Issue - meetings

This report seeks Council approval to the amended Statement of Policy in respect of Sex Establishments, following consideration by the Licensing and Safety Committee.

Discussion:

This report provided details of proposals regarding amendments to the Statement of Policy in respect of Sex Establishments, following consideration by the Licensing and Safety Committee in April, July and September 2012. The Committee had recommended a limit for sexual entertainment venues in the historic part of Rochester, as set out in the amended Statement of Policy.

A Diversity Impact Assessment screening had been undertaken on these proposals which was set out in Appendix C to the report.The screening had demonstrated that it was not necessary to undertake a full assessment on the proposals.

Councillor O’Brien, Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Customer Contact, supported by Councillor Wicks, Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, proposed the recommendation set out in the report.

Decision:

The Council approved the amended Statement of Policy in respect of Sex Establishments as set out in Appendix A to the report for approval and for the new Statement of Policy to come into effect from 19 October 2012.

This reports asks the committee to consider the result o a consultation on setting a limit on the number of venues which may be licenced as sexual entertainment venues within a specified area and to decide whether to make a recommendation to Full Council. 

Discussion:

The Licensing and Local Land Charges Manager introduced the report, which set out the result of the consultation to limit the number of Sexual Entertainment Venues (SEV) in a specified area. The report set out three possible options available to the committee, although Members might have other options they wished to put forward. Officers advised that if Members wished to consider Option 3 (to make revisions in line with the response received through the consultation and carry out a further consultation on the amendments), this would reschedule approval due by Full Council on
24 January 2013.

A plan was circulated showing the area consulted on and the area requested by the residents group that had responded to the consultation, as set out in Appendix B.

A Member stated that he hoped the committee would support Option 3 on the basis of the submission by the residents group as they took the issue seriously. The reasons the residents requested that the area was enlarged were clearly set out in Appendix B and it was important to consider the perception this type of venue gave an area. The consultation had been put forward based on an historic area with important landmarks. The additional area requested to be included in the restricted area also included a Conservation Area. Choosing Option 3 would be a sensible way forward and would only mean a slight delay in the final decision and implementation of the new policy. There were no SEV applications pending and although everyone else in Medway had the opportunity to send their views to the council, there had been no other responses, excepting that from the residents group in New Road, Chatham. This had been an area which, historically, had problems with prostitution and there had been a lot of partnership work and specific campaigns carried out there which had seen this reduced. This would be another clear message that the council took this matter seriously and was looking to assist the area further.

Another Member of the committee advised that whilst he had an enormous amount of sympathy for Members wishing to choose Option 3, he would urge the committee to agree to Option 2 (to approve and recommend the area and limit within it, as consulted on, to Full Council for decision in October 2012). He explained that his reason for this was that he had been on a previous 1982 Act Hearing Panel to consider a SEV application in Rochester and had heard the objections voiced by local residents. However, the Panel had been legally powerless to act on some of the points that had been raised and the application had been approved. This had led to Members requesting the consultation to limit the number of venues within the Historic Rochester area to demonstrate that the residents had been listened to. Any future application elsewhere in Medway would be looked at individually and the representations considered carefully at that time but there could not be a blanket approach, as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 389