Agenda item

Admiral Bars (Hampshire) Ltd have applied for the renewal of the Sexual Entertainment Venue Licence to permit relevant entertainment at the premises for a further twelve-month period.

The Licensing Authority has received one objection.

This matter is brought to the Licensing Sub Committee for determination.

 

Present:

 

BCP Council:

 

Nananka Randle – Licensing and Trading Standards Manager

Linda Cole – Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee

Michelle Cutler – Clerk to the Sub-Committee

 

The Chair made introductions and explained the procedure for the hearing, which was agreed by all parties.

 

The Licensing and Trading Standards Manager presented the report, a copy of which had been circulated and a copy of which appears as Appendix B to these minutes in the Minute Book.

 

The Sub-Committee was asked to consider an application made by Admiral Bars (Hampshire) Limited for the renewal of the licence to use the premises as a sexual entertainment venue, providing relevant entertainment, for a further twelve-month period.

 

As a result of the consultation 1 objection was received against the renewal of the licence.

 

The following persons attended the hearing and addressed the Sub-Committee to expand on the points made in their written submissions:

 

For the Applicant:

 

Robert Sutherland, Keystone Law, representing the Applicant

Naresh Kumar Mal, Regional Manager, Admiral Bars (Hampshire) Ltd

 

Objecting: Susan Stockwell

 

The Chair noted that Alastair Weatherstone, Director for the Licence Holder, Admiral Bars (Hampshire) Ltd, had intended to attend the hearing via Microsoft Teams but was unable to do so due to technical issues on the Council’s side. The applicant’s solicitor confirmed that he was content to proceed in Mr Weatherstone’s absence and would contact him directly if any clarification was required.

 

The Sub-Committee asked various questions of all parties present and was grateful for the responses received. All parties had the opportunity to ask questions. All parties were invited to sum up before the Sub-Committee retired to make its decision.

 

RESOLVED that the application to renew the Sexual Entertainment Venue Licence for the premises known as ‘Temptation’, 1 Yelverton Road, Bournemouth BH1 1DA, be GRANTED.?? 

 

The Sub-Committee considered in detail all the information which has been submitted before the hearing and contained in the Licensing Officer’s report for Agenda Item 6, including the report of Sarah Rogers, Principal Licensing Officer, presented by Nananka Randle, Licensing and Trading Standards Manager, the written submissions of the objector, Susan Stockwell, and the written submissions of the applicant, Admiral Bars (Hampshire) Ltd, represented by?Mr Robert Sutherland, the Applicants Solicitor, and Mr Naresh Mal, Regional Manager, Admiral Bars (Hampshire) Ltd. The Sub-Committee also considered the verbal submissions made by all parties at the hearing and was grateful to all parties for their responses to questions.? 

 

The Sub-Committee is aware?that “moral” objections to SEVs cannot be considered and as they determine the application, they must have due regard to the equality objectives in the Public Sector Equality Duty (section 149 of the Equality Act 2010). ? 

 

The Sub-Committee had regard to the provisions of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (“the 1982 Act”), and the available grounds for refusing the application contained within paragraph 12 of that Schedule. The Sub-Committee agree that the mandatory conditions for refusal of the application as set out in paragraph 12(1) of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 do not apply to this application.? 

 

The Sub-Committee noted Mrs Stockwell’s comments that the premises window display has been inappropriate in previous years, however this objection was deemed?irrelevant as changes had been made to the window display following last year's hearing and what was being objected to was no longer displayed and as such, did not make the applicant unsuitable to hold a licence. ? 

 

Mrs Stockwell also felt the applicant was unsuitable as the Temptation website had links to?‘Strip-VR’. The Sub-Committee accepted Mr Sutherland’s explanation that any links to ‘Strip-VR’ had currently been disabled, and the business was in the process of overseeing its website to ensure it was compliant with the Online safety Act 2023. The Sub-Committee noted that Ofcom was the regulator for the Online Safety Act 2023 and were responsible for online safety, and this was not within the remit of the Sub-Committee.? 

 

The Sub-Committee did not find that the Applicant was unsuitable to hold a sexual entertainment venue licence and were satisfied that the Applicants’ Solicitor addressed the issues raised in objection regarding the suitability of the applicant and agree that the premises appear to be well managed and are operating responsibly.? 

