Cornwall policy consultation database sex establishment policy – 28 July to 20 October 2010

Truro City Council – (113)	20 Oct 2010	Para. 8.1 Truro City Council expects to be consulted ON ALL LICENCES whether it be alcohol, entertainment or gambling. We are elected by the people and expect to know what proposals are being considered within the City.	Noted. Comment partially not in relation to this policy. Legislation defines who must be consulted. However the council will provide information regarding Sex Establishment Licence applications on its website. There will be no individual consultation with any party by the Licensing Authority.	None		N/A	YES
Miss P – Bodmin (122)	08 Oct 2010	Para. 8.2 Publication on Council website – Good!	Noted.	None		N/A	YES
Mrs C – Truro (142)	21 Oct 2010	Para 8.2 I find it strange that the recent application for a Sex Shop in Truro was not advertised on the Cornwall Council web site and yet every opportunity to become aware of any application that is being considered by the Cornwall Council in order that they may express a view on the matter.	This comment relates to a recent application and is not a comment on the policy.	None		N/A	YES
Cornwall Councillor - Looe & St Martins Ward (25)	28 Sept 2010	Para 8.2. The application should be advertised in local papers, as not all residents have access to computers.	Legislation prescribes that the applicant must publish an advertisement in a local newspaper circulated in the Authority’s area within 7 days of submitting their application for a Sex Establishment Licence. This is detailed at 7.7 of the policy document consulted upon (note this is now 7.8 of the latest draft). It is the applicants’ duty to do this, not the Council.	None		N/A	YES
Truro City Council – (113)	20 Oct 2010	Para. 8.2. We welcome this development and we would also ask that the application for these licenses are also published on the Cornwall Council web site. "However, in order to give local people maximum opportunity to take advantage of their statutory right to object with 28 days, all applications must be published online within one working day of receipt by Cornwall Council.	8.2 already states that current applications will be published on the Council’s website. Due to operational constraints they will be published as soon as reasonably practicable.	None		N/A	YES
Ms R – Newquay (65)	16 Oct 2010	I am not sure that the option for Objection as outlined in 8.3 will be effective for local residents of they - are not aware of it, or cannot undertstand its limits. It will be difficult to have a voice of you are not sure how to express that voice. Please consider how residents will be made aware of this right, and how they will be helped to use this right effectively.	Noted. Potential objectors can contact the licensing service or advice on making an objection.	None		N/A	YES
Stithians Parish Council (30)	28 Sept 2010	8.2 This is very thoughtful of them. Why then are they so reluctant to publicise premises licence applications in the same way? Does this suggest that CC is more interested in getting consultation responses on applications for sex premises licenses than for ordinary premises licences?	Comment not in relation to this policy, however relevant Licensing Act 2003 applications are published on the Council’s website and have been since October 2009. All Town and Parish Councils were made aware of this when this facility was launched.	None		N/A	YES
Stithians Parish Council (30)	28 Sept 2010	8.3 What are the other grounds? If you want an informed opinion you must give us all the information. Only giving us the bits of information someone at County Hall selects is manipulation of the consultation and must not be allowed!	Other grounds relate to the Police. This policy has not been prepared by anybody situated at County Hall.	None		N/A	YES
Miss P – Bodmin (122)	08 Oct 2010	Para 8.3. “Inappropriate, having regard to the character….” This must be adhered to! It is part of the Act! Somehow – at the sex shop licence hearing on 27/8/10 – the character of the relevant locality was turned into a moral objection, thus nullifying this basis for objection. Maybe I didn’t understand fully. The very slick arguments of the applicant, but it was extraordinary to me that the Committee could not refuse the licence on the grounds that it was next to a schools outfitters. Objections on the grounds of the characteristics of the relevant locality, as set out under 11.1 must be accepted. This surely was the intention of Parliament.	Comment mainly relates to specific application previously determined. Relevant part noted.	None		N/A	YES
Ms B (115)	20 Oct 2010	Para 8.3. The following sentence in item 8.3. should be deleted- Any objections received by the Licensing Authority which do not relate to the grounds set out in the Act must be rejected by the Licensing Service. Where objections are rejected, the objector will be given written reasons. Reason: It should be up to the Licensing Committee to determine what is or is not a relevant objection. The idea of the change is to allow local people more of a say and not to have their objections ruled out at an early stage by Licensing Officers.	The Licensing Service has delegated authority to deal with such matters.	None		N/A	YES
Local Safeguarding Children Board (109)	20 Oct 2010	8.4 Will elected Cornwall Councillors representing interested parties be confined to their electoral area or does this mean that a councillor from the East of the county can represent interested parties in the west. If so, this would be an unfair advantage on the part of the interested parties and disproportionately detrimental to the applicant.	The Licensing Authority is not aware of any reason why a Cornish resident shouldn’t approach a Cornwall Councillor (other than a member of Miscellaneous Licensing Committee).	None		N/A	YES
