Transcript

Okay, so we'll. Okay, so we'll make a step. Welcome to the licensing. I'm going to stop. If you hear the fire alarm down, please treat it as a real emergent. This is your left edge of your chamber or top gallery exit model. Back of the field. If it can't be used into the field. Okay, so we're on apologies and changes. Changes, chips, apology wire. Changes. Right next to you. I tend to miss of the last made to confirm the true record of. Oh, sorry. I can three declarations. They might have in the matters of. The election of a vice chairman. I'm happy to take a nation from. I do understand that Councilor in wall. There is a combination for yourself that we. No, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no. So, I'm going to take a second. So, I'm going to take a second. No, no, no, no, no, no. So, I'm going to take a second. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. So, I'm going to take a second. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. So, I'm going to take a second. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. So, I'm going to take a second. So, I'm going to take a second. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. So, I'm going to take a second. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Thank you for that. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you, thank you. Thank you, thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. It's just an observation really if it was minded to stick with five in most other areas we've gone to 10 and have done some years ago. This would open up every bit of amenity land higher, most parish council policies, and could create an awful lot of unnecessary work for no real gain or benefit. Please do. Yeah, thank you, that's actually very important if the mountain was varied, I imagine that you might have people such street traders and other licensed things that we licensed saying, can we be treated the same. They say that I said it, revert to my insurance to my licensing colleagues as to the types of licenses we have that we have had that conversation, but certainly it affects more than this policy, except that point. Peter, did you want to come in on that, any second thoughts and not really chair. I mean, if the committee thinks it's something worth looking at and I take Council at bacon's point, it might be helpful if we are going to consider it full council. Unless it's a huge amount of work to just have an idea perhaps of councils that are reasonably local to us as to what charges of just to what insurance liability they require. I'm not, I'm not pressing for the point, it just seemed to me it was a point in the consultation, and it said no action required in the other column. And I just wondered if that was something that the committee had considered and thought was correct that there should be no, that we should be more expensive than a number of others. I'm going to go to Council and make a slow. Jim. Well, amongst the comments, there was a lady who was concerned about the benches near a home, and how anti social behavior takes place in that area. I have several examples in sand down where that happens. I've had benches come and go and come back again and you know, and the drunks come back with them. Is it is, is there a whole state is there a way of policing this obviously the police could but can we take them away. Actually. This policy doesn't cover the permanent type of situations. I'm guessing that there is there is work that could be done around the crime community safety partnership and through Cameron. In in trading standards in public safety regime and pick that up food. Community safety issues more around and that's probably where you found it. Publishing chairs have been. Yeah. It, it, I was just that's a conversation with Cameron. And then, and then he can investigate it through the neighborhood policing and see if there is an anti social behavior issue with that. Yeah, thank you. And just to expand on what's been said, I think that there are two, two things that come to mind that I'd want to check with my colleagues. And most of the time, as you said that benches are put in place because they're intended to be a public benefit. I'm very mindful that several benches are placed in the more rooms that it tends to be have some sentiment attached. So I'd want to have a look at what agreements were in place in the first place that enabled a person to put a bench there. So I'd look into that sort of thing with my colleagues to have a look at agreements are in place, but certainly from a legal perspective. There are two situations where we could get involved. One is where they are placed on the highway and subject to the consent, we could have a look at whether or not. It's right that they be then the second one is even if it's not highway, are we the landowner? If the council is the landowner of subject to any agreement that's in place, of course, we could remove consent for benches to be there. That's in theory, something that that could be done. That answer your question. Thank you. I was going back to the insurance. Thank you for raising that, Councillor Spink. I would be concerned about us lowering it from 10 to five. I know you're not supposed to talk about personal experience isn't really the appropriate thing to do, but I have it with our business. I've just gone up from five to 10 million and I didn't really notice a huge cost increase, but the benefit of having 10 million rather than five. The people that wanted to do business with us, it was worth having it. I would be concerned about us as a council looking at lowering it. And as Councillor Bacon said, if that could possibly mean that other areas, people would then come along and say they wanted to lower it. It's a valid point that Councillor Spink's raised, but I don't think it's a good idea to lower the insurance. That's all I wanted. