Agenda item

(The report for this item is public. However, Appendices 6(a-f) contain information

regarding complainants and licence holders which is exempt from publication by virtue of Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. It is considered on balance that the public interest would not be served by publishing the information as it could prejudice the outcome)

At the previous meeting on 2 July 2019, the Sub-Committee agreed to defer consideration of the application for the renewal of the Sexual Entertainment Venue (SEV) Licence for Eden One to allow the Licensing Service sufficient additional time to investigate a serious complaint made against the premises.

At its meeting on 4 December 2018, the Sub-Committee previously considered the application by John Simon Sayers for the renewal of the Sexual Entertainment Venue (SEV) Licence for Eden One, First and Second Floor, 15-17 Queen Street Blackpool. Following the application, both the Police and Trading Standards had submitted representations detailing a number of concerns and requesting the imposition of additional conditions. At that meeting, concerns were expressed about the nature and extent of the complaints received about the over-charging of customers. The Sub-Committee noted the suggested conditions; however, they remained concerned as to their effectiveness in resolving the issues. The Sub-Committee stated that they expected to see a significant reduction in complaints and concerns.

Mr Petrak presented the authority’s case. He explained that in addition to the afore mentioned complaints from patrons about possible overcharging, a serious complaint had been received regarding second degree burns received by a member of the public at Eden One during the course of a group event held on the first floor of the club. Members were shown CCTV footage of the incident and still images of the significant burns received by the complainant during the course of the show. Mr Petrak suggested that he had no issue with the administration of the club. However, it was clear from the footage and images that several of the licence conditions had not been adhered to, which included performers using mobile phones in the performance area and being visible on the exterior balcony and a lack of visible presence of supervisory or management staff during the period when the incident had occurred.

Ms Ashley Sayers, proprietor, Eden One was in attendance with legal representation from Mr Charalambides, Licensing Barrister and Mr Malcolm Ireland, Solicitor. Also in attendance was the member of management staff who was in the club at the time of the incident and the dancer seen in the footage who had burned the complainant.

In relation to the allegations of overcharging, it was suggested that most of those incidents reported to the Police had led to no further action being taken. It was implied that as such, there was no case to answer. It was accepted that in one case in particular, a dancer had initially failed to declare that a customer had effectively been charged twice for a performance and in the days that followed, the customer was subsequently refunded the amount overcharged. Further printed evidence was presented to the Sub-Committee which appeared to demonstrate accurate accounting practices by the Licence Holder and seemed to support the claims disputing instances of overcharging.

With regard to the incident in which the complainant had been burned during a performance, the Licence Holder claimed that working in a Sexual Entertainment Venue presented challenging situations for management and staff to deal with. The effects of alcohol and sexual stimulation had the potential to impact judgements and lead to irrational behaviour by both staff and customers. The performer’s agreement, signed by all dancers at the club was referenced and it was suggested that performers should be aware of what was and was not acceptable in terms of behaviour and what could reasonably be included in a performance.  Mr Charalambides suggested that there was a clear distinction between the private dance performance area of Eden One and the more communal, interactive reception area in which the incident took place. As such, he suggested that perhaps it had been unclear whether certain things were permissible in the reception area, such as the use of mobile phones by performers or dancers being observed on an exterior balcony. In terms of the performance itself in which the complainant had been burned with an aerosol ignited by a cigarette lighter, it was alleged that the practice was anecdotally known to have been conducted elsewhere in various parts of the UK and beyond. As a result, it was suggested that some of the performers who had worked elsewhere where such activities had taken place, perhaps assumed that they could operate in the same way in Blackpool without prior approval or consultation with management staff. It was highlighted that during the performance, the complainant and his party had actually consented to each activity.

Mr Charalambides suggested that the premises wished to work with the Local Authority to ensure adequate measures would be put in place to guarantee that such breaches of the licence conditions and performances with the potential to injure patrons would not occur again. The suggested conditions were:

·         There shall be no audience participation permitted in any performance within the caged area.

·         Performers will not be permitted on the balcony at any time.

·         A member of management will be allocated to a floor at any time that members of the public are present on that floor. The member of management will be tasked with supervision and management of the performers and customers, and will not have duties beyond the supervision and management of performers and customers (such as bar duties).

PC Emma Pritchard, Lancashire Police, was in attendance and suggested that she had a good working relationship with Ms Sayers and said that whenever offered advice by the Police, Ms Sayers had taken this on board and acted accordingly. PC Pritchard added that she felt the suggested conditions proposed by the Licence Holder were reasonable.

Members were especially concerned that existing conditions and those added to the SEV Licence for Eden One had been breached on several occasions. In addition, management oversight was judged to be inadequate and the Sub-Committee remained unconvinced that the additional conditions, changes to working practices and staffing arrangements suggested by the premises, would be sufficient to allow them to operate to the standards expected by the authority and/or result in greater compliance in the future. Further concerns regarding the staff to customer ratio in the club were also noted, particularly on busy nights.

The Sub-Committee, having considered all of the representations and evidence formed the view that the applicant was unsuitable to hold such a licence due to the lack of management, a lack of clarity about what were or were not acceptable practices and failure to comply with conditions described above.

Resolved:

To not renew the Sexual Entertainment Licence for Eden One, 15-17 Queen Street.

Background papers: exempt