Ms B (115)	20 Oct 2010	Item 8.4. should make it clear that the legislation in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (LGMP) Act 1982 says that “any person” can object. Item 8.4 gives the wrong impression that this includes only those groups mentioned and not individual persons. It does not even mention churches. The LGMP Act 1982 is supposed to be much wider than the Licensing Act and this incorrectly gives the impression that the people who can object are much narrower. Reason: Similar reason to 8.3.	Item 8.1 states a wide range of people can raise objections. Item 8.4 mentions those groups specifically as many people are used to the restrictions of the Licensing Act 2003. This item only seeks to clarify that point for organisations and indicate the type or organisations who may submit representations. It would be impossible to list all persons or organisations that can make representations.	None		N/A	YES
Ms B – Newquay (24b)	27 Sept 2010	8.3 and 8.5 seem a bit contradictory and I'm not sure that I'm entitled to object on these grounds, but please consider this an objection anyway	Comment not understood.	None		N/A	YES
Cornwall Councillor - Looe & St Martins Ward (25)	28 Sept 2010	Para 8.4. Where a local councillor sits on the licensing committee a resident may be represented by a councillor from the adjoining ward.	Noted. The Licensing Authority is not aware of any reason why a Cornish resident shouldn’t approach a Cornwall Councillor (other than a member of Miscellaneous Licensing Committee).	None		N/A	YES
Stithians Parish Council (30)	28 Sept 2010	8.4 Councillors and MPs may raise objections, what about Councils? That is Parish and Town Councils? Our function is representation of the people so why are we denied the opportunity to exercise our democratic function?	Yes they can, however it should be borne in mind that they represent the view of the members of their parish or town as a whole and a representation may not reflect the views of all of their residents.	None		N/A	YES
Stithians Parish Council (30)	28 Sept 2010	8.5 This is too subjective. What might be considered vexatious by one officer may not be considered vexatious by another. If you must do this then you must set out guidance.	This is set out at item 8.6	None		N/A	YES
Ms B (115)	20 Oct 2010	Delete items 8.5, 8.6 and 8.7. Reason: The policy should be written to encourage local people to have a say. The Committee itself could determine the finer points mentioned here. There are too many rules in the policy to prevent people objecting. The Home Office guidance on sexual entertainment venues makes it clear that the idea is to let local people have more of a say.	Not agreed. Case law & legislation restricts objectors addressing the Committee. However discretion has been built into the hearing procedure for such applications for the Chair to allow objectors to speak on relevant matters. The Committee and the applicant are not permitted to ask questions of the objectors. The Hearing Procedure is now contained within the policy as Appendix A.	None		N/A	YES
Stithians Parish Council (30)	28 Sept 2010	8.6 Still too vague and subjective. Merely making the same objection to a lot of applications does not necessarily make it vexatious even though it may be repetitious.	This is not what this section means – repetition in this instance is the same person making the same objection to the same premises application (i.e. grant and each renewal) time after time. If there are no new grounds for objection and the Committee has already considered this objection then it is a repetitive objection.		None	N/A	YES
Mrs C – Truro (142)	21 Oct 2010	Para 8.7 As stated earlier in my response there has to be a total “rethink” as to how such licences are determined in the public arena.	Case law & legislation restricts objectors addressing the Committee. However discretion has been built into the hearing procedure for such applications for the Chair to allow objectors to speak on relevant matters. The Committee and the applicant are not permitted to ask questions of the objectors. The Hearing Procedure is now contained within the policy as Appendix A.		None	N/A	YES
Mr B – St Austell (125)	12 Oct 2010	That all forms of objection both by letter and petition on the grounds of locality suitability should be allowed. I strongly believe that the scope of the persons objecting should not only include those within the immediate area of the premises applying for the licence (due to their vested interest) but that this interest be widened to include all those proven to reside in the County. These issues are surely not minor local issues but for concerned parties in all the county and as such they should have a say.	There is no reference to petitions in the policy. There are no stipulations in similar terms to the Licensing Act 2003 as to who may submit a representation. The policy makes no reference to restrictions.		8.8 A Paragraph has been included to provide information regarding submission of petitions as follows: “Petitions must clearly state the name and address of the premises application being objected to. The full objection that people are signing to say they agree with must be at the top of the petition. The objection must be in line with the requirements of the legislation (as detailed above). The names and addresses of those signing the petition should be provided and should be legible, together with a signature. The Licensing Authority must be confident that those signing the petition were aware what they were signing for; so in the interest of clarity for those signing best practice would be to have the objection at the top of each page, especially where several people are involved in collecting signatures.”	YES	YES
