Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence have been received from Councillors Mrs A Elsby and

Mrs CAED Murfitt. 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs SM Ellington,

Mrs A Elsby and Mrs CAED Murfitt.

To confirm that the minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2006 are a correct record as presented to Council on 27 July 2006.

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2006 were agreed as a correct record. It was also noted that

• Councillor Mrs HM Smith had also attended the Licensing Act 2003 training session held on 28 July in Bury St Edmunds, and
• Training for members in respect of the Gambling Act 2005 would be held on Friday, 17 November 2006.

The Chairman declared an interest in item 4 on the agenda as one of the local Members for Balsham. 

Prior to commencement of discussion on this item, the Licensing Officer informed the Committee of a typographical error in paragraph 5 of the report. The first sentence should read, village of Balsham.

A number of issues arose during consideration of this item; these were:

(a)   Who levies the charges for licences

(b)   Why were late night licences required

(c)   The regulations related to trading adjacent to a highway

In response, the Licensing Officer confirmed:

(a)   The Portfolio Holder on an annual basis

(b)   Traders serving hot foot after 11pm now required a licence under the Licensing Act 2003. A number of vans trading in consent street villages had two licences

(c)   A licence would not be required if a trader was operating over 5m from a highway

The Licensing Committee, having noted that no objections had been received from the publication of the Notice of Intention to designate all streets in Balsham,

RESOLVED    to designate all the streets in Balsham as Consent Streets under the terms of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and proceed to advertise the Resolution.

The Environmental Health department had recently received a number of enquiries regarding the setting of up sex establishments within the area and as result of investigation by officers, it became apparent that adoption by this Council of the relevant schedule of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 may not have previously taken place.

Following adoption of the appropriate schedule, the Council would be empowered to set any conditions upon licences as deemed appropriate. A proposed set of standard conditions were appended to the report for Members to consider and the following issues were raised:

(a)               Opening times should be more consistent

(b)               Why are people under the age of 21 required to show proof of age

(c)               What is the charge for licensed premises under the Licensing Act 2003

(d)               An open mind should be kept regarding the number of establishments in the district

(e)               It was felt that some of the films available would not be passed by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC)

(f)                 Planning permission may be required for the premises, however consent would not automatically result in an approval for use as a sex establishment

(g)               How many complaints would be received before an investigation was made

(h)               Was there an annual review of the licences

(i)                  Would local people be notified of applications

The following responses were made:

(a)               The opening times to be discussed further

(b)               Requirement for a proof of age was in line with national criteria and the `Think 21’ campaign adopted by Police and Trading Standards

(c)               Fees were currently £80 to £700. The suggested fee of £3,500 for licences for sex establishments reflected the degree of public concern and officer time spent resolving those concerns. It was anticipated that the fee for these particular licences would attract only serious applications and was in line with the Council’s immediate neighbouring authority, Cambridge City Council who charge £3,000

(d)               Due to the geographical nature of the district it would be difficult to state a particular number that would be allowed; each application must, however, be treated on its own merit. Members have the power to reconsider restricting the numbers if several applications are received in one particular area.  Members attention was drawn to the first page containing the Standard Conditions for Sex Establishment Licence in which it states: South Cambridgeshire District Council reserve the power to alter, modify or dispense with these conditions as it sees fit at any time

(e)               Any films shown and not passed by the BBFC would be illegal. There had been a recent relaxation in censorship and a new classification of film (R18) had been introduced

(f)                 If a planning condition restricted the opening hours, a sex establishment licence could not override those restrictions, however the applicant could appeal against that particular planning condition. The licensing authority cannot restrict the hours of opening for planning purposes. In the instance of planning permission given with no time restraints, applicants would have to comply with the licensing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Portfolio Holder, in addressing the Licensing Committee agreed with the changes to the hours of opening and not specifying the number of establishments to be allowed in the district.  He did, however express concern if other religious groups wanted their holy days recognised. The Portfolio Holder also voiced his concern regarding the level of fees, feeling that establishments might be set up without prior approval; he did however, understand the reasoning behind the setting of the fee and therefore,

RECOMMENDS            to Cabinet and Council the recommendation of the Licensing Committee as detailed above.