Purpose

Application for renewal of a Sexual
Entertainment Venue licence under the Local Government
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982

Content

Licensing Panel (Non-Licensing Act 2003 Functions) Hearing -
Notification of the Determination

Licensing panel hearing held in person Monday 17th February 2025 in
respect of the application for renewal of a Sexual Entertainment
Venue licence in respect of The Pussycat Club, 75 Grand Parade,
Brighton.
 
The panel has
considered the report with the appendices including the objections
and submission on behalf of the applicant. It has listened
carefully to all the points and submissions made. In reaching its
decision, it has also had due regard to the relevant provisions of
the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, The
Public Sector Equality Duty, and Equalities Impact Assessment for
this application, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the
Council’s Sex Establishment Policy.
 
The application is for
a renewal of the Sexual Entertainment Venue (SEV) licence for the
Pussycat Club, 75, Grand Parade Brighton. The application, history
and relevant background are detailed in the report before us.
 
A total of 18
objections were received, 2 of them detailed. The substance of the
objections falls into 3 main areas. Firstly it is alleged that
granting the application would be in breach of our own sex
establishment policy on grounds of unfit applicant or benefitting
such person, and on the basis that renewal would be inappropriate
having regard to the character of the locality (these factors can
also be the basis for refusal of a licence under paragraph 12,
Schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions )Act
1982. Secondly that to grant the application runs contrary to the
Council’s Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) especially
with regard to women and girls and sex
equality. Thirdly that such establishments should be seen through
the lens of reducing harm and violence against women and girls and
are contrary to such initiatives such as White Ribbon
accreditation. Full details of these arguments are in the papers
before us.
 
Two of the objectors
from the Sisters Salon organisation
attended the hearing and amplified their objections. They referred
to a floating debenture from 2012 in favour of Kenneth McGrath and
another linked to company assets including 75 Grand Parade. They
also noted that the area is undergoing regeneration and was
increasingly a family leisure and residential area. They said there
was evidence that dancers experienced abuse and women self-exclude
from areas in which SEVs operate.
 
In response to
questions from the panel, it was accepted there was no specific
evidence linking the club itself to complaints or issues of crime
and disorder, apart from a reference to ‘full service’
linked to the club on their website and the financial evidence.
However, women had said they don’t feel safe in areas in
which such clubs operate, and the objection was to SEV’s
existence per se and the way they operated, and this was relevant
to equalities considerations.
 
Mr Robinson, the
manager of the club addressed the panel. He refuted the claims
about the financial involvement or otherwise of Kenneth McGrath and
was happy to have a condition around this. He sought specific
instructions about the debenture and told the panel that the 2012
debenture was a joint loan from Kenneth McGrath to refinance
residential properties. It was an interest free loan and would be
released soon in 2025 which meant that Kenneth McGrath would not
profit or benefit otherwise from it. He said that the ladies
managed the club and the ‘girls’ safety was very
important, and they did feel safe at the club. He referred to
comments from the dancers in the written submission. There is
extensive CCTV which can be viewed at any time. Regarding the
reference to ‘full service’, while it may have been
used in social media, he strongly denied this ever happened in the
club. He further noted that it was a private members club and hey
had male and female security staff.
 
In terms of location
Mr Robinson did not consider the club had any negative impact in
the area. The club had been there many years. They ran a limited
operation on Friday and Saturday nights starting at 10pm until 4am.
He agreed that he would be willing to change signage if appropriate
but did not consider it was overly visible.
 
In response to
questions from the panel, the membership arrangements were
explained by Mr Robinson and how membership would be revoked if
there was any breach of the rules regarding dancers or unacceptable
behaviour. Details of all members are kept, and he said it gave
them more control. There was discussion around when it would be
appropriate to call the police in the event of any incidents, and
concerns were raised by the objectors that there seemed to be a
reluctance to involve the police. Mr Robinson said that the police
would be called if necessary but that the policy was to be led by
the victim as to their wishes. He stated that the
‘girls’ safety was his number one concern. There was
further discussion about the area, Valley Garden’s phase 3
and sexual assaults in the locality notably around Pavillion
Gardens.
 
