Agenda item

Discussion:

 

The Panel heard an application for the grant of a licence for a sexual entertainment venue at ‘Tenshi’, Casino Rooms, Blue Boar Lane, Rochester.

 

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

 

Wednesday               20:00 to 03:00

Thursday               20:00 to 03:00

Friday               20:00 to 03:00

Saturday               20:00 to 03:00.

                     

              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 advised that the application had been correctly advertised in the press and at the premises and referred to and explained each of the appendices to the report.

 

The panel heard from the applicant:

 

·        The papers shown at Appendix B in the report demonstrated how the venue was planned and would be operated

·        The applicant asked that the reference to an article from The Guardian newspaper, attached to an objector’s written statement, was not taken into account, as it was an extract from a full article and only referred to one part of the that article

·        If the panel was minded to grant the application, the applicant requested clarification of the possible condition 16 (on page 60 of the agenda) with regard to the word “outside” and whether this meant a physical presence or if it incorporated the internet. If it included the internet, then they would oppose this condition

·        The applicant had operated a licence for this type of activity for 19 years and there had been no problems, complaints or applications for review throughout the 19 years of licensed activity. There had been no conditions imposed in previous licensing regimes and it was important that this multi-purpose entertainment venue in Rochester continued to cater for all types of events

·        The venue was situated in an historic area and therefore it was important that it was extremely well run. Its sister-venue, the Circus Tavern in Essex, was a success in its own right and frequently hired by national companies for corporate events and it was proposed that ‘Tenshi’ offered the same facilities

·        The applicant planned to invest £150,000 in refurbishing the area to hold the entertainment applied for. It would be very different from other areas within the Casino Rooms with a higher quality of operation

·        The proposed venue would attract both male and female customers and it was a mis-conception that it would only be groups of men. Smart dress would be expected and the drinks would not be cheap as the customers would be coming for a high-end market product

·        The police were not objecting to the application, as the venue was not associated with trouble

·        The layout of the venue was discussed and a description of the entrance/exit and inside the venue was given. The applicant advised that they would try to achieve a mix of private, corporate and public use and the venue could provide for 200 people but it was more likely to be 40-50 people attending

·        The venue would only operate four nights a week and would be closed to the public if used for private or corporate use. The applicant was undecided which of the four nights the venue would be open to the public

·        The Objectors had stated that it would attract groups of young men but the applicant’s experience at the Circus Tavern had shown that it was usually older clientele. Another objector had referred to “The Star” public house also providing this type of entertainment but this venue was shut. A further objection was that Rochester was a historic and tourist area. The applicant stated that these premises fitted in with the area, as it was an entertainment venue which was needed within a cosmopolitan, tourist area

·        The venue would only operate in the evening and was discreet, with the only marketing taking place on the internet and at the Circus Tavern. People using Rochester High Street would be unaware it was there, as had previously happened over the past 19 years

·        The applicant was aware of another sexual entertainment licence that had been granted in 2011 which was situated in the near vicinity. Objectors had referred to this stating that as Rochester already had one such venue, it should not have another. However, the applicant wished to make the point that it was a free market economy and the other venue was a completely different type of venue. ‘Tenshi’ would be very upmarket and unique and very different from a public house holding this type of entertainment

·        The applicant lived in Rochester and had a track record of his commitment and investment in the area. He also participated, on a voluntary basis, in many council-led and police partnerships and groups in Medway.

The objector and the panel asked the applicant questions including:

 

·        The Objector asked whether it was proposed that staff would hand out advertising fliers in Rochester High Street, as currently happened for the nightclub at the Casino Rooms? He also requested assurance that the venue would not be advertised in other premises owned by the applicant

The applicant responded that he had no intention of doing this. The venue had previously remained discreet and advertising material would not be on the street. He assured the Objector that there was no question of any promotions for this venue, apart from advertising on the internet and inside the Circus Tavern in Essex, which was a similar venue owned by the applicant

·        The Objector asked about customers queuing for this venue standing only 50 metres from the queue for the Casino Rooms and as the applicant held discos for under-18s, how would this be organised so that the two groups did not mix?

The applicant gave assurance that any future under-18s discos would not be held on a trading evening for ‘Tenshi’

·        A panel member asked how many people would use ‘Tenshi’ at any one time?

