Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member Development and Safety

The Mayor referred members to the process for dealing with petitions at Council which had been circulated with the agenda.  Before he invited the petition organiser to address Council, the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer offered clarification as to the decision making process in relation to this issue.  She advised that Cabinet would consider a recommendation in September and make onward recommendations to Council in October.

As petition organiser, Captain Steve Smith, presented the petition;

“We the undersigned, petition the Council to;

• Issue no further Sexual Entertainment Licenses (SEVs) in Cheltenham
• Note our objection to the granting of a license to operate a permanent lap dancing club in the former Voodoo Lounge on the Bath Road
• Note that we want our town to be free of sexual entertainment venues, such as lap and pole dancing clubs and therefore set a NIL Policy for SEVs in the future.”

A copy of his statement was circulated to members and is attached at Appendix 1.

In his statement, he reminded members that there had been an unprecedented number of objections to granting the licence referred to in the petition. The Licensing Committee appeared to have granted the licence based on their understanding that there was no evidence to support the concerns of the objectors. These centred on the risk that sexually charged males coming out of the lap dancing club would be more likely to commit sexual assaults in the vicinity. The committee had been specifically advised at the meeting that there was no such evidence. In his view this was untrue and a lot of scientific research had been done, mainly in London, which clearly showed that such incidents would increase. On that basis he urged members to support the petition.

In response to a query from a member of the Licensing Committee, the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer confirmed that members of the committee were permitted and entitled to participate in the debate as they were entitled to represent their views in all parts of the democratic process. 

Louis Krog, Business and Support Team Leader, gave the following answers to questions from members relating to the covering report;

• It was the activity itself that was licensable under the policy and as such the policy was gender neutral.
• Should a zero tolerance policy be adopted, there will be a presumption against the grant of the renewal, at the point at which any existing licences were up for renewal.  It was important that members understood that the Licensing Committee had powers of discretion to deviate from any such policy and/or advice. 
• Despite having an application granted in February 2014, the sexual entertainment venue on Bath Road, now known as Fantasy, had only been open for a few weeks.  Having spoken to the Police Licensing Officer, he had reported that there had only been one incident during this time which related to crime and disorder.
• A statutory exemption exists whereby any premises can offer sexual entertainment provided it lasts no longer than 24 consecutive hours and is not more frequent than one 24 hour period per month for 11 months a year.  In order to take advantage of the statutory exemption, premises requires a Temporary Events Notice, to cover the entertainment aspects.  Any zero limit policy would have no bearing on this. 

The Cabinet Member Development and Safety thanked the petition organisers for raising an issue that he was aware, posed concerns to residents across the town.  He believed that the recommendation that the matter be referred to Cabinet and form part of their consideration of the matter in September was the only appropriate course of action which could be taken at this stage.  He did not consider it to be sensible for the council to take a policy decision at this time, without giving due consideration to the views of a range of people including the Licensing Committee, Police, residents that did not sign the petition, etc.  He was confident that consideration of all these views would enable Council to make the right decision in October. 

Members who did not support the call for a zero limit did so because they felt that, unlike TEN’s, licensing of such venues, afforded the council with a certain amount of control.  Some of these members included members of the Licensing Committee which had granted the application to licence a sexual entertainment venue in December 2013.  They confirmed that in licensing this venue they had been able to delay opening from 8pm to 10pm and stipulate ‘no advertising’.  There was a suggestion from a member that a proportionate response to any risk could be to set a zero limit within certain/residential areas.   

One Member voiced his concern that a zero limit would contravene the Licensing objectives which state that an application cannot be refused on moral grounds. 

Members who supported the petition did so, on grounds of safety.   They felt that there was research and evidence available that indicated that such venues posed a credible risk to the safety of women and that this was sufficient justification for a zero limit policy.  They argued that a zero limit would offer ultimate control of the issue. 

Another member thought that the issue was not about one particular club but the attitude of mind to sexual exploitation of those working at the club as well as the  increased risks to females in the vicinity. It could also lead to a higher incidence of access to online pornography. The safest thing members could do to protect both men, women and children in Cheltenham was to have a zero limit. Without this there was a risk that Cheltenham could become a hub and draw people into the town with the sole purpose of visiting such establishments.  They urged the Cabinet member to gather all the research evidence before making a decision.

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the matter be referred to Cabinet for further consideration.