The panel has
carefully considered this application on its merits and
in light of the concerns raised by the
objectors. On balance the panel has decided to grant this
application for renewal of the licence. In terms of the policy
objections, the panel does not consider that Kenneth McGrath is
benefitting from the business and notes that the debenture will be
removed but believes a condition as to his complete exclusion from,
and involvement with, the premises, is appropriate and this was
accepted on behalf of the applicant.
 
Regarding the location
of the club and the character of the area, the panel has considered
this and used its local knowledge. Overall, the panel considers
that the locality in which the club is situated is a part of a
commercial and night-time economy area with retail outlets. It does
not think it can be characterised primarily as a family leisure or
residential area. Although there has been some regeneration it does
not consider that the locality has changed significantly
so as to make granting this renewal
inappropriate on these grounds.
 
The panel accepts that
while there can be no expectation of renewal, the club has been
operating for several years and this is a relevant factor to
take into account, as well as the
objections. Furthermore, there are no specific substantiated
concerns of crime and disorder in relation to this club and while
it is of concern that there may be a rise in sexual assaults in the
area there is no direct correlation with this club, and it is a
relevant factor that the police have not objected to this renewal
application.
 
Regarding the sex
equality-based concerns, the PSED and the violence against women
and girls’ arguments, the panel takes these very seriously.
We have had regard to the Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA)
completed for this application and in particular section 6.5 as to
gender identity and sex which is where the impact is considered
most relevant. There are tensions and risks around the licensing of
SEVs and these are well documented in the EIA and submissions from
the objectors, but there can also be strong protective measures put
in place to mitigate these concerns and potential impacts. There is
an argument that if not licensed, such activities may be driven
into unregulated spaces likely to expose women to more risks. The
licence will be subject to the standard conditions which are
extensive. It is also a private members club which arguably gives
more control over the licensable activity. The licence
holder’s representative is receptive to further conditions
and policies. The panel considers that there must be zero tolerance
to any physical contact between dancers and customers, and their
welfare must be paramount, and any incidents documented and
reported appropriately and anonymously if necessary. Further
measures are appropriate to reinforce this. The panel therefore
imposes the following condition:
 

a) The Club will have an incident log to be maintained by the
premises showing a detailed note of any incidents that occur in the
premises. The log will be inspected and signed off by the DPS (or
appropriate manager) at least once a month.
 

b) The logbook should be kept on the premises and be available for inspection at all times the
premises are open by authorised officers of the licensing authority
or the police. An incident will be defined as being one which
involves an allegation of a criminal offence, or any inappropriate
behaviour towards the dancers. The log will include what action was
taken and what was the involvement of the police.
 

c) To further protect the safety of the dancers, there will be a
procedure in place for dancers to anonymously report any concerns
to management, such procedure to be documented and available for
inspection by the licensing authority or the police. This may be by
way of a secure box in their changing room that must be reviewed
monthly by the management and passed onto the police and/or
licensing authority if appropriate.
 
The following
condition will also apply to the licence: ‘Kenneth McGrath
will have no input in the management, running or operation of the
Pussy Cat Club, the company or any licensed activities and must not
enter the Club premises at any time’.
 
The panel request that
the signage for the club is reviewed to ensure minimal
visibility.
 
It further advises
monitoring of the social media within its control to remove any
inappropriate content. Finally, as an advisory, the reference to
‘girls’ in relation to the performers, which was picked
up by the objectors, is, the panel agree not appropriate and should
be replaced by ‘women’.
 
These licences are
granted on a yearly basis and so subject to regular review and it
is expected that the licensing team will monitor any feedback from
staff, performers, customers, the police, regulatory council
officers, and city residents.
 
The minutes of the
panel will be available on the Council’s website under the
rubric ‘Council and Democracy’.
 
Appeal Rights
(Paragraph 27,
Schedule 3, Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
1982
 
The holder of any such
licence who is aggrieved by any term, condition or restriction on
or subject to which the licence is held may appeal to the
Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of the date on which the
person in question is notified of the imposition of the term,
condition or restriction by which he is aggrieved, as the case may be. A fee is payable upon
lodging an appeal.