The applicant responded that under the current license the venue had a maximum capacity of 300 but that they had no intention of having that number. As shown on the plan attached to the agenda, there would be many sitting down areas and attendance would be approximately 40 – 50 people on a Saturday night. The maximum attendance was likely to be about 100 people. If the number was to exceed this, the applicant would take precautions with regard to the number of management and enforcement staff for that evening.

·        A panel member asked the applicant what benefits ‘Tenshi’ would bring to Rochester?

The applicant advised that, historically, the venue had already brought entertainment to meet the many demands of customers and that they believed the demand for the entertainment that ‘Tenshi’ could provide was in the area

·        A panel member asked how different the scale of operation was between the previous entertainment provided and what was proposed in the future and how frequently this had previously been performed?

The applicant responded that adult entertainment had been performed on a Friday and Saturday for male and female customers on a weekly basis and could be provided seven days a week under the current licence. However, the application under the new legislation only requested four nights a week, which may not all be used, as it would depend on demand. The venue would also be used for other types of entertainment.

·        The applicant was asked how he recruited dancers?

The panel was advised that dancers were recruited via the internet, through recommendations and via agencies. Prior to engagement, each dancer was thoroughly vetted. Initially, the venue would use dancers already employed at the Circus Tavern. There was a strict welfare policy for the dancers and the Floor Manager would work closely with them and oversee their welfare.

·        A panel member, referring to the applicant’s Crime Reduction Strategy (page 35 of the agenda), asked what controls the venue would have over drunkenness, solicitation and prostitution?

The applicant advised that it would be unprofessional not to recognise either of these as a minor risk and the reason they had been included was to demonstrate that they had been considered. The Casino Rooms was well known for its marshalling and dispersal policies. The use of CCTV played a large role if something was happening outside the premises. With regard to people soliciting for prostitution, the new licensing regime had improved the industry as a whole and licensees were seeing dramatic improvements. The premises would have stringent codes of conduct and customers were informed of what was deemed as acceptable behaviour. The ‘Guidelines for Safe Operation’ (page 26 of the agenda), point 5 set this out. The venue also kept an incident book and the staff would have no hesitation informing the police, if necessary. The applicant reiterated that he had a track record of 19 years with no objections or complaints and the police did not object to this application.

·        A panel member asked for further information about the under-18s disco evenings

The applicant advised that this was for young people aged 13 – 17 year olds that only took place in school holidays and finished at 11pm. There were eight held each year and they would definitely not be held on any evening that ‘Tenshi’ would be open.

·        The applicant was asked of the likelihood of ‘Tenshi’ being open all four nights every week

      The panel was advised that there would be three core trading evenings and the fourth would be an opportunity to sell the venue on a private hire basis. They would be pleased if it operated four days every week but sometimes the calendar dates may change the three core days to allow for other events to take place there at peak times of the year.

·        The panel asked the applicant about his policy for high-price drinks at ‘Tenshi’ and whether, due to the economic climate, he would maintain that high price level?

The applicant responded that experience at the Circus Tavern had backed up this policy and he thought it would also work in Rochester.

The panel heard from the objector that:

 

·        The objection was not on the basis of how the premises were run, but solely about the number of clubs allowed in an area

·        The Police and Crime Act 2009 included provision within Section 27 that residents could have a say in how many sexual entertainment licences operated in an area. The point was to remove from licensing law the ‘tick box’ approach on the application form for adult dancing

·        One venue with this type of licence was enough within an area of 1/3 of a mile

·        It was proposed that ‘Tenshi’ opened at 8pm but it was situated in a tourist and residential area where other evening events took place and there were also many restaurants, so it would impact on people using those facilities

·        It was acknowledged that there were lower levels of anti-social behaviour and crime in Rochester than previously but this had only been achieved through saturation of policing. Tourists and residents did not want to see street patrols and police vans etc. as this gave completely the wrong impression of the area. Rochester should be considered in its own entity and one venue with this type of licence was enough when the other evening trade and tourism was taken into account.

 

The Panel asked the Objector questions including:

 

·        The panel advised that they understood the reason, in principle, why the objector wanted the application to be turned down but if it were to be granted, how would that affect the residents of Rochester?

