Refusal No. 47 – Club in Leicester shut

Screen Shot 2016-01-12 at 16.53.42.pngAngels in Leicester has a complex applications history, being refused in 2011 but then granted an SEV licence in 2012. This new refusal to renew its licence has been widely reported, and not unexpected given that the premise was the subject of an objection by Bobby Smiljanic, Licensing Team Manager, on the basis that the existing conditions attached to the licence were not being complied with, namely conditions 14, 17 and 26. These relate to CCTV, identity checks for performers and the prohibition of certain activities during performances. The documentation relating to this evidence is not in the public realm, but the following has been reported in the Leicester Mercury:

“Ms Smiljanic said she had accompanied the police when they executed a warrant at Angels on December 5.

The hearing was not told why the police raided Angels but they searched the premises and took a hard drive with CCTV recordings.

She said: “I was shown CCTV by the police which showed performers and members of the public clearly touching and fondling in an intimate and sexual manner.”

City council rules – for all strip clubs – prevent any physical contact between the strippers and the customers.

She said the footage also showed strippers straddling customers – another forbidden practice.

Committee members watched footage before the public hearing began and then went into private session to watch more recordings at the request of solicitor Heath Thomas who represented the club.

Later council solicitor Katherine Jamieson summed up what had happened – pointing out said the club had described the sexual behaviour as “more of a blip than a persistent breach”.

She said Ms Smiljanic said it was “typical behaviour.”

The club was also judged to have breached a condition to carry out identity checks on its strippers to ensure they are legally entitled to work and aged 18 or over.

The hearing was told there were 19 performers working when the council inspected Angels on October 9 but the club management were unable to provide documentation.

Documents for ten of the 19 were later emailed to the council but no information has been provided for the other nine.

Mr Thomas said there were four rather than nine missing cases and that Angels director Krzysztof Neumann said the girls were working for the first time that night and had not consequently returned.

He said Mr Neumann was careful about where he kept documents after a previous burglary at the club.

He also said the police had taken some of the documents the council wanted.

The council also decided Angels had breached a condition requiring it to hold 28 days of CCTV recording.

The police found only 18 days on a hard drive.

.Mr Thomas said the CCTV had “failed” on November 17, had been quickly replaced, but was otherwise compliant.

Committee chairman councillor John Thomas said: “The footage viewed by the committee left very little doubt the condition (no touching) had not been complied with at all and the committee refuses to believe these form a one-off incident.”

After the hearing Mr Thomas said the club was considering appealing against the refusal at magistrates court.”

The number of clubs in Leicester remains as was back in 2011, however, with 3 clubs including the Chasers club first licensed in October 2015.

Read more:

Refusal no. 46: Wrexham lap dancing club refused SEV licence

This application was refused by Wrexham Council on 27 July, but in a strange move decided to offer a hearing at which the pros and cons of the application would be heard. The initial proposal for a lap dance club, in a premise that lacked planning permission for a sexual entertainment venue, faced 8 written objections and a number of petitions suggesting the granting of a licence would be inappropriate.

Following extensive discussion at a licensing hearing on Monday (13th Oct), members of the Environmental committee of Wrexham Council took the decision to refuse the licence. The decision to refuse was taken on the grounds that it would be inappropriate to grant having: “regard to the character of the relevant locality the use to which premises in the vicinity are put; and further that the number of sex establishments in the relevant locality is equal to the number which the authority considers appropriate for the locality, namely two”.

Screen Shot 2015-10-14 at 20.37.15

Refusal no. 45 – Eden Lounge in Exeter loses licence for lap dance

Eden Lounge (formally EX4/NV), opened in 2009, has just lost its SEV licence. It won the licence in 2012, had seen it renewed but was refused it at a licensing committee meeting on 21st July. This means Exeter now has no lap dancing or SEV club.

The reasons for this decision are currently not clear – I’ll update in due course. There were 16 written objections on a number of bases, not an especially large number. The following gives a flavour:

Screen shot 2015-07-23 at 08.41.48 Screen shot 2015-07-23 at 08.43.32 Screen shot 2015-07-23 at 08.43.50 Screen shot 2015-07-23 at 08.44.10 Screen shot 2015-07-23 at 08.45.12

Refusal no. 44: Chester Platinum Lounge loses Sexual Entertainment licence

Screen shot 2015-07-20 at 22.00.39

This is a long running saga which I’ve reported on several times over the last few years.

Platinum Lounge, in Chester, was refused a licence in 2013 (refusal number 33) , appealed successfully on the basis that the committee was not quorate, was then granted its licence at renewal in 2014 but has now had its licence refused at a follow up (annual) renewal. There were a large number of objections (c. 124) and representations from local residents groups, who were represented by Philip Kolvin QC at the committee hearing.

