Issue - meetings

The Chair welcomed everyone.  All parties present introduced themselves and the Chair detailed the procedure to be followed and asked if there were any representations to vary it.  There were none.

Counsel for the Applicant, Mr James Rankin, declared he would be speaking on behalf of the Applicant, Mr Forte.

The Specialist Advisor for Licensing outlined the report setting out the application for the renewal of a Sexual Entertainment Venue (SEV) licence for Lux, 2a-2b Pevensey Road and highlighted the relevant policy implications.

Appended to the agenda was the Home Office Sexual Entertainment Venues Guidance for England and Wales (March 2010) at Appendix 1, Eastbourne Borough Council’s Sexual Establishment and Encounter Policy at Appendix 2, and the Equality and Fairness Analysis at Appendix 6.

Following a consultation period of 28 days, one representation had been

received against the application from theSoroptimist International Eastbourne & District and this was included in Appendix 5 of the agenda pack. In their objection against the granting of the SEV renewal, they felt that the establishment would not help them achieve their goals of equity and equality and creating safe and healthy environments, or promote Eastbourne as a desirable place to live.  Approval of the application would go against Eastbourne Borough Council’s Equality and Fairness Policy. The objector had been invited to attend the meeting, but for personal reasons was not present.

The Chair invited Members and then the Applicant and Mr Rankin, to ask questions of the Specialist Advisor.  There were none.

Mr Rankin, Counsel, representing the applicant, addressed the Sub-Committee.  Having noted that one objection to the application had been received, Mr Rankin reminded the Sub-Committee that the premises had not operated since it was granted a licence for a sexual entertainment venue in December 2018. He explained that the applicant’s ownership of the Embassy Nightclub had demonstrated an improvement in the area and well run business.  In addition, the applicant wanted to create a table dancing club within the footprint of the premises with its own discreet entrance. He noted that legislation has made provision for such a business. He said that such businesses do not have a reputation for causing public order issues because of the high levels of management and because they prioritise the safety of dancers and clientele.

He accepted that the Sub-Committee must have due regard to the public sector equality duty (Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010) and it was for the Sub-Committee to decide what weight should be given in deciding matters.

Whilst referring to the objection letter from the Soroptimist International Eastbourne & District, he said this was speculation of what might happen as the business had not operated. The dancers, both men and women would take part willingly and neither gender will be on the stage at the same time.  Some of the dancers would be using this employment as an opportunity for progressing to further education. 

Mr Rankin referred to the conditions appended to the SEV licence in Appendix 3 of the agenda,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16