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any more questions? No. Mr Garti, do you want to just come in? Sorry. Before we finish, I just need to see clarity around what my mending this policy with. So you'll do that for me in a moment. Thanks. Thanks, Ben. Yes, I, if it's this chairman at the moment, the recommendation here is at page 11 of the papers before us and it's revised licensing. Sorry, the licensing committee recommend approval and adoption of the revised street furniture and pavement licensing policy 24 to 29 to full council. And I might suggest that if there are any amendments that we want to be included, we add a line to the end of that, which says. Subject to an amendment to, and I believe it's the ables, Councillor Jones Evans that you might seek a seconder to have the height. If I remember correctly, the height limit of 1.5 metre removed, but retain the reference to a balls. So all a balls have to have a. Yeah, that's a must pew. Yeah, that's our answer to your point. So you might seek that. And if it's helpful, I've sent Mr, which from the link to the policy there, if it's helpful, because it's looking through that. That section for and section five, ables are mentioned in. Both of them actually several times. So this is just going to be clearer. But any, anyone want to get anything on the pavement. I essentially, that's one trying to get to. Yes, how we get how we do that. But they know that's where we're trying to, that's what we're trying to achieve. The policy, it can be amended accordingly to your wishes. The policies is set by, by committee, by full council. So if it's a recommendation from us elected members that the policy is amended to remove. Or, or, or to actually change the policy to say that all a balls will require licensing under. The highways at 115 E. As well, then that is fine. We just need to be aware. That there is a cost for every single a board, which will be considered. And some premises who have required pavement licensing. As well as will, who wants to be able to, I will need to set for regime permissions to do so. And chairman, that's actually option to power our 32 of the reports. So the largest committee will be recommending approval subject to any minor amendments proposed if the necessary. So in the council, James Evans on the top of the amendment that she's recommending is made, and it's open to you now chair and look for a second that's a proposal. And if there is one to take that to vote. If we could look at the length of the, of the, the length of a license that we could apply for an a board, so we could be less owners as possible. That would be governed by the legislation. So that would come literally for three years. So I'm guessing that's possible then. Not complying. I would, I would like to see legal bias on that before. Okay. So we got the proposal. And seconded by council David Adams. You just clearly be read out what it is because I'm, I'm very unclear at the moment. I'd read out proposal. I think we're. What I, what I've asked for is that the, we revise that section about ables and they have to do anything over 1.5 has to have a license. We're taking it out that all, all ables have to have a, have a license. So that, that, that's that particular part of the amendment, but, and you're saying. Mr guard that the option 2 is that we passed the policy with the amendment. Well, sorry. It's our part of the consultation, isn't it? It's actually going to fall council for the, for the full. For the last, the file decision, this is a device from the planning, these are licensing committee. Yeah, and chairman, I am, yeah, I've got that here. So it's this council of Jones Evans, it's option 2 that the licensing committee. Recommend approval and adoption of the revised street furniture and pavement licensing policy. 2024 to 2029 to fall council subject to any minor amendments proposed. If the necessary option to a paragraph 32, which we'd be further by adding to remove reference to ables. The only morning under the policy over 1.5 metres and to consider the length of license that is to be granted under the policy. Okay. Thank you, Mr guard. Can I, maybe for a simpler, that all ables will require licensing for stock. Yeah. Yeah. And that'll be provided that they actually for some instruction in the first place, because of course they don't. And that's when instruction they would don't know before the license. So that's really helpful because we're looking for is clarity. And also to have a, you know, equality for people using our, our payments. So that applies to all ables regardless of height. That's where we go. What I would like to have a break. And just for clarity, could you think it was said earlier, what does that mean the cost would be to any business that's seeking an a board. Because they would all come within the licensing ratio. Now, what is the cost that would impose on each business. Only the license fee for pavement licensing is £225 per application up to one year. So this is effectively saying any body of the wants to put an a board out. It's going to have to apply and pay £225 to do so. Okay. Okay. I'll qualify that though, however, Liverpool city council, they allow it for three years for license and have to apply every year. I think that is within our, our, within our gift, I understand how long a license is for them within reason within legal. I think Councilor James and we need to clarify that before we make that as a legal point to being. Yeah, what we're saying is just a little bit of research and doesn't have to be a year. So again, as an observation, that would still mean a cost to it, a business of £75 a year. It's essentially advertising the pavement. So it's. I just, I don't have to be an advocate for people that have got poor, you know, bad eyesight, cold, maybe blind, are in a wheelchair. You know, need and ability aids who have tripped over and written to me. If I can't be their voice here, you know, that could be more costly. And I've got business, I've got business enough to change the street. I don't have anything outside my paper. I choose, I choose not to. So they're not, we always, you know, want to support small businesses, but you know, those, those, those pavements offer everybody, and I have to be a voice. People that are here just to speak and I like those people that have written to me who have had accidents. So, who, if I can't speak up from who can. Yeah, thank you. So, please. Councillor ADER. Sorry, it seems to me if someone comes in with a board of 1.49, I'm being a bit presented here, but there are these people