Dear Sir/ Madam,
Objection to SEV Application
I understand that an application for a renewal of a Sexual Entertainment Venue licence has been received by Cheltenham Borough Council from the proprietor of Bath Road Properties Ltd.I urge the council to reject the application on the grounds that Lap Dancing would be detrimental to the character of the locality and at odds withthe use to which any premises in the vicinity are put.
Both The Salvation Army Church and St Luke’s Church & Community Hall are vibrant centres of worship and community focus that provide services to residents in the direct vicinity of the proposed SEV.These include lunch clubs for the elderly and children’s activities.Situating a SEV so close so such vital community services would be inappropriate and insensitive.
In addition to community centres and places of worship there are also many facilities and services aimed at specifically children in the area.These include Hickory Dickories’ nursery, St John’s C of E Primary School and a children’s dance school, all of which are within a 5 minute walk of the proposed lap dancing club.
Sandford Park is an asset enjoyed by many people in the area.It is well documented that parks in the vicinity of SEV’s attract anti-social behaviour.Should an SEV be renewed I would not feel safe walking through Sandford Park or anywhere in the vicinity of the club.
Whilst Cheltenham has a reputation as an affluent town, it perhaps noticeable that the area surrounding the ‘Fantasy’ has begun to decline in recent years.It is therefore submitted that efforts to restore the upper Bath Road/Strand to a safe, welcoming and respectable area that attracts a broad segment of the retail market will be severely inhibited by the presence of a lap-dancing club.In order to achieve the economic and social prosperity which Cheltenham needs, the public image of the town would be improved by refusing to renew the SEV licence.
I look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully,
Below is how all councillors voted at the time of the SEV vote… (For = for a zero limit across the whole Borough and Against = against setting a zero limit across the whole Borough)
Cllr Matt Babbage, Battledown – Against
Cllr Paul Baker, Charlton Park – For
Cllr Garth Barnes, College – For
Cllr Nigel Britter, Benhall – Against
Cllr Andrew Chard, Leckhampton – Against
Cllr Flo Cluclas (proposed the amendment), Swindon Village – For
Cllr Chris Coleman, St Mark’s – Against
Cllr Bernie Fisher, Swindon Village – For
Cllr Jackie Fletcher, Benhall – For
Cllr Wendy Flynn, Hesters Way – Against
Cllr Tim Harman, Park – For
Cllr Colin Hay, Oakley – Against
Cllr Rowena Hay, Oakley – Against
Cllr Sandra Holliday, St Mark’s – For
Cllr Peter Jeffries, Springbank – Against
Cllr Steve Jordan, All Saints - Against
Cllr Andrew Lansley, St Pauls – For
Cllr Adam Lilleywhite, Pittville – Against
Cllr Chris Mason, Lansdown – For
Cllr Helena McCloskey, Charlton Kings – For
Cllr Andrew McKinlay, Up Hatherley, Against
Cllr Dan Murch, All Saints – Against
Cllr Chris Mason, Leckhampton – For
Cllr John Payne, Prestbury - For
Cllr Dave Prince, Pittville, absent
Cllr John Rawson, St Peters – For
Cllr Anne Regan, Warden Hill – For
Cllr Rob Reid, Charlton Kings – Against
Cllr Chris Ryder, Warden Hill – For
Cllr Diggory Seacome, Lansdown – Against
Cllr Duncan Smith, Charlton Park – For
Cllr Malcolm Stennett, Prestbury – Against
Councillor Klara Sudbury (seconded the amendment) – For
Cllr Pat Thornton, St Peters – Absent
Cllr Jon Walklett, St Paul’s – Against
Cllr Andrew Wall, Battledown – Absent
Cllr Simon Wheeler, Hesters Way – Against
Cllr Roger Whyborn, Up Hatherley – For
Cllr Max Wilkinson, Park – Against
Cllr Suzanne Williams, Springbank - Against