Agenda item

The Environmental Health Manager introduced a report regarding the Statement of Licensing Policy for Sex Establishments and reminded the committee of the issues raised at the June meeting.

 

Public Speaker Mr Bartlett Owner of Talk of the Town

Mr Bartlett explained that he had hoped to submit a petition of support for his club to the Licensing Committee, however, it was noted that it had been submitted after the deadline for this meeting. Mr Bartlett stated that he had 400 signatures and 2,000 on line supporters for his club.

 

Mr Bartlett stated that his main purpose in attending was to demonstrate the level of support for his establishment and opposition to a “nil policy”.

 

Public Speaker Dr Belinda Brooks-Gordon

Dr Brooks-Gordon explained that she was speaking in the capacity as an academic rather than a County Councillor, and raised the following points

·        Evidence from objectors refers to the theory of objectification. However, this is only one theory relating to the sex industry and there are others, which contradict this.

·        Much of the academic research regarding lap-dancing clubs has been discredited.

·        Recent police evidence to central government demonstrated that in general, clubs do not give rise to an increase in disorderly behaviour.

·        Club users value a discrete venue and are unlikely to be unruly in the vicinity.

·        Evidence from female staff of clubs suggests that they value the flexibility and the earning potential of clubs.

·        Female students sometimes use this to pay for their education.

·        Dancers state that what they want is clean changing rooms, safe locker areas and fair treatment from club owners.

 

Public Speaker Ms Emma-Rose Cornwall

 

Ms Cornwall raised the following points:

 

·        Would like an explanation for the £30,000 cost quoted in the report.

·        There is already extensive research into this issue available.

·        Research shows a link between lap-dancing clubs and anti-social behaviour and violent attacks.

·        Whether other costs been considered such as the cost associated with the rise in violent assault and rape?

·        The spend of £30,000 could be seen as good value for money if it protects local women.

·        Police lack resources to deal with rape, which is widely regarded as under reported.

·        Would the policy lead to repeated applications as clubs apply to different Wards across the City in an attempt to find an area that would not reject the application?

·        No Ward in the City is likely to welcome a lap-dancing club.

 

Members questioned the connection between lap-dancing and increased crime, as the evidence does not support this. Members also pointed out that the adoption of a nil policy would not prevent applications, all of which would be considered on their merits. The costs of repeat applications would be borne by the applicant.

 

Public Speaker Norah Al-Ani of Cambridge Rape Crisis Centre

Ms Al-Ani suggested that 10 other authorities had followed Hackney’s example and had adopted nil policies. She stated that the they had done this without costly consultations. For example, Portsmouth had spent no more on this consultation exercise and on any other consultation.

 

She suggested that the existing body of research on the subject could be applied to the local situation. She expressed the view that it was in the best interest of Cambridge to introduce a nil policy.

 

The Chair stated that legal guidance had been considered and that a nil policy could not be adopted for the entire City. Consultation would be needed Ward by Ward. She stated that it was important that the committee consider what it is able to do rather than what it might like to do.

 

In response to members questions, Ms Al-Ani stated that research in Camden suggested a link between sexual entertainment venues and increased violent crime.

 

Ms Al-Ani concluded by saying that Cambridge may not have any issues at present but more clubs could result in increased crime. 

 

Public Speaker Dr Janie Huber

Dr Huber raised the following points

·        Concerns about the transparency of the process of reconsidering a decision that had been agreed in June. She expressed disquiet that the decision was being looked at again due to costs.

·        Cambridge is ahead of the game nationally.

·        Newspaper headlines recently suggested that female students were funding their education via the sex industry. Does the committee want this to happen in Cambridge?

·        The industry is aggressive and lucrative and could change the nature of Cambridge as a City.

·        Lap-dancing clubs are degrading.

·        A clear decision was taken in June and the necessary consultation should be carried out.

 

The Chair clarified the issues from the last meeting. The recommendations had included the line “based on analysis”, which had been taken from the Hackney decision. However, Cambridge had undertaken no analysis and therefore the decision was based on incomplete information.  To-date there had been no case law to support nil policy decision and the evidence from other authorities is not as clear as it appears. Members should also consider the fact that any decision would impact on people’s livelihoods. It was noted that the decision could leave the Council open to Judicial Review Challenge, so it was important that the decision was based on robust evidence.

 

The Solicitor advised the committee that any policy must be lawful and based on relevant information.

 

Members discussed the meaning of a relevant locality. Applying this to every Ward would, de facto, apply the nil policy to the entire City. Members were advised that they would need to decide not just what were relevant localities but also the reasons behind that decision for each locality.

 

Members questioned the costs of consultation, which appeared to be much higher than the consultation on Taxis, and why these costs had not been known at the June meeting. The Head of Refuse and Environment responded that original report had considered consulting the City as a whole. A nil policy at Ward level would need to be more detailed and this level of detail had not been envisaged or costed in the original report.

 

The Chair reminded the committee that the original policy had been straight- forward in stating that each case would be considered on its merits. A nil policy would not change this requirement. She further stated that the situation locally had been one of very few applications and there was no reason to expect this to change.

 

Members raised the following points:

             I.      Pre-determining an area of relevant locality could be problematic, as the Ward boundaries do not correspond to natural community boundaries.

          II.      There appears to be little to gain from the nil policy as all cases would still be heard by committee.

       III.      The June decision had been based on incomplete information and showed no clear links to the corporate vision.

 

Councillor Brown suggested that case analysis of the Peterborough Case supported the assertion that whilst designating the whole authority, as single locality was inappropriate, there was significant flexibility about the definition of localities.

 

Councillor Blencowe and Councillor Pogonowski were concerned that opposition spokespersons had not been informed that the consultations agreed in June, were not taking place. The Chair stated that she had asked for this to happen and shared their concern if had not.

 

Councillor Blencowe also stated that the budget considerations were not relevant to the discussion. He suggested not implementing a decision of a regulatory committee was unsatisfactory.

 

The Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services, Councillor Swanson stated that there was no funding for this consultation in the present budget. If the committee decided to go ahead with the consultation process, a bid for funding could be made next year.

 

Members discussed the need to adopt a policy by the 1^st December 2011. The following additional points were raised:

 

      IV.      Additional clauses could be added at a later date if needed.

         V.      Existing premises would need to re apply.

      VI.      Any policy would need to reflect the diverse nature of Cambridge.

   VII.      Removing the figure of £30,000 and replacing this with a lower figure.

VIII.      Minor changes to the original policy would be needed to ensure it was gender neutral.

      IX.      The need for an evidence based approach to the decision.

 

The Chair proposed the following amended recommendations for consideration:

 

That the recommendations be amended to read:

 

To adopt a Sex Establishment Policy as originally proposed on 6^th June 2011 un-amended.

 

To instruct officers to carry out appropriate research, consultation and analysis regarding the nil per ward policy agreed by committee on 6^th June 2011 and to present their findings to a subsequent meeting of the Licensing Committee.

 

The Committee voted on the two parts of the motion separately:

 

A.   To adopt a Sex Establishment Policy as originally proposed on 6^th June 2011 un-amended (Agreed by 7 votes to 0).

 

B.   To instruct officers to carry out appropriate research, consultation and analysis regarding the nil per ward policy agreed by committee on 6^th June 2011 and to present their findings to a subsequent meeting of the Licensing Committee. (Rejected by 5 votes to 6)

 

The committee resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to:

 

To adopt a Sex Establishment Policy as originally proposed on 6^th June 2011 un-amended.