 

The Sub-Committee were reminded that BCP Council no longer had a Sex Establishments Policy, and it was agreed that the only grounds to be considered were the ‘discretionary’ grounds set out in paragraph 12(3)(d) of Schedule 3. It was to those grounds that the Sub-Committee turned their focus.? 

 

The character of the relevant locality and the use to which any premises in the vicinity are put:?? 

 

The Sub-Committee acknowledged that the premises has operated as a lap dancing club since at least 2005 when records began and since 2010 when such premises were required to operate under a Sexual Entertainment Venue licence, such a licence has been in place and applications made annually for it to renewed as is required by the Act.??

 

Although the character of the locality had evolved and changed throughout this period, the premises were?still considered to be in the heart of the Bournemouth nighttime economy, and the Sub-Committee did not consider that it had changed materially since the last decision to renew the licence in 2024. ? 

 

The Sub-Committee is mindful that there is a language school situated next door to the premises, however, the school has not made an objection to the application, and the students are aged 18 years and over. The Sub-Committee were also advised that the premises trades late at night from 21:30hrs until 04:00hrs/05:00hrs when it is unlikely that children and families would be walking past the premises? 

 

That said, the Sub-Committee is mindful that the character of the location is one of ongoing change, with more residential accommodation being built or redeveloped in the town centre, which is likely to attract more families and young people to live in the area?however, currently the Sub-Committee did not consider the location of the premises to be inappropriate, having regard to the character of the locality, or to the use to which other premises in the vicinity were put, to warrant refusal of the application. ?

 

Layout and Suitability of Venue:?

 

The Sub-Committee note the concerns raised by Mrs Stockwell regarding the smoking area at the front of the premises used by both patrons and performers. They were satisfied by the assurances given by Mr Sutherland that patrons and performers use opposite sides of the smoking area and are supervised by door staff to ensure that patrons and performers are kept separate. The Sub-Committee heard that only 2 performers are allowed outside to smoke at any given time and must wear 1?of 2 overcoats provided to the performers for this purpose. No reported incidents have been made relating to these arrangements.?? 

 

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Sutherland in response to previous objections?the premises now has rubbish bins at the front of the premises, and everyone is encouraged to use them. The area around the bins is regularly cleaned by staff and is covered by CCTV. The flags on the premises have been regularly replaced due to weather damage, but they were now in the process of being removed permanently.?? 

 

The Sub-Committee noted that a Licensing Officer had visited the premises since the last renewal?and had raised no concerns about it. They were satisfied that the layout, character and condition of the premises is acceptable and therefore not a ground on which the application could be refused. ? 

 

Public Sector Equality Duty?

 

In considering the application, and in coming to their decision, the Sub-Committee had regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, foster good relations, and advance equality of opportunity between those with a protected characteristic, and those without. In this case that arose primarily in the context of sex.??

 

The Sub-Committee noted the premises had a diverse customer base and welcomed customers of various genders; they acknowledged that the performers were mainly female but noted that there were also male striptease shows and male nude waiting staff.

 

The Sub-Committee accepted that performers had freely chosen to work in a lawful and legitimate industry. They were satisfied that the premises provided a safe environment for all staff and had various procedures and policies in place to address staff welfare and any concerns if they were raised. The Sub-Committee noted performers were escorted to their transport home and the House Mother and security staff were trained to support performers. ? 

 

It was noted that there had been no complaints made to the Police since the last renewal, and the Police had not submitted any comments in response to the application. The Sub-Committee was of the view that if the Police had concerns about the premises and its effect on crime and disorder or inappropriate behaviour towards women in the vicinity, they would have voiced these concerns.

 

Although not required the Licensing Authority also informed all Responsible Authorities as set out in the Licensing Act 2003 of this application but received no comments or objections in response. It was also noted that no objections had been made by Bournemouth University and with so many female students now living in the vicinity, the Sub-Committee was of the view that the University would have shared any concerns raised by students with the Licensing Authority or the Police. In addition, no objections were raised by any religious establishment or any other resident of the Town Centre.? 

 

After considering the report, verbal submissions and answers to questions asked and considering the grounds set out in paragraph 12 of schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 the Sub-Committee were satisfied that there was no basis to refuse the application and therefore resolved to grant it.? 

 

Right of Appeal? 

There is no right of appeal to this decision as the application has been granted as applied for and no extra conditions have been added to the licence. The objector to the application may seek a judicial review in the High Court if the decision is considered unlawful, irrational, or procedurally unfair. This is not an appeal on the merits of the decision but a review of the legality of the process.?