Kent Feminista Response to Private Consultation on Licensing of Lap-dancing Premises in Ashford Borough
Kent Feminista would like to thank Ashford Borough Council for inviting them to be part of the private consultation process on introducing licensing regulations under the Police and Crime Act 1999 for the regulation of lap-dancing premises within the borough.
Section 1
Q1 Are there any other comments you would like to make about the location of sex establishments?
1.1 The list of premises impacted should be a singular list, whereby if any one establishment listed is affected, the application should be rejected.
1.2 We seek further clarification of “affected”. The proximity of premises to Schools would contravene Child Protection regulations, for example.
1.3 A clear definition of “proximity” is needed. We do not believe that the definition should be read as meaning “neighbouring”, but as with other areas of planning “within the same ward”.
1.4 Kent Feminista note that Haringey Council has determined that in that urban area, proximity is 400m with a direct line of sight, 200m without(?).
1.5 In addition to the criteria set out in the consultation document, we note that Brighton and Hove Council sets a clear criteria that:
1.5.1 “In order to discourage a proliferation of sex establishments and to ensure a concentration of sex establishments does not change the character of a neighbourhood to its detriment, licences will not normally be granted:
(a) in a shopping centre or parade with an existing licensed sex establishment,
(b) in an area of historic importance, or
(c) in any street with two or more licensed sex establishments”.
1.5.2 It is the opinion of Kent Feminista that similar regulations should be adopted within Ashford. Current premises are concentrated within the South West of the town centre, which will have subsequent and detrimental effect on residents, tourists and visitors as well as indicating potential for discrimination towards women in these areas.
Q2 Are there any areas that you consider more suitable than others?
2.1Kent Feminista does not consider any of the locations listed would be suitable .
Q3 Are there any areas that you consider are not suitable?
3.1 It would not be appropriate to have any further sex establishments in the town centre of Ashford. Given the empty premises in the lower high street, it would not aid potential business investment in the town from outside the sex industry if licences were granted in close proximity to other sex industry premises.
3.2 Current locations are concentrated within the south east corner of the town centre which will have a pejorative affect on those coming in to the town on public transport as well as residents, schools, religious and faith organisations and tourist and visiting trade within this area. This will also dissuade other businesses from moving to or investing in the area and create an area of ghettoization as well as gender discrimination and child protection issues.
Q4 Do you agree or disagree with not setting localities and numbers of premises?
4.1 Kent Feminista disagrees on the basis other towns in the county are restricting applications, this sends a signal that Ashford is particularly open to the sex business. There should be a ceiling set, following the example of other Councils that “nil” is the appropriate limit.
4.2 It may be considered that one licence could be provided per district ward for the current council, which would limit detrimental effect and ghettoization within specific areas. Where this is a two-member ward, two premises may be permissible but any larger should have a condition of residential consultation built in to the agreement.
Section 2 – Considering Applications
Q5 Do you agree with this approach to considering applications?
5.1 Kent Feminista would suggest they agree with the proposed consideration.
5.2 Kent Feminista would like to draw the Council's attention to issues surrounding retrospective applications . Current Licensing law does not permit autonomy on retrospective alcohol licences and this should apply to licensing regulations for sex industry premises. There should be no agreement to grandfather existing establishments.
5.3 Additional reasons for denying retrospective licensing:
5.3.1 The concentration of current establishments which would be counted under the definitions provided in the consultation, which creates an atmosphere of ghettoization and detrimental effect on the neighbourhood.
5.3.2 The current detriment from existing sex industry locations on premises listed as significantly affected within Question 1.
5.3.3 The presumption of authorising licences when no public or residential consultation has taken place within the relevant neighbourhoods.
Section 3 – Controlling Sex Establishments by conditions and applications process
Q6 Do you agree with this approach to advertising?
6.1Kent Feminista consider this approach is not robust enough – it should not be necessary for images to be displayed.
6.2Establishments should not breach regulations on pornographic images, nor should they offend members of the public on any basis.
6.3Kent Feminista would consider to approve a thorough form of public consultation for images that a venue which obtained licensing through the proposed scheme to ensure that businesses are not adversely affected by this decision.
Q7 Do you agree to this approach to protection of performers and the public?
7.1 Kent Feminista support the consultation adoption of protection of performers and the public.
Q8 Do you agree with this approach to management of premises?
8.1 Kent Feminista support the consultation adoption of management of premises.
Section 4 – crime and disorder
Q9 Do you think the Council has addressed your concerns regarding the potential for crime and disorder in the future?