The objector replied that the words “vibrant nightlife” had come into regular use and Rochester had become the centre for that in Medway. Unfortunately, it was not a café culture but young people arriving “pre-loaded” (having consumed cheap alcohol at home), to visit pubs selling cheap alcohol. It was not an objection to the application on moral grounds; it just meant another group of similar people coming to Rochester. He added that by the law, one venue was enough and any more was not entering the spirit of the law. Rochester was not unsafe but soon the businesses would be shuttered and the only people coming would be for alcohol and clubs. Rochester should be the jewel in Medway’s crown, not its “vibrant nightlife”

·        The panel asked that, without advertising, how would people know about the venue?

The objector responded that they would not know but it was likely that people queuing outside the nightclub would know, as they would be very close to the venue and residents living in Corporation Street. He believed that the proposed entrance for ‘Tenshi’ was currently not used and there would also be people stood outside to smoke.

The panel asked for clarification about use of the proposed entrance and the smoking policy and were advised by the applicant that the entrance was currently used as part of the nightclub and that smoking would take place to the right side of the entrance on the pavement. He wished to see the number of people smoking outside restricted to a limited number and was keen to ensure it was well managed and enforced. The nightclub had a designated smoking area at the other side of the building and he did not want the adult entertainment customers to mix with users of the nightclub. Customers would not be allowed to take their drinks outside with them when they went to smoke and because they would be stood beside a main road it was hoped that the sound of traffic would cover any noise they made.

 

The panel voiced concern about the use of the pavement for smoking but the applicant did not want to allow access to the nightclub’s smoking area being made available to customers of ‘Tenshi’ through internal doorways within the premises. The applicant referred the panel to page 43 of the agenda which set out the venue’s policy for smoking.

 

All parties were invited to add anything further:

 

The objector highlighted the main reason for his objection in that the law was straightforward and no more than one sexual entertainment venue should be allowed in Rochester.

 

The applicant reaffirmed that ‘Tenshi’ would be very different to anything else in the town centre which was a mix of business, retail, commercial and residential use. Rochester wanted to become a city and a city would need a high-end, multi-purpose venue. There was no reason not to grant this application, especially when the applicant had 19 years experience without complaint.

 

Decision:

 

1.   The Panel, in reaching its decision:

·        took into account various government legislation, Medway Council’s Statement of Policy in respect of Sex Establishments and government guidance;

·        placed appropriate weight on the evidence it heard, although whilst the objector had raised objections in principle to this application, he did not raise objection to this particular operation;

·        no consideration was given the Guardian newspaper article used in an objector’s written statement;

·        understood the objector’s concerns about the number of venues in Rochester but the council had not set a limit within its policy.

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

 

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

Wednesday       20:00 to 03:00

Thursday  20:00 to 03:00

Friday      20:00 to 03:00

Saturday  20:00 to 03:00.

 

4.      The panel agreed that Appendix D to the report (conditions) is included in the licence with the following amendments:

 

·        a new condition 1 is inserted to read “The Premises are as edged in red on the attached plan” (prior to all the conditions shown on the agenda at Appendix D and all other conditions to be re-numbered)

·        original condition number 3 to read: “Relevant Entertainment shall only take place on the Premises”

·        a new condition between original conditions 3 and 4 to read: “This Licence shall not have affect until the physical layout of the premises is in accordance with the attached plan. Having conducted a site visit, the Licensing Authority if so satisfied, shall provide written confirmation that the physical layout of the Premises is in accordance with the attached plan. The Licensing Authority shall, within that written confirmation, specify the commencement date that the Licence shall have effect, this being no later than 14 days from the date of the written confirmation

·        original condition 16 to be amended to now read: “The Licensee shall not exhibit or display in a physical format outside the Premises (or within the Premises so as to be visible outside the Premises), any display, advertisement, word, letter, model, sign, light, placard, board, notice, device, representation, photographs, drawing, writing or any matter or thing (where illuminated or not) relating to the Relevant Entertainment without prior approval by the Licensing Authority. Any such displays, etc shall be exhibit in accordance with the consent given by the Licensing Authority.

 

Informative

 

The panel has concern about the level of nuisance that could be caused by people smoking outside the building and urges the applicant to supervise this activity closely at all times when the premises are in use.

 

5.   The Panel also requested that officers submit a report to the next meeting of the Licensing and Safety Committee setting out options for designating a maximum number of premises with Sexual Entertainment Licences within historic Rochester and/or Rochester High Street. The report should also contain a timetable for achieving this as quickly as possible.