Lap dancing in Crouch End

[Adrian Essex]

Many residents of Crouch End will have been aware of the application by the Music Palace recently to become a lap dancing venue. Haringey's licensing committee turned down the application. Given the overwhelming opposition in Crouch End to the application it could be said a threat was averted. Much was made of what was at the time at the time, forthcoming legislation http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/26/section/27 to give councils greater power over such applications. Haringey formally adopted this power earlier this year. There is currently a consultation http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/business/licensing_regulations/lic... going on to determine the exact form Haringey's policy to use this power should take.


I believe It is the intention of the policy to forbid sex cinemas, sex shops, lap dancing and pole dancing clubs from Haringey. This is what "nil by ward" means in the draft policy. There is scope in the document to vary the number of sex establishments ward by ward. Given that this is the case any one wishing to keep Haringey free of licensed commercial sex (especially at the Music Palace) should write in support of the policy to
Licensing Team
Enforcement Service
Haringey Council
Unit 271-272
Lee Valley Technopark
Ashley Road
Tottenham
London
N17 9LN
Email [e-mail]


The proposed policy seems to have benefited from many of the lessons learned during the Music Palace application. Shortcomings in the 2003 Licensing Act have largely been overcome. Many of the arguments of the Lapoff objectors have been generalised and incorporated into the policy.There are one or two improvements that could be made:

• the policy wants to enable "rational determination" of applications (Introduction) yet it introduces arbitrary and irrational 400 metre and 200 metre limits to determine "inappropriate proximity". Perhaps these distances can be justified? Or perhaps some other test could be applied, e.g. "the premises are visible from residential property, etc, . . . . or where the premises are not visible from deigsnated types of property the balance of probabilities suggests that clientele and residents may come into contact".
• the introduction states that the policy should be "clear and ambiguous" - this should read "clear and UNambiguous"
• in a table listing the wards in Haringey the document has as its "appropriate number" the word "nil" - this would less ambiguously read "0(zero)".

[Adrian Essex]

I still remain of the view that 'they/them/their(s)' relate to the third person plural. Even if that is no longer true using these words interchangeably with 'he/him/his' reduces the amount of meaning in a sentence. In some cases it also renders the sentence internally inconsistent. Reading such a sentence has the same effect on me as the sound of fingernails scraping down a blackboard. I would therefore suggest the following minor amendments.

4.8 a) the applicant is unsuitable to hold a licence because they have been convicted of an offence or for any other reason
the applicant is unsuitable to hold a licence because of a criminal conviction or for any other reason

b) were the licence to be granted, renewed or transferred, the business to which it relates would be managed or carried on for the benefit of a person other than the applicant, who would
have been refused a licence if they had applied themselves

were the licence to be granted, renewed or transferred, the
business to which it relates would be managed or carried on for
the benefit of an unsuitable person other than the applicant

5.25. The legislation dictates that, unless a person making representations
consents, their name and address shall not be revealed to the
applicant. They may also be reluctant to appear before a hearing of
the Miscellaneous Sub-Committee.
The legislation dictates that, the names and addresses of persons making representations
, shall not be revealed to the
applicant without their consent . They may also be reluctant to appear before a hearing of
the Miscellaneous Sub-Committee. The underlined sentence can be removed - why should the policy speculate on motivation?


(Perhaps I should add a historical note about blackboards?)