Miss P – Bodmin (122)	08 Oct 2010	Para 8.7. “An equal opportunity” – Not so on 27/8/10, sex shop hearing. I trust the Chairman of the Committee will adhere to the new policy.	Case law & legislation restricts objectors addressing the Committee. However discretion has been built into the hearing procedure for such applications for the Chair to allow objectors to speak on relevant matters. The Committee and the applicant are not permitted to ask questions of the objectors. The Hearing Procedure is now contained within the policy as Appendix A.		None	N/A	YES
Truro City Council – (113)	20 Oct 2010	Para. 8.7 - states “Applicants and objectors will be given an equal opportunity to state their case in accordance with the Miscellaneous Licensing Committees Code of Conduct ...”. Perhaps we could be furnished with a copy of this as the hearing on the 27th August, 2010 did not seem to comply with the above statement. "We welcome para. 92 which states that 11 applications will be referred to the Miscellaneous Licensing Committee for a hearing if objections have been received or if there are "concerns regarding the characteristics of the locality" In order to more accurately reflect the legal framework, this should say "the characteristics of the locality or the use to which other premises in the vicinity are put" (see para. 9.3, bullet point 4).	Case law & legislation restricts objectors addressing the Committee. However discretion has been built into the hearing procedure for such applications for the Chair to allow objectors to speak on relevant matters. The Committee and the applicant are not permitted to ask questions of the objectors. The Hearing Procedure is now contained within the policy as Appendix A.		None	N/A	YES
Ms B (115)	20 Oct 2010	Para 8.8. Delete this sentence: the proximity of the premises to the person making the objection; a sketch map or plan may be helpful to show this Reason: The Licensing Act measure of being in the vicinity of the premises is not relevant to the LPMG Act 1982. In addition this is making it too technical for ordinary people to object. the reasons for making the objections, which are clearly set out in relation to the grounds for refusal (as stated at 6.2 above). Delete the above sentence after the word objections. Reason To simplify the requirements and 6.2. above appears irrelevant.	Disagree. 8.8: this assists the Committee to assess the direct impact of any premises upon an objector. This is a typographical error - 6.2 should read 8.3.		6.2 amended to 8.3	YES	YES
Miss P – Bodmin (122)	08 Oct 2010	Para 8.8. “The proximity of the premises to the person making the objection….” Please make it clear that anyone using a city/town as a shopping centre or for business has an interest in the application. Truro, of course, belongs to the whole of Cornwall – a shopping and cultural centre, everyone in the Cornwall Council area should have the right to object.	8.8: this assists the Committee to assess the direct impact of any premises upon an objector. Any person may make a representation.		None	N/A	YES
Stithians Parish Council (30)	28 Sept 2010	8.8. Does this imply that objections may only be made by people who live within some subjectively determined proximity to a premises? That would be inappropriate and must not be included in the policy..	8.8: this assists the Committee to assess the direct impact of any premises upon an objector. Any person may make a representation.		None	N/A	YES
Stithians Parish Council (30)	28 Sept 2010	8.8. Section 6.2 refers to waivers and the Authority considering it inappropriate to grant such. No grounds for refusal seem to be included in this document so far. Thus section 8.8 is in error. Para 6.2 refers to other matters not grounds for refusal.	This is a typographical error - 6.2 should read 8.3.		6.2 amended to 8.3	N/A	YES
Stithians Parish Council (30)	28 Sept 2010	The document is incomplete. It states on page 11 para 8.8 that the grounds for refusal are made at para 6.2. Para 6.2 does not state the grounds for refusal it refers to other matters. The grounds for refusal seem not to be included anywhere.	The document in not incomplete. This is a typographical error - 6.2 should read 8.3. Additional grounds for refusal are stated in section 9.3		6.2 amended to 8.3	N/A	YES
Mrs S – Gorran Haven (138)	20 Oct 2010	“the proximity of the premises to the person making the objection”.. I consider that anyone living anywhere in Cornwall, should have equal rights - we are all concerned about what goes on in the town we visit, especially a special centre like Truro (or Bodmin, St Austell etc).	8.8: this assists the Committee to assess the direct impact of any premises upon an objector. Any person may make a representation.		None	N/A	YES
Truro City Council – (113)	20 Oct 2010	As Truro City Council we are being consulted as to our views on the following types of Sex Establishments: Sex shops Sex cinema Sexual Entertainment Venue We would ask that, without exception all applications for the three categories listed above be forwarded to the Truro City Council for consultation and consideration which would include applications to waive the requirement for a sex establishment licence and variations to the licence.	The consultation was in relation to the policy and not to the types of Sex Establishments to be regulated as that is prescribed in law. Legislation defines who must be consulted. However the council will provide information regarding Sex Establishment Licence applications on its website. There will be no individual consultation with any party by the Licensing Authority.		None	N/A	YES