9.1 There is evidence of a cumulative effect in terms of crime and disorder with the customers of lap-dancing clubs who tend to arrive having drunk elsewhere and then drink in the clubs. Men will leave, often in groups, sexually stimulated and likely to engage in behaviour that causes women to feel threatened and may increase the likelihood of sexual offences, antisocial behaviour and offences against the person.
9.2 Owners of businesses tend to regard lap-dancing clubs as detrimental to the reputation of the area. Women report feeling intimidated in the vicinity of lap-dancing clubs – there are reports of women being propositioned and insulted (evidence from Oxford).
9.3 Residents and owners of residential properties realise less value and see a detriment in the prices of properties within areas where lap-dancing premises are based. This will have a subsequent affect on the likelihood of investment in both property and retail industries which will harm the borough as a whole.
Q10 Do you have evidence to the contrary that there is a problem with sex establishments in the area?
10.1 Kent Feminista acknowledges that while crime statistics do not reflect a rise in crime around Sex Industries in Ashford, that these studies were published for April 2008-2009 and current statistics are not yet available.
10.1.1 Kent Feminista observes that crime statistics for Kent Police and the UK as a whole are based on reported and classified crimes and that this information does not include crimes that have not been reported to the police or that the police decide not to record.
10.1.2 Kent Feminista also identifies reasons for not reporting crimes relating to antisocial behaviour are significantly influenced by levels of intoxication, perceptions of sexual offences towards women and identifiable perpetrators and witnesses.
10.3 Kent Feminista would also draw attention to the matter of rising levels of antisocial behaviour and related offences around alcohol licensed premises which are also in the vicinity of lap-dancing venues and that the records may not necessarily reflect this influence, but it cannot be removed from consideration.
Section 5 Any other comments
Q11 Do you consider that the proposals to licence sex establishments will have an impact on equality issues? If so, please explain?
11.1Kent Feminista recognise that Parliament has made it lawful to operate sex establishments and that such businesses are a legitimate part of the retails and leisure industries
11.2 However, Kent Feminista believe that in order to upholding the gender duty of the 2006 Equality Act, which requires public authorities to take into account the effect on gender equality of policies undertaken, Ashford Borough Council should not only introduce the licensing that other towns and cities in the region have introduced, but that they should also set the appropriate level of licences at nil per district ward.
11.3 Kent Feminista recognises that many neighbouring boroughs have introduced or are consulting on the introduction of licensing Lap Dancing Premises. Therefore, to ignore the trend of a nil limit that other boroughs would further endorse the ghettoization of lap-dancing and sex industry premises in Ashford. As previously demonstrated, this would have a detrimental effect on residents and investment in the borough as a whole and risk making Ashford by default a sex visitor capital for Kent.
11.4 There is clear and demonstrable risk to gender equality in relation to Lap Dancing premises and sex industry premises. The risks of rising levels of crime and antisocial behaviour associated with alcohol establishments is significantly increased when the premises also endorse sex industry practices, and runs in parallel to increased risk of sexual and offences against the person.
11.5 Such a rise in risk of and actual offences would have a subsequent affect on the behaviour and freedom of women and is therefore gender specific and damaging to equality.
Q12 Do you have any further comments in relation to the policy
12.1Under the Equality Act 2006 and in line with Local Government regulations, Ashford Borough Council has a duty to promote gender equality, consider crime and disorder and ensure fair and rational determination of applications for sex industry licences.
12.2Kent Feminista seeks to draw the Council's attention to the model proposed by Haringey Council
http://www.haringey.gov.uk /draft_sex_establishment_licensing_policy.pdf
“The Council has considered the character of its wards and determined that the appropriate number of sex establishments for each ward is nil. I The Council’s vision is to achieve greener, cleaner, sustainable communities and neighbourhoods to enable a good quality of life for all."
12.2 That Council’s “nil per ward policy” responds to this concern and in addition to the above is based on the following factors which justify this safeguarding step: It will not allow licences to be granted where the appropriate number is exceeded.
12.3 Further to Ashford Borough Council's decision to formally and privately consult on the regulation of Lap-dancing premises, Kent Feminista would like clarification as to why this was not held as a public consultation.
12.4 To demonstrate what Kent Feminista perceives as genuine public interest in the issue, Kent Feminista has sought information from members of the public in Ashford and acquired 186 signatures from residents within the Borough who consider that regulation ought to be introduced.
12.5 Kent Feminista seeks to inform the council that this is an issue of public concern outside of specialist interest groups and the signatures, acquired on a single day, represent that issue and further endorse the desire to have the regulations introduced.
No comments:
Post a Comment