Under the proposed new regime, local authorities can refuse to grant a licence to a lap-dancing club on the ground that it would be inappropriate, having regard to the character of the relevant locality, or on the basis that a number of such venues in the locality is equal or exceeds the number that the local authority considers appropriate. Amendment 93 would define locality as within the local authority area where the premises are situated. That could prevent a local authority considering the locality that surrounds the premises but which happens to fall in another local authority area when deciding whether it is appropriate to have a sex encounter venue located in a particular site. The amendment could also prevent local authorities drawing distinctions within their own areas when judging whether it is appropriate to have a sex establishment in the location.
If premises happened to be situated on the boundaries of two local authority areas, we consider it appropriate that the local authority handling the application can consider the whole locality, even if it straddles two local authority areas. It would seem odd, for example, if a locality adjacent to such premises were in a residential area or contained a school, but because it fell under the jurisdiction of another local authority, the one handling the application could not take some matters into account when deciding whether to grant a licence. It is a common-sense approach.
Given the diversity of many local authority areas, ranging from busy high streets to residential areas, the Government believe that local authorities should set the different limits on the number of sex establishments appropriate to the different localities. For example, a local authority may decide that a particular locality in a city centre is an appropriate location for a limited number of lap-dancing clubs, while a suburban, residential area is not suitable for any sex establishments at all. The amendment would remove that flexibility.
Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, would omit paragraph 12(4), which states that the local authority can set the number of sex establishments that it considers appropriate for a particular locality at nil. The Government believe that paragraph 12(4) is useful as it makes clear to all parties that local authorities are fully within their rights to determine that certain areas are entirely inappropriate for the location of sex establishments. In other words, being able to set the limit at nil allows local authorities to prevent sex establishments opening up in areas that are deemed wholly unsuitable, having regard to the nature and character of the locality.
For example, a local authority may decide that it is inappropriate to have any sex establishment in an area that is overwhelmingly residential, or where schools or religious buildings are located. To ensure that local authorities can respond to the concerns of local communities, the Government believe that they must retain their flexibility to manage sex establishments that the amendments would remove. I hope that I have been able to persuade the noble Baroness that the amendment would have odd, perhaps unintended consequences and would decrease valuable flexibility.
On the question of the number of establishments that will be in a local authority area, it will be a matter for the local authority.
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Brett
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 July 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Policing and Crime Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c517-8 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:38:35 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_574894
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_574894
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_574894