Decision - Pussycat Club Licensing Panel (Non Licensing Act 2003 Functions)

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

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 an

This Equality Impact Assessment supports consideration of the renewal of the Pussycat Club’s sexual entertainment venue licence. It identifies potential equality and safeguarding risks, particularly for women, performers, young people and people with intersecting protected characteristics, while recognising the lawful rights and agency of people working in the venue.