Agenda item

The Senior Licensing Officer, Andy Fox Officer introduced the report which summarised the results of the public consultation on whether Cheltenham Borough Council should limit the number of Sexual Entertainment Venues (“SEV”) it will license in the borough. Under the Council’s constitutional arrangements, the Licensing Committee acted as consultee to Cabinet/Lead Member on recommendations/responses for the adoption and review of the licensing policy.   The Committee therefore needed to consider the relevant facts and put forward a view for consideration by Cabinet.

The officer circulated a paper of the results of SEV consultations with other Council’s, as well as the Chair’s proposed framework for forming a resolution and Members were given time to read these.

He reminded Members that premises could provide relevant entertainment on an infrequent basis via a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) without the need for a SEV licence, this being for no longer than 24 hours on no more than 11 occasions a year, but that this report was concerned with the regulation of frequent sexual entertainment.

The Solicitor advised Members that the Council were not legally required to adopt such a policy but that it would be considered good practice to do so.  She added that the current policy, adopted on 4 February 2011, did not set a limit on the number of SEVs, but dealt with each application on a case by case basis.  However following the recent grant of a SEV licence that attracted significant local opposition, the Council had considered it appropriate to undertake consultation on whether to limit the number of licensed SEVs in the borough. She advised that the Council was empowered to set a limit on the number of licensed SEVs permitted in the relevant locality, with zero being an option, but that the relevant locality must be defined.  The whole of Cheltenham Borough cannot be defined as the relevant locality ruling out a total zero limit.

Appendix A gave a summary breakdown of the 174 responses received from the public consultation on the views of the town’s residents.

Members were also reminded that a petition had been submitted to the Council meeting on 21 July calling for it to adopt a zero limit and that it was resolved to refer the matter to Cabinet for consideration.  Members were also referred to point 4.8 in the report from the Gloucestershire Constabulary who said there were no statistics suggesting that SEVs were responsible for or increased the likelihood of sexual offences.

The Chair reminded Members that the sexual entertainment policy varied from the alcohol licensing policy in that there is no “presumption of grant”. Whilst acknowledging that all members have various moral views, they should consider the best interests of the borough as a whole; also a borough wide zero limit would not be in the spirit of the act.  He reminded that the committee were not acting today as regulatory body but as an advisory body to Cabinet.

Councillor McKinlay attended the meeting as Cabinet Member for Development and Safety in order to take the views of this committee to the next Cabinet meeting on 16 September.   Cllr McKinlay gave his views saying that a blanket ban was not a possibility but that he would recommend restricting potential SEVs to the town centre and not a particular ward.  He considered the core commercial area to represent the town centre and would favour no SEVs in residential areas, with each application in the town centre area being taken to Licensing Committee and assessed on its individual merit.

The Chair asked Members if they had all seen the maps that had been circulated defining the core commercial and town centre cleansing areas of the town and the ward boundaries.  He pointed out that the cleansing area of the town equated to the area of the night time economy and that the town centre would also need to be defined. The chair introduced his suggested framework for forming a resolution which had been circulated at the start of the meeting and suggested the following options:

1.    No change.  Applications for SEVs within the town should continue to be assessed on their individual merits without numerical or geographical limit.

2.    A limit of (say) zero applies to the number of SEVs outside the town centre, however applications for SEVs within the town centre should continue to be assessed on their individual merits without numerical limit.

3.    A limit of (say) zero applies to the number of SEVs outside the town centre, however applications for SEVs inside the town centre should be regulated in accordance with …..(e.g. resolution 4 below)

4.    Applications for SEVs would not normally be permitted within a geographical distance (e.g. 90m is in use in another authority) of, for example, premises or areas frequented by children, young persons or families, schools, parks, libraries, swimming pools, markets, churches, mosques and certain sops mainly used by families or children, or a residential area.

5.    Any other definition which Members may propose.

In reply to questions from Members about the SEV consultation with other councils, the Officer responded as follows:

• Approximately 15 other councils of varying sizes had been approached, some because they were of a similar size to Cheltenham or had a university and some on the personal knowledge of the officers.
• Due to work load, the consultation had only started two weeks previously and thus not all councils had had time to reply.
  
