Agenda item

The Panel heard an application for the grant of a licence for a sexual entertainment venue at the Queen Charlotte, 159 High Street, Rochester, Kent ME1 1EH.

 

The application was to enable the activities of lap dancing, table dancing, pole dancing, strip shows and exotic dancing:

 

Monday and Tuesday	CLOSED
Wednesday and Thursday	2000 to 0030
Friday and Saturday	2000 to 0200
Sunday	CLOSED

           

The Licensing and Local Land Charges Manager advised the meeting that as result of the new legislation referred to in paragraph 2 of the report, there were no longer “grandfather rights” for existing clubs to continue to provide relevant entertainment (previously licenced under the Licensing Act 2003) and as such were required to make a new application under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 as amended by the Policing and Crime Act 2009.

 

              The Licensing and Local Land Charges Manager referred to and explained each of the appendices to the report. This included the relevant additional documents required under section 6 of the application form as part of the application and plans showing the site location, site layout (both of which had been verified by the Licensing Unit), the operating schedule, and dancers policy, as set out in Appendix A to the report. Objections to the application were set out in Appendix B to the report. Suggested conditions were set out in Appendix C to the report. An Exempt Appendix was also included in the report.

 

The panel heard from the applicant:

 

·        The Applicant gave a history of the pub including that it had first opened in the early 1600s before being rebuilt in the 1800s.

·        That he had taken on the pub six years ago and had taken on the challenge on improving the problems associated with the pub (under age drinking, excessive drinking and violence).

·        That the pub had now changed and that it attracted families during the festivals.

·        That the dancers had moved downstairs to make the activity more discreet and as such some people were unaware of the activity.

·        That the venue was run safely and the dancers conducted themselves professionally

·        That the pub faced fierce competition from other pubs in the High Street.

·        That the pub had no problems with the Police or the Council and that he treated any complaints seriously.

·        That with regards to the activities, there was no “neon” type signage and there was only advertising after 8pm on the day of the activities.

·        That it was his intention to work with local residents.

·        That he had spent £100,000 in the past 5 years on refurbishing the pub and planned to do further works to the external windows and decor in the future.

·        That the award of the licence would allow him to employ additional staff.

·        That the activities would allow the pub to draw in more customers.

·        That the pub would continue to have high standards.

·        That a wide range of people visited the venue including couples.

 

The objectors and the panel asked the applicant questions including:

 

·        An Objector referred to a reference to the “main bar area” Running Operations (first bullet point, p26 of the agenda).

The Applicant responded that this meant the main bar area in the basement where the relevant entertainment would take place.

 

·        An Objector asked the Applicant how long had he owned the building.

The Applicant explained that Enterprise Inns Group owned the pub and that he had been the Licensee for 6 years.

 

·        An Objector asked the Applicant how long had dancing taken place during his time at the pub.

The Applicant responded that dancing had taken place for all of the period.

 

·        An Objector asked when a Licence had been granted for lapdancing.

The Applicant responded by stating 6 years ago. The most recent premises licence was tabled at the meeting dated 9 July 2007. This stated that exotic dancing (including nudity) could take place Sunday – Thursday (1000 to 0100) and Friday – Saturday (1000 to 0200).

 

·        An Objector asked when dancing was taking place.

The Applicant responded by stating the dancing had been taking place Wednesday to Saturday but now it took place on Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.

 

·        An Objector asked whether there was a charge for entry.

The Applicant responded that there was a charge for entry and that the activities took place in a separate part of the building.

 

·        A Panel Member asked whether the Applicant charged more for a drink where the activities took place.

The Applicant explained that he charged around 10p more for a drink in that bar.

 

·        A Panel Member asked the Applicant about the number of staff employed by the pub.

The Applicant responded by stating that he currently employed 7 staff but that more staff would be employed should he be granted the licence.

 

·        A Panel Member asked the Applicant about complaints and whether he knew the Objectors.

The Applicant responded he had not received any complaints from local residents and that he did not know the local residents although one of the objectors (Mr Ruby) had visited the pub following the application for a licence.

 

·        A Panel Member asked whether the Applicant was the Designated Premises Supervisor, his experience, and sought clarity on Kashmir Tumana.

The Applicant responded that he was the Designated Premises Supervisor and that Kashmir Tumana was his father. His father had left the running of the pub to the Applicant and that he had 15 years experience of running the “front of house” at a nightclub in Maidstone, as well as bar experience prior to that.

 

·        A Panel Member asked whether the Applicant had any formal qualifications in this industry.

The Applicant responded that he had the BII (licensed retail) qualification and that he had been previously SIA (door supervisor) licensed.

 

·        A Panel Member asked about the length of time that the activities had taken place together with the frequency of the activities.

The Applicant responded that the activities were already taking place when he took over the pub 6 years ago and that the frequency had extended from, initially, Wednesday and Friday to Wednesday to Saturday but that the activities no longer took place on Thursdays. The activities generally stopped before the end of hours of operation depending on how busy the venue was and that “late entry” to the pub was regulated/assessed by either himself or the door supervisors.

 

·        A Panel Member asked about access to the pub and the charges for the activities.