It’s the lengthiest decision letter I’ve ever seen but here are the highlights:

The Licensing Committee decided to REFUSE the application to renew the sex establishment licence on the following statutory ground(s):

Locality in which premises is situated

Members considered the location and relevant locality in which the premises are situated. Members were aware that there is no definition of locality and took note of Home Office Guidance which states that “relevant locality does not have to be a clearly defined area and local authorities are free to conclude that it simply refers to the area which surrounds the premises.” Members decided that the locality takes in residential housing directly behind with a growing residential community, the Fortis development university accommodation and the Westby Homes development, a place of worship in line of sight, an educational centre and family dining establishments.

In addition the front of the premises, situated on the unique recognisable Rows Galleries, faces the commercial part of Chester City’s iconic landscape and members considered that too as part of the locality.

The Character of the locality:

The Council’s own policy encourages members to consider the mix of commercial and residential premises, the proximity of residential premises and to also take account of other types of premise such as schools, playgrounds, places of worship and traffic and pedestrian routes to those places….Members acknowledged that the character of the locality around the Premises was a mixture of commercial and residential. To the front of the Premises are the famous “Chester Rows”, described as the “jewel in Chester’s crown” which attracts retail outlets, food and hospitality outlets, and a mix of shoppers, workers, visitors and tourists both day and night. A residential block, The Old Three Arches, exists alongside the premises on the Rows but generally at the front of the Premises; members decided that the character is predominantly commercial. To the rear of the premises the character is more mixed with an increasing amount of residential units. Members noted the significant increase in residential occupation to the rear of the Premises and developments which are underway. Members noted that this was welcomed by some stakeholders in the City such as the Chester Renaissance board who looked for that richness of diversity. Members were satisfied that the premises are in proximity to residential areas. Members were also satisfied that it was proximate to a place of worship and to the Dewa Roman experience, an educational experience for children. Members are entitled to take into account the use to which any premises in the vicinity are put when reaching a decision to refuse to renew.

Members also concluded that there are sensitive receptors in the locality of the Premises relying on paragraph 17.7 of the policy:“Applications will not normally be granted where the premises are located:

  • Near residential accommodation
  • Near places of worship, community facilities or public buildings
  • Near schools, youth clubs or other places regularly used by children
  • On or within sight of pedestrian routes or transport nodes (such as stations or bus stops) primarily serving places in categories (a), (b), or (c).”

Members heard from a number of objectors regarding proximity to the sensitive receptors…The point is made strongly by Westby Homes in their submission. Objections raised by Councillor Dixon and objectors expressed concern that there are residential properties and university accommodation in the area and that the premises is very close to the Dewa Roman Experience which is used by school children participating in educational visits exploring Chester’s Roman streets and archaeological remains. The Committee noted that the Dewa Experience itself had not made any objection to the application. However, the members felt that the Premises is close to other family friendly premises, including bars and restaurants and that the presence of the SEV does nothing to enhance Chester’s family friendly tourist offering.

Appropriateness of an SEV in that locality:

Members referred to case law where Mr Justice Stuart-Smith had made it clear in his judgment that the Licensing Committee was entitled to reach a different decision that the one made the previous year. The provision for annual renewal for licences means that the Committee is entitled to “have a fresh look”…Further, members considered that there had been a shift in emphasis in the nature of the objections which focussed on the historic nature of the locality and it was noticeable that, in contrast to previous applications, there had been a significant increase in the volume of responses to the public notice of the application where the historic core of the City was a central theme. Members relied on submissions including those from the Civic Trust: “What is that locality? It’s The Cross, it’s Bridge Street and the area to the west of Bridge Street. This is the historic core of this world renowned heritage, retail and tourist city” and “this locality has a valuable and sensitive environment that must be conserved and developed with sympathetic uses”

Members determined that it was not appropriate to site an SEV in that locality, relying on the evidence submitted by a body of responsible local opinion who consider that the location on Chester’s historic rows is not an appropriate place for an SEV.

Members found the evidence to be highly persuasive: submissions from Chester Renaissance board, who are the guardians of Chester’s One City Plan and who are comprised of the relevant experts, public and private sector and investors in this city; Chester Cathedral, and Chester Civic Trust who are trying to make sure that the city develops in a way which respects its history and makes a pleasant place for people to live; the local councillor who is effectively devoting her time to the wellbeing of this locality. Members were persuaded by the Civic Trust that “since the opening of the Platinum Lounge in 2005, the context has changed and the premises are now even more inappropriate. They are in the wrong location than they were when the establishment was set up. There is now a set of vigorous policies, which Chester Civic Trust supports, to conserve and regenerate this locality. ..Members were persuaded by the vision for Chester which was evidenced by a number of the Objectors, in particular the spokesmen from the Chester Renaissance Board and the Civic Trust. Both these speakers shared a view of Chester City Centre in which the historic uniqueness of the City was a magnet for investors and tourists alike. The realisation of the vision required the attracting of high class retailers and an establishment which was required to have what was described as “dead” frontage (i.e. blackened shutters) during the daytime, did not fit in with this vision. Members were entitled to and did take account of the overwhelming comment from the objectors which amounted to a view that this is not an appropriate location for an SEV. A great many people, whether objecting individually or through a civic, amenity, business cultural or church organisations have registered a view that this activity should now cease in this location.


