A HEARING to review the licence of Spearmint Rhino in Bournemouth has been postponed.

It was due to take place this morning at Bournemouth council.

Councillors were believed to have been informed of the postponement late on Monday night.

It will now be held on December 16.

Several disgruntled Spearmint Rhino customers have come forward to complain about the behaviour of staff or unauthorised transactions at the Yelverton Road club.

Councillors were due to hear from Spearmint Rhino and from objectors before deciding whether to renew the club’s licence with additional conditions or whether to refuse it.

Rob White, head of regulatory services at Bournemouth council, said: "The decision was taken to postpone the licensing hearing relating to the premises of Spearmint Rhino until December 16th. "On legal advice we took the view that more time was needed to ensure that all factors can properly be taken into account, regarding their application for license renewal.”

Spearmint Rhino came under the spotlight following a joint inspection by the council and Dorset Police back in June.

Several breaches of the club’s strict sexual entertainment venue licence were witnessed and, following mediation, Spearmint Rhino agreed to apply to have extra conditions put on its licence.

Further inspections have not revealed any breaches but 15 people have since come forward to urge councillors to revoke the licence.

They include:

  • A Northern Irish man who visited Spearmint Rhino while on a stag weekend and was so drunk he spent £7,500 – a third of his annual salary - in one night.
  • A woman who claims her mentally disabled brother spent his life savings of nearly £7,000 in one visit to the club.
  • A Bournemouth University student who spent almost £2,000 - nearly all of his student loan – on a drunken visit to the club. He had intended to spend £100.
  • A man who claims his drink may have been spiked, who was charged £3,361.00 in less than four hours.

There are also several other objections from people who claim the club should lose its licence because it had initially breached its conditions and because it is in a sensitive location near to three active faith communities.