  

The Chair concluded that the results obtained gave a good snap shot with a range of responses, showing some had a zero limit and some had a geographical limit.

Some members were concerned about the validity of the public consultation survey saying that 174 responses from a Borough of 20 wards and a population of 114,000 was a poor representative sample that didn’t reflect the town as a whole and probably also depended on  their experience of the night time economy.

The chair felt 174 was a  high number for a licensing consultation and the Officer reported that the consultation had been advertised on the council’s website for 12 weeks, with a press release and posters in council buildings as well.

Councillor Regan referred to the figures in the survey of 98% and 99% per ward who wanted a zero limit on the number of permitted SEVs in each ward.  She said Cheltenham was a cultural town and the survey showed the strong views of the electorate.  She concurred that the Borough as a whole could not have a zero limit, but wanted the relevant locality to be by ward and moved to set a zero limit in every ward.  This was seconded by Cllr Barnes.

Councillor Barnes, as a ward member of College Ward where the current SEV was situated, highlighted that a large proportion of the signatures on the recent petition calling for a zero limit came from his ward. He added that if a zero policy outside the town centre was applied, the core commercial centre would include parts of several wards and in particular parts of College ward where the majority of people against SEVs live.  The residents did not  want a permanent SEV club in one area, but were not against the TENs that clubs can use.

Another Member also felt that the survey was not a reflective view of the town and supported the Cabinet Member’s proposal, with a no to a blanket ban, and looking at each application on an individual basis.  Cheltenham had one club so far and that there had not been any problems – no increase in violence or rape and no problems with the police.  He felt the market should dictate commercial business.

Another Member highlighted that the sex shop in Kingsditch which the committee had approved some 12 years ago, had not resulted in anything untoward going on and that the Blue Room, a former SEV, which was closer to residential areas, had closed after 3 or 4 years and had not caused any problems.  He said incidents could still happen during race week and the other 11 occasions in the year permitted under a TEN. He suggested that there appeared to be lot of opposition as those who opposed things were generally more vocal than those who approved.  He was not in total favour but felt each case should be judged on its merits.  He also asked if there were any figures for sexual assaults in the last two years in the town, but the officer replied that he didn’t have these figures.

In reply to a question from a Member, the Officer informed Members that there was more control if premises were licensed than under a TEN.

A member suggested that a zero limit would not stop any activity of this nature and there could be more risk if premises were not licensed.

Councillor Regan as the proposer of the amendment said that people who didn’t respond to the consultation may not care about the town but she did and Members should not disregard the many people who signed the petition. 

The chair invited Members to vote on the proposal from the Member that there should be a zero limit in every ward.

Upon a vote the motion was LOST

Voting (For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 1)

Councillor Chard proposed that the committee should recommend option 2 on the sheet circulated at the start of the meeting i.e. a zero limit outside the town centre and applications within the town centre considered on their individual merits. This was seconded by Councillor Thornton.

Speaking against the proposal, a Member was concerned that there should be some restrictions even in the town centre to avoid residential areas, churches etc.  Another Member favoured a more clearly defined policy rather than assessing each case on its ‘merits’ and supported option 4 on the sheet.

Members acknowledged the difficultly of defining a geographical limit.

The chair invited Members to indicate their support for an amended version, as in Option 3 with some restrictions as set out in 4.

Upon a vote this was LOST. Voting (For 4, Against 6)

The chair invited Members to continue to debate option 2 and in particular to agree a definition of the town centre. The two options seemed to be the core commercial area or the cleansing area and the former was substantially bigger and contained more residential areas.

Upon a vote it was (Voting For 8 with 2 abstentions),

Resolved that it be recommended to Cabinet that a zero limit applies to the number of SEVs outside the town centre, however applications for SEVs within the town centre should continue to be assessed on their individual merits without numerical limit.   The town centre to be defined as the Cleansing area of the town.

[Post meeting note: The cleansing area as on the map circulated to members, and with these minutes is correctly titled the Primary Cleansing Area]