.

-       If the licence is granted the objector would ask that the performers do not work in booths and that touching is not permitted.

 

The responses to Member questions were as follows:

-       Consideration needs to be given with regard to the safety of women and girls.

-       There was acknowledgement that the Council are in a difficult position with regard to the exemption, the objector would like the standard conditions applied.

-       The objector also confirmed that it was heartening to hear the efforts the committee is going to.

 

The final objector was not able to be present at the meeting and her speech was read out by a Democratic Services Officer and the following points were made:

-       Outside of race meets there appears to be no demand for strip clubs in Cheltenham, there are no permanent strip clubs operating in the town.

-       The proposed venue is outside of the Councils designated permitted zone.

-       Conditions 18 and 25 state that there should be no touching between performers and performers and customers, however during March race week in 2024 multiple breaches of these conditions were observed at the premises.

-       It was acknowledged that the premises tries its best with their security measures etc, however this did not prevent breaches occurring.

-       It is possible for the Council to deviate from the SEV policy but a good reason is required for the deviation.

-       Watering down the rules governing no touching undermines the purpose of the Councils own SEV policy.

-       The objector requested that the variations are not permitted and that the committee stops allowing performances in booths given the multiple breaches of March 2024.

 

There were no Member questions as the objector was not present at the meeting.

 

The first supporter then addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       The management of the premises work closely with the police and the licensing team.

-       Works closely with the BID.

-       He has worked in venues that are operating under the exemption, which is why he prefers to apply for a licence.

 

The responses to Member questions were as follows:

-       None of the performers ever leave the club owing money.

-       The rear of the club is protected by fencing.

 

The next supporter addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       Has worked with the operator since the beginning as a performer and now as a house mother.

-       Her job includes making sure that the performers get either the mini bus or get to taxis to get home.

-       Strip clubs do not make women feel unsafe it is the influx of men into the town during race week that does that

-       Performers and clients return year after year.

-       She explained that she has worked in unregulated places before and the set up at a licensed regulated premises is much better.

-        If you remove licensed premises pop ups will still exist.

-       With regard to communal booths they are not what the performers want.

 

Her responses to Member questions were as follows:

-       House mothers are usual at all SEV establishments.

-       She would prefer it if the SEV was in one place rather than move around.

 

The Democratic Services Officer then read a representation from a performer who made the following points:

-       She had worked for Eroticats for approximately 10 years, mainly because of the safety and respect she feels working for them as a company.

-       She stated that her first experience of working at Cheltenham was in an unlicensed SEV and that nearly put her off returning, however found Eroticats as they had such a good reputation amongst other performers.

-       If you work at premises that are operating under the exemption you are not as familiar with the layout and if there is an incident/fire it is not easy to find security or the fire exits.

-       Eroticats is a well-run company and can find no fault in how they run things.

-       The performers are always inducted properly, always know where to go to the fire escapes and where to go for help if they need it.

-       Cheltenham is an event that a lot of performers rely on to increase their income.

-       Without it being so well run and licensed the performers wouldn’t feel as safe to return.

-       She felt that people outside the industry don’t see how safe the performers are.

There were no Member questions as the supporter was not present.

 

 

The applicant then had the opportunity to address the committee and made the following points:

-       The application is being made by a responsible operator who is a member of nightsafe and has historically worked with GRASAC and is currently working with Cheltenham Against Violence Against Young Women and Girls.

-       The application is for a premises which is only just outside the designated area in the heart of the commercial district.

-       The have been no representations from the police, this is in part due to the applicant’s open approach. The operator was told that there was no need for a debrief with them after the November 2024 event.

-       The applicant addressed some of the concerns that had been raised in the representations: they stated that there is no evidence that the SEV is effecting violence against women and girls.

-       The breaches that were referred to the police were dealt with by the police and the operators having a conversation, this cannot be done if a venue operates under the exemption. 

-       The advertising that is handed out promotes the bus and not the SEV.  The phone number is just to call the bus and is not the number for the club.

-       SEV’s are a lawful activity and there is always a balance to be had.  There is nothing secret in the way that the applicant operates.

-       There is strict legislation for SEV’s and it has to be renewed every year, if there are problems their licence will not be renewed.

-       The operator is passionate about the night time economy and the representations confirm that he is aware of all the legislation.

 

There were no Member questions.

 

The matter then went to debate where the following points were made:

-       Parliament has made it lawful to have SEV’s .

-       The police did send a letter to the operator with regard to touching and this matter has been dealt with.

-       Although the premises is slightly outside the designated area it is clearly within the area of the night time economy and has previously been granted a licence by the committee.

-       Appreciative of the fact that the applicant is a Night Safe representative.

-       Has been on the committee for six years and there has not been a problem with the applicant and no complaints have been received.

-       Safety is the absolute priority and a licence will ensure the safety of the performers.

-       Eroticats obviously run a tight ship as the performers and house mother have told us.

-       Although the premises is not within the designated area there are no other sensitive properties nearby.

-       There is no access to the back of the property when the premises is open and the school at the rear of the property would be closed.

-       The bus is a legitimate form of transport, it is used to transport the performers when they finish work.

-       Door staff are responsible for 30 metres around the building.

-       Information on modern slavery is supplied at the venue as a condition has been put on by the committee.

-       Refusing means that places will operate under the exemption and that will be less safe.

-       There is access via Montpellier Street if a wheelchair user wishes to gain access to the club.

-       There is a Challenge 25 policy at both the premises and for the people that are handing out leaflets.

-       What can be easily found on the internet is worse than what can be seen at an SEV,

-       Sexual abuse was mentioned by an objector but there is no evidence to illustrate that.

-       Going forward the licensing team will be looking at defamatory comments that are made by the objectors.

-       The committee has attempted to get the law changed and this is not something that parliament seem to have an appetite for.

-       There was thanks to the applicant for putting together the equality impact assessment as it was a good document.

 

The applicant was given the final right to reply when it was stated that there was no further comment to make, the applicant is well known to the committee and the police due to his transparent approach

 

 

The matter then went to the vote on 7.8a – to grant

For : 4  Unanimous.