Skip to content

Agenda and minutes

Venue: To be held at the Town Hall, Pinstone Street, Sheffield, S1 2HH

Contact: John Turner, Democratic Services  Email: john.turner@sheffield.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

1.1

There were no apologies for absence.

 

2.

Exclusion of Public and Press

To identify items where resolutions may be moved to exclude the press and public

Minutes:

2.1

No items were identified where resolutions may be moved to exclude the public and press.

 

3.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 88 KB

Members to declare any interests they have in the business to be considered at the meeting

Minutes:

3.1

There were no declarations of interest.

 

4.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (as amended) 1982 - Spearmint Rhino, 60 Brown Street, Sheffield S1 2BS pdf icon PDF 47 KB

Report of the Chief Licensing Officer

 

(NOTE: Appendix B to the report in Item 5 above is not available to the press and public as it contains exempt information as described in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

4.1

The Chief Licensing Officer submitted a report to consider an application for the renewal of a Sexual Entertainment Venue Licence made under Schedule 3, Section 10, of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, as amended, in respect of the premises known as Spearmint Rhino, 60 Brown Street, Sheffield, S1 2BS.

 

 

4.2

Present at the meeting were Philip Kolvin QC (Counsel for the Applicants); Robert Sutherland (Solicitor for the Applicants); John Specht (Director), Andy Foster (Regional Manager); Peter Mercer (General Manager); Mick Goodwin (Manager) and a Dancer (Spearmint Rhino, Applicants); Natasha Harcroft (Barrister for the Objectors), Shelley Roche-Jacques, Meera Kulkarni, Michelle Webster, Christine Rose, Sammy Woodhouse, Tom Boydell, Martine Taube, Charlotte Mead, Nikki Bond, Tony Maltby, Amanda Hughes, Councillor Douglas Johnson plus four others (Objectors); Claire Bower and Craig Harper (Licensing Strategy and Policy Officers); Samantha Bond (Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee) and Jennie Skiba (Democratic Services).

 

 

4.3

Samantha Bond outlined the procedure which would be followed during the hearing, as set out in Appendix “G” to the report.

 

 

4.4

Claire Bower presented the report to the Sub-Committee and it was noted that written representations objecting to the application had been received from 156 interested parties, 17 of whom were in attendance and would address the Sub-Committee, and details of all those representations were attached at Appendix “D” to the report.

 

 

4.5

Representations from Objectors

 

 

4.5.1

Amanda Hughes, Sheffield Hallam University, stated that the University had recently launched its ambitious and visionary Campus Masterplan, to which Sheffield City Council had had significant involvement in its development and was very supportive of the proposals. She added that Phase 1 of the Plan, due to be implemented over the next five years, would intensify development in the Cultural Industries Quarter (CIQ) and focused on the development of a new gateway to the University and the City.  She said that the Plan would create a “University Green” on Arundel Lane, immediately adjacent to the Spearmint Rhino building and she was very concerned that the presence of a sexual entertainment venue in the area would have a negative impact on what would be a positive and substantial investment by Hallam University.  Ms. Hughes referred to the  location of the venue, stating that it was only a short distance away from the University Technical College (UTC) which was attended by 14 to 19 year olds, who walked past the club.  Also, there were a number of residential premises and a place of worship nearby and that a venue of this nature was totally inappropriate.  Ms. Hughes further stated that Hallam University had worked with stakeholders across the CIQ and the City, including the City Council, in the development of the new Campus and that there were too many compelling reasons for the Council not to renew the application and believed that the Council would be placing itself into conflict regarding its own plans for the development of the City Centre and would be jeopardising the impact of the planned Knowledge Gateway investment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.