The Applicant responded that access to the venue was either via Almon Place or within the pub, that drinks were generally 10p more expensive in the area the activities took place and that there was a charge of between £3 to £5 for entry.

 

·        A Panel Member asked about the suitability of the dancers and whether he had been misled in the past by a dancer.

The Applicant stated that dancers must prove their age (passport or full driving licence) and that he would assess their suitability for the role. He would also contact previous venues for references. He welcomed the change in law and hoped that this would clean up the activities. He stated that between 5-8 dancers were at the venue on Wednesdays and between 8-10 dancers on Fridays/Saturdays.

 

·        A Panel Members asked how the dancers applied to work at the venue.

The Applicant explained that word of mouth was the main way in which dancers would approach the venue and that he would interview them prior to them working at the venue.

 

·        A Panel Member asked whether CCTV was present at the pub, the outcome of any visits by the Police and the Council, and whether he was happy to work with any conditions imposed.

The Applicant responded that CCTV was present throughout the pub and that he planned to update it in the next year. He stated that the doors must be shut later in the evening owing to noise and that he would be happy with any conditions imposed on the licence.

 

The panel heard from the objectors that:

 

·        Philip Hesketh was the Acting Dean of Rochester Cathedral (page 57 of the agenda refers).

·        A Sexual Entertainment Venue was highly unsuitable in the Rochester area as it was very important area for tourism, there was a large private school in the locality as well as an independent school and infant schools. Foreign exchange students were often present in the locality.

·        It was an unsuitable venue within a conservation area, this was a tourism area as set out in the Local Plan, it was encouraging crime in Rochester and that there was an increasing trend in crime at the Star Hill end of the High Street which impacted on the 500 residents within 250m of the venue.

·        An Objector provided a copy of some crime statistics for the area which were tabled at the meeting.

·        An Objector stated that she had no moral objections to the proposals and referred to examples of anti social behaviour in the High Street area. That there was a need to attract a different type of clientele to the High Street and that there were now a number of local residents who slept with earplugs owing to the noise nuisance in the area.

 

The Applicant and the Panel asked the Objectors questions including:

 

·        The Applicant referred to the police statistics tabled at the meeting and stated that other pubs had run cheap drinks campaigns.

An Objector responded that the statistics showed that there was a lot of crime at the venue’s end of the High Street.

 

·        The Applicant asked whether the Objector was aware of the activities taking place prior to this application.

An Objector responded that she had been aware.

 

·        There were a further number of exchanges between the Applicant and Objectors relating to:

            Gaming Machines

            Where the dancers changed at the venue

            The need for more upmarket premises in the High Street

            The level of anti-social behaviour in the High Street

            The location of the pub as a drop off point for taxis

            The clientele visiting the venue

            The safety of the dancers leaving the venue.

 

            The Applicant responded that an illegal gambling machine had been removed as soon as he had been informed. That the dancers changed in the Ladies’ toilets but were suitably dressed, and that the dancers could be escorted to the car park by door supervisors.

 

·        A Panel Member asked whether the Objectors had previously made complaints against the venue.

The Objectors responded that they had not previously made any complaints.

 

All parties were invited to add anything further including:

 

·        A Panel Member asked how the dancers earned money from the activities.

The Applicant explained that, currently, the dancers earned money through private dances for the customers, although this would change through the introduction of a token system so the dancers would not have to handle cash during performances.

           

·        A Panel Member and an Objector asked about the capacity of the venue and the ratio of dancers to customers.

The Applicant stated that the capacity was 80 people and that there would be up to 10 dancers working on Fridays and Saturdays.

 

·        An Objector asked whether the Applicant employed foreign dancers.

The Applicant explained that owing to a number of reasons including work permit issues he did not employ foreign dancers.

 

Decision:

 

1.   The Panel, in reaching its decision:

·        Took into account Medway Council’s Statement of Policy in respect of Sex Establishments and other relevant legislation;

·        Placed appropriate weight on the evidence it heard, including matters of anti-social behaviour in the locality;

·        Disregarded any evidence in relation to any matter outside the Panel’s remit, for example, gaming machines and employment law.

·        Heard a good deal of evidence regarding the experience and suitability of the Applicant and on the character of the immediate locality and suitability of the premises.

 

2.   The Panel agreed that the relevant entertainment authorised by this Licence (“Relevant Entertainment”) shall be: Lap dancing, table dancing, pole dancing, strip shows and exotic dancing.

 

3.      The Panel agreed that the hours of operation during which the Relevant Entertainment is permitted is:

·        Wednesday – Thursday: 2000 to 0030

·        Friday – Saturday: 2000 to 0200

      which was in accordance with the amended application.

 

4.      The Panel agreed that Appendix C to the report (Conditions) be included in the licence including a new paragraph 10 (with existing paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 to be renumbered as paragraphs 11, 12 and 13).

 

NEW paragraph 10: “Without prejudice to the foregoing condition, the display of the “A Board” outside of the premises will be restricted to the hours of the operation of the relevant entertainment and shall be removed no later than 1 hour before the relevant entertainment ceases”.