Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Consultation on sex establishment policy
This was emailed to all borough councillors for forwarding to residents:
We have until 15th December to comment (object or support) teh proposed policy. thought HoLers would want to be aware.
Dear Councillors, I write to advise that we are now underway with the consultation on the draft sex establishment policy.
In summary we are putting forward a nil by ward policy across the borough. Feel free to pass the document on as you would like.
I am happy to discuss any queries.
Regards,
Daliah Barrett
Lead Licensing Officer
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/business/licensing_regulations/lic...
We have until 15th December to comment (object or support) teh proposed policy. thought HoLers would want to be aware.
Tags for Forum Posts: consultation
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
But to return to the substance:
Is it right and fair, justum et pro bono publico, that all of Haringey Borough be deprived of such an establishment?
-
Permalink Reply by Mr Growbag on
-
Let's all take a moment to compare and contrast the wonderful piece of legislation that has enabled this policy with the equally wonderful Gambling Act shall we:
Betting Shops: now effectively impossible to prevent a licence being issued
Sex shops/Strip Clubs: now effectively impossible to get a licence issued
Proportionality, anyone? ;)
-
Permalink Reply by Omotn on
-
Actually it is not the legislation but LBH's implementation of it. By replaing "nil" with 1 or 2 or 50 the possibility would remain.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Mr Growbag, I think you're on the right track in comparing the relevant licensing legislation. In the Gambling Act (2005) there is the remarkable clause whereby the government directs Licensing Authorities to:
"Aim To Permit" [applications for gambling premises licences]
I am not well acquainted with other pieces of licensing legislation, but I do wonder if any other Act governing and regulating licensing activities has a similar directive. Should the State direct local licence issuing authorities, for example, to aim to permit the following licences:
• Explosives
• Driving
• Liquor
• Gun
I think these and other licensed activity illustrate what an enormously favourable regime the gambling lobby won for themselves from the last government.
I would be fascinated to learn if any other licensed activity had an in-built bias to grant licences to Applicants.
.
-
-
Is it right and fair, justum et pro bono publico, that all of Haringey Borough be deprived of such an establishment?
I think that's what the consultation is about - don't complain to me. Have I missed irony in your tone?
-
-
Not aware I was complaining to you or anyone else, Omotn.
-
-
I still remain of the view that 'they/them/their(s)' relate to the third person plural. Even if that is no longer true using these words interchangeably with 'he/him/his' reduces the amount of meaning in a sentence. In some cases it also renders the sentence internally inconsistent. Reading such a sentence has the same effect on me as the sound of fingernails scraping down a blackboard. I would therefore suggest the following minor amendments.
4.8 a) the applicant is unsuitable to hold a licence because they have been convicted of an offence or for any other reason
the applicant is unsuitable to hold a licence because of a criminal conviction or for any other reason
b) were the licence to be granted, renewed or transferred, the business to which it relates would be managed or carried on for the benefit of a person other than the applicant, who would
have been refused a licence if they had applied themselves
were the licence to be granted, renewed or transferred, the
business to which it relates would be managed or carried on for
the benefit of an unsuitable person other than the applicant
5.25. The legislation dictates that, unless a person making representations
consents, their name and address shall not be revealed to the
applicant. They may also be reluctant to appear before a hearing of
the Miscellaneous Sub-Committee.
The legislation dictates that, the names and addresses of persons making representations
, shall not be revealed to the
applicant without their consent . They may also be reluctant to appear before a hearing of
the Miscellaneous Sub-Committee. The underlined sentence can be removed - why should the policy speculate on motivation?
(Perhaps I should add a historical note about blackboards?)
-
-
In summary we are putting forward a nil by ward policy across the borough"
If this is a "summary", let alone one that is useful, I would have some disagreement with the summarizer or the jargonater. Even with my enormous brainpower, I cannot decipher the meaning so I'm not surprised others have trouble. I think the Nil word is being used wilfuly (no offence Will!).
Does it mean nil points pour Nil gun?!
- Nil by mouth
.
-
-
Will I thought you made a fetching tart at your last party.
Apart from the Nil word, what has the policy to do with wards? Does it mean the policy will vary by ward? (?!) If the policy is uniform across the Borough, why mention Wards at all? What would be meant by Nil-by-Street policy?!
If the council cannot make itself clear, then this is a job for Bletchley Park.
.
-
-
Many residents of Crouch End will have been aware of the application by the Music Palace recently to become a lap dancing venue. Haringey's licensing committee turned down the application. Given the overwhelming opposition in Crouch End to the application it could be said a threat was averted. Much was made of what was at the time at the time, forthcoming legislation http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/26/section/27 to give councils greater power over such applications. Haringey formally adopted this power earlier this year. There is currently a consultation http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/business/licensing_regulations/lic... going on to determine the exact form Haringey's policy to use this power should take.
I believe It is the intention of the policy to forbid sex cinemas, sex shops, lap dancing and pole dancing clubs from Haringey. This is what "nil by ward" means in the draft policy. There is scope in the document to vary the number of sex establishments ward by ward. Given that this is the case any one wishing to keep Haringey free of licensed commercial sex (especially at the Music Palace) should write in support of the policy to
Licensing Team
Enforcement Service
Haringey Council
Unit 271-272
Lee Valley Technopark
Ashley Road
Tottenham
London
N17 9LN
Email licensing@haringey.gov.uk
The proposed policy seems to have benefited from many of the lessons learned during the Music Palace application. Shortcomings in the 2003 Licensing Act have largely been overcome. Many of the arguments of the Lapoff objectors have been generalised and incorporated into the policy.There are one or two improvements that could be made:
* the policy wants to enable "rational determination" of applications (Introduction) yet it introduces arbitrary and irrational 400 metre and 200 metre limits to determine "inappropriate proximity". Perhaps these distances can be justified? Or perhaps some other test could be applied, e.g. "the premises are visible from residential property, etc, . . . . or where the premises are not visible from deigsnated types of property the balance of probabilities suggests that clientele and residents may come into contact".
* the introduction states that the policy should be "clear and ambiguous" - this should read "clear and UNambiguous"
* in a table listing the wards in Haringey the document has as its "appropriate number" the word "nil" - this would less ambiguously read "0(zero)".
-
-
http://www.hackney.gov.uk/3450.htm
Hackney says a nil policy means nil, as in we won't have any "sex establishments." Confused?
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
