Zero Option Campaign
Email: zerooptionsheffield@gmail.com
Head of Licensing
Licensing Section
Block C, Staniforth Road Depot
Staniforth Road
Sheffield S9 3HD
Submitted via email
1st August 2016
Dear Sheffield Licensing
Objection to Villa Mercedes SEV
We refer to the application for a sexual entertainment venue licence by:
Villa Mercedes, 4 Suffolk Road, Sheffield S2 4AG
This is an objection letter to the application for this licence and we urge the Council to refuse it under the Discretionary Grounds for Refusal of Sheffield City Council’s Sexual Entertainment Venues Licensing Policy on the following grounds:
Ground c):
“the number of sex establishments in the relevant locality at the time the application is made is equal to or exceeds the number which the authority consider is appropriate for that locality.”
The grounds go on to state that “Nil may be an appropriate number for the purposes of (c)”
The current number in the area is one (one too many) with Spearmint Rhino and Sheffield does not need another SEV within such close proximity (or indeed anywhere).
Ground d):
“the grant or renewal of a licence would be inappropriate, having regard –
(i) to the character of the relevant locality: or
(ii) to the use to which any premises in the vicinity are put: or
(iii) to the layout, character or condition of the premises; vehicle; vessel or stall in respect of which the application is made.”
In respect of the above:
- there are a number of charities and organisations in the area which support vulnerable children and adults, some of which cannot be named because of their confidential addresses. However, we are aware that the Council knows which organisations we are referring to and we also know that they have been in contact with the Licensing Department to express their concerns. We share their concerns and believe this to be not only a safeguarding issue but that should this club proceed, it would impact on those service users, staff and volunteers accessing vital services.
- there are young students surrounding the area, especially in the Unite buildings opposite and the new flats being built on Suffolk Road.
- there is a residential block on Suffolk Road.
- the Subway’s (directly opposite) customers are overwhelmingly school children.
- this would be in very close proximity to Sheffield Hallam buildings including existing student accommodation and the new accommodation which is under construction directly opposite on Suffolk Road.
- this would be in very close proximity to the Showroom cinema which hosts family events.
- this would be directly next to the Leadmill which hosts over 100 14+ events every year, the queues for which run in that direction so would potentially see under 18s queuing past their doors. The Leadmill also hosts over 200 club nights a year, with the majority of their customers at peak times being very young students only just turned 18 who again would be queuing past their doors.
- it would be on the same road as two of Freeman College’s buildings which provides education for students (16 – 25) who have a range of complex learning, mental health and behavioural needs.
- we have been made aware of plans to expand on the fact that there are a number of educational establishments in the area with the creation of a “knowledge quarter/coridoor” and would like the Council to carefully consider how this is compatible with not one, but potentially two SEVs.
e) “cultural hub of city” and f) “central gateway to the city….or tourist attraction”
- the part of the City that the club would be situated in the gateway to the City and is one of the first things that visitors and Sheffield residents will see upon leaving the train station and those driving into the City from the Parkway and from the south of the City into town, Meadowhall and beyond with access to the M1.
- it is also an access route for young people travelling to and from Sheffield College, All Saints and UTC by car, bus or on foot.
- this would be in close proximity to the number of national and international events locations, as well as a direct access route, for example, Doc Fest; the children’s media conference; Off the Shelf etc
When walking around this area, which as a Council you encourage people to do due to the other businesses and services in the area, women feel nervous because of the SEV and have to change their behaviour because of it being there, for example having to look around to see if there are people coming out of the SEV, take a different route walking to the centre of town so that they do not have to go past the SEV. Women should not have to feel like this in their City. Spearmint Rhino is also within very close proximity. An additional SEV would deter many women from accessing this quarter, which is their human right. We note the Council’s refusal to take on board objections from women of Sheffield regarding the Spearmint Rhino licence who have clearly and articulately expressed their fear of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the vicinity of SEVs, which promote the notion of male sexual entitlement and the objectification of women. The Council has a duty under the Public Sector Equality Act to foster good relations between the sexes yet we repeatedly hear the Council put forward that these objections amount to “anecdotal evidence” or that they are “moral” issues and are therefore dismissed and not admissible. We also like the council to answer this? If a venue were actively promoting racism and ableism or homophobia, would these be considered “moral issues”? We remind you that anti-discriminatory practices and policies are enshrined in law and that gender is a protected characteristic. Many researchers and academics have written papers and reports highlighting how the sexualisation and commodification of women contribute to a culture which is harmful. Papers can be provided on request.
Despite the Council’s contentions of “anecdotal evidence” the following corroborates the views expressed by many Sheffield women:
A paper published in Criminal Justice Matters (2012 Patiniotis & Standing) states:
“. . . the women describe feeling frightened, disempowered, violated, embarrassed, unsafe (particularly if men are around), and avoid certain streets at night where they know there is a lap dancing club.”