The Licensing Committee voted in favour of refusing the application to renew the licence as there was sufficiently compelling evidence that it would be inappropriate to grant the renewal having regard to the character of the locality and the use to which premises in the vicinity are put….Members took the view that it is the use of the premises as an SEV which makes the location no longer appropriate in the rows. They are not against SEV’s generally but no longer consider it appropriate for an SEV to be situated in that locality.

Thanks to Vanessa Bond for copy of the decision letter plus scan from local paper.

The club has now reported that it will operate as a burlesque bar from now on.


Paper available for free download: ‘Law, sex and the city: regulating sexual entertainment venues in England & Wales’

This paper summarises the licensing of SEVs and lap dance clubs in England and Wales. It’s available on open access so can be downloaded and circulated freely, so feel free to send the pdf to any licensing committee members, club owners, managers, dancers, resident’s groups etc as it provides an overview of the first few years of the new licensing regime that has shaped SEVs and resulted in at least 43 licence refusals, closures and a number of operators giving up in the face of more restrictive policies.

.Screen shot 2015-07-14 at 20.37.14

New club licensed in Southend

BA106083_02 PW GVs.JPG-pwrt2

A new club has been licensed in Southend, which already has one dedicated lap dance club and two pubs that have occasional striptease. The club ‘Entice’ is to be located in a former nightclub. The application was presented by Mr Sutherland (applicants solicitor). Mr Weatherstone (applicant) and Mr Mal (Manager) were also in attendance.
The sub-committee noted that no objections to the application had been received from the Police. Four representations had however, been received from local residents. Two of the residents attended the hearing and gave evidence.

The application and objections do not appear to be available online, but the local press reports the following pro- and anti- views.

Alistair Cullis, campaigner

I’m a builder. I’m not some sort of feminist crusader, but I’m speaking out against this because I believe women should be given equal chances in society.

This is the 21st century and what contribution does this make?

Statistically, rapes increase around strip clubs. The figures prove that.

I feel the decision had already been made. Most of the committee is made up of old men. It’s disgusting they should to vote on women’s issues.

This will be the fourth venue of its kind here.

What kind of message does that send out? It doesn’t do anything for women’s rights. I don’t know how you can have a high-class, sleazy club.


Alistair Weatherstone, owner of Entice

We are seeing a shift in culture over the past few years. It’s trendy for people to go to strip clubs, and we are seeing more women as customers, too. It’s a different form of entertainment – our clubs are also used for hen dos.

To my knowledge, I have not had any complaints of heckling from anyone outside our clubs. If we did, we’d ban the people responsible.

We tend to have an older audience. That leads to less trouble. I’ve managed bars and you get trouble every week.

Here, you will be looking at a small number of people spending high, rather than filling the place and having people spending £20 each, like you get at the nightclubs.

Objectors – we feel unsafe walking past strip joints

One of the objectors to the new strip club’s licence was a woman who said she was attacked outside a similar venue.

The woman, who asked not to be named, spoke out at the licensing hearing, telling councillors: “I have been heckled and berated by people standing outside strip clubs.

“As a woman walking past these venues, I would not think ‘it’s nice inside, I don’t feel threatened’.

“I was attacked by someone leaving a strip club. Having to see my friends change their lives so much by taking different routes home is messed up.

It’s messed up that the desire to have a sex venue in Southend outweighs the desire for women to feel safe.”

Another objector, a woman from the Essex Feminist Collective, who asked only to be named as Helen, said: “I love Southend, but do you honestly expect people to be spending thousands on a strip club here when they can go into London?”


Refusal No. 43: Reading club refused Sexual Entertainment Licence


Chronicles, in Valpy Street,  applied to Reading Borough Council for a Sexual Entertainment Venue Licence. This was refused last week. This was for a restaurant to put on burlesque dancing. Much of the discussion questioned if this would be a restaurant with sexual entertainment or a sexual entertainment venue with food.

From the hearing:

Cllr Stanway: “This is one of the most historic parts of town. I’m not convinced this fits in with the cultural theme of the area. How do you respond to claims that this is an inappropriate location?”

Mr Payne: “According to council guidelines the town centre can host up to two SEVs. This location is ideal as it is small, it is not in the main shopping area making it quite advantageous.

“One should provide entertainment to all types of visitors to Reading. Currently people seeking SEV can only visit The Lodge. This provides them with somewhere else to go.”

Cllr Stanway: “I regard Valpy Street as fairly Reading central. It’s very busy in the daytime and rush hour.”

The licence was refused on the grounds that it would be detrimental to the surrounding area, given the cultural importance of things like Reading Abbey. Councillors also highlighted in their refusal that it was primarily SEV instead of a restaurant, and not restaurant with an added SEV as the applicants tried to argue.

There were 8 objections recorded in total.