And goes onto quote from women they interviewed:
“I avoid this street at night. I feel disempowered and angry and violated when I walk down this street, as there is a lap dancing club on it. The closer I get to that awful venue, the worse I feel. I feel some relief after I’ve passed it. It’s worse when there are men around.”
“I feel embarrassed and uncomfortable as a woman walking down this street. I used to feel sorry for the women who were coming to work as I left for home.”
Patiniotis and Standing continue “However, women also reported avoiding certain streets and feeling frightened in the day time, when the clubs are closed. It is the existence of the clubs that causes women to feel alienated in public space at all times, and fearful of the threat of violence posed by the sexual objectification of women.”
“Women’s avoidance tactics include crossing the street so as not to walk past a SEV, avoiding certain streets altogether, and no longer using bus stops that are situated near lap dancing clubs, as their vicinity makes them feel vulnerable and unsafe.”
This is further evidenced by The UK Royal Institute of Town Planning (2007) that “in certain locations, lap dancing and exotic dancing clubs make women feel threatened or uncomfortable.”
The Council’s own promotion of the City is “Sheffield – where everyone matters” – this includes the female citizens of the city who should not be subjected to their city promoting and normalising the sexualisation and objectification of them. Again, we contest that this is a so called “moral” objection.
We remind you of your obligations under the Equality Act to work to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
According to your policy, you state that:
- The Council’s Legal Obligations
There are a number of statutory provisions which apply to every action the Council takes as a public authority. These include, for example:
- duty to have regard to the interest of Sheffield’s tax payers;
- its Human Rights Act obligations;
- its duty to have due regard to the need to promote race equality and to the need to eliminate unlawful race discrimination and the statutory obligations in relation to disability age and gender. [our emphasis]
We also ask what actions or discussions the Council has taken in order to consider what number of sexual entertainment venues is appropriate for Sheffield, as stated in the policy and legislation? Has the Council for example, as per their own policy, carried out an Equality Impact Assessment? We are aware that the overwhelming majority of local businesses and organisations strongly oppose this SEV. Was there any consultation process about how this would impact on them, their clients and service users?
Further ground for discretionary refusal of a licence are:
(a) the applicant is unsuitable to hold the licence by reason of having been convicted of an offence or for any other reason;
Although the applicant for this licence is listed as Rockwave Leisure Limited (registered at Companies House in December 2015), this company has the same registered address as Tabasco Leisure Ltd previously the club operator of Villa Mercedes, 1 Oxford Street, Harrogate. On August 20 2015, Harrogate Borough Council (HBC) refused to renew Villa Mercedes’ SEV license for reasons including physical contact with the dancers and allowing audience participation. Chair of HBC’s Licensing Committee John Ennis said: “The operator of Villa Mercedes repeatedly fell short of what is required and failed to manage the premises and dancers. “This was despite considerable input from the council and the police over a period of six months.”
A sexual entertainment venue in the heart of the city, or anywhere in the city, is simply completely contradictory to everything that the council says it stands for, everything that the council should stand for, and has a duty to work towards.
We also draw your attention to the following from the previous Villa Mercedes’ website, which is extremely offensive and misogynistic in its promotion of the death of a mother-in-law as a cause for celebration or a girlfriend’s period as a motive for seeking out “sexual entertainment”. This also implies that sexual services are on offer with reference to the girlfriend having her period, and presumably not wanting to have sex or men being put off sexual contact with a menstruating woman:
We invite comments from the Council as to whether they find such attitudes appropriate and non-discriminatory.
Yours sincerely
Zero Option, Sheffield
References
Jackie Patiniotis & Kay Standing (2012) License to cause harm? Sex entertainment venues and women’s sense of safety in inner city centres. Criminal Justice Matters 88:1, 10-12.
Royal Town Planning Institute (2007) Gender and Spatial Planning, Good Practice Note 7. Available from: http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/1731629/gpn7-_gender_and_spatial_planning__2007_.pdf
Addendum submitted on 2nd August:
Thank you for your response.
We would welcome a discussion with the Council about why fears about women’s safety (ie fear of crime and sexual violence) is constantly dismissed as “moral grounds”. This is utterly offensive and insensitive to the 400,000 women per year who are sexually assaulted and the 85,000 who are raped and all survivors of sexual violence. It is a common refrain from the Council.
I refer you to this comment:
Some critics claimed a sex-orientated venue would put the safety of women at risk, but officers said their recommendation was based on the impact on the area, not on moral grounds.
From this article from 2013:http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/no-wildcat-action-as-lap-dance-venue-in-sheffield-is-blocked-1-5454560
Could you please append this email to our letter of objection?
Best wishes
Zero Option
ZERO OPTION 