that do that. And they don't pay any charge. And I think these boards are a hazard. Being quite so, I actually find some of the smaller boards, a bit more hazardous than the smaller boards, because I might be looking at someone's window. Turn around and like, bang, it's a few years ago, I wouldn't have noticed this so much. Since I've had a replacement hip and I need a replacement knee and another replacement hip. I'll find these things, I'll be coming a little bit. They can be becoming a little bit hazardous. And I'll just think, in a manner of fairness, why don't we just license these across the board. I also think at the same time we need to look at. I think the cost for businesses is a concern. And if, Councillor James Evans was to say that she would look to put the a board, charge the a board cost, 75 pounds, that would be much more preferable to me because I think that, you know, businesses are having it pretty hard at the moment. And I think we also have to look after our businesses at town centers. And if the reason for you, you bring this in is to make sure that you can pay a fee of say 75 pounds a year. Why don't we, why don't we just say, well, let's, let's put in a fee. We're not going to be putting in fees for boards that are over 1.5 meters anymore, but there are going to be a lot of boards that are a lot less so I would have thought that so long as it's cost effective to do that for our officers, then I would, I would be looking at lowering that price. Councillors, the right point here, you know, my understanding is the fees and charges are set that are cost neutral for that is what a, that's what that is the cost of processing the application that's my understanding so the only way you can make it 75 pounds a year is if you make it a three year license that works out at 75 pounds. So what I understand from office, that cost of processing a license to 225 pound. I don't think it's in our gift to say, we'll do it with nothing or 50 quid or anything like that. The only only only recourse we've got is to extend the lens when they have to reapply. That's my understanding it may, I may be wrong. Well, tell me if I got that wrong. So, so if we would have to review the cost, but the major part of that cost is undertaken a consultation process for for tables and chairs or any item on the highway. And then then the cost is written into it to enable us to carry out an original, an initial investigation and compliance with their consent. The enforcement work thereafter becomes a part of the prosecution process and reclaim through the magistrate's call if all whatever that process may look like. There are regress and powers within 115 of us granting. Sorry, of issuing a notice to remove. We have the power to do that remove the item from the highway if there's if it is causing or in breach of their. They don't do not have authorization or in breach of their authorization to do so. The period of time is the bit that we need to do it. I think. Mrs. is trying to find that at the moment in the legislation. At the moment, if it if there is a. An extension to that period and it's permitted and that needs to come as a pile of recommendation. From from the committee, you know, in the recommendation could be, if possible, to extend a boards to three year license. We are struggling to find out at the moment. So, yeah, so I can. In my case, looking at the law, I can provide something which appears to me at this case to be the answer. And if I'm wrong on this, then we will make that this point when it comes before full council. So a pavement license, which is distinct from the high base license. So essentially the authority to put the a boards on because I've said separately that a pavement license you cannot consent a board. So a pavement license is granted for a maximum of two years. So that's the pavement license is up to the policy to decide how long we might do. But the maximum there is two years and there's some deemed consent provisions in there. But as to the actual one one five e license, which is the one that would allow the at the able. So that's a matter for the authority to attach such conditions as it sees fit to it. So it could do as the board done a a longer period, say, for example, for four, four, three years. And so that is something that the authority could do. It's not on initial proposal of that law is nothing as specific to tell us what that length of time might be. So it's really helpful Mr Garza we could be thinking about that, and we can balance out the safety of our highways for all users with the trying to support our centers. Thank you. Councillor. Thank you. My question was around the cost implication. We've talked about the cost implication to the small business, but it was around the cost implication to us as a council. But I think you've probably you've probably answered that or covered it, but it's really good news if we can make it for three years. If we can make that cost effective. The cost for licensing, as many of you will know, the licensing is south financing. So the income we get is what we get to run our organization on in the licensing. What I would need to review is the capacity that the team has to undertake that if that was the case and what resources I need to implement. But that's, that's not for you to determine here, it's for you to set the policy and that's them for me as an officer to manage their after. I mean, I don't know if our colleagues think, but if we, if there is no limit, as Mr Mascara said, why don't we sort of talk about four years. And then that might just just because then that would be an application before years, which then will be less on the licensing authority to have to issue lots of applications and also makes it cost effective for a small business as well. I'm sure that Mr Wintke is about to make this point is at the moment, there are consented items out on the highway. If you, and I'll leave this, just a practical point, so I leave this semester where you can talk to the details of this. If you were minded to agree to an extension for however long. I think this, this committee, and at full council this can come out later on, it needs to be mindful of is that on the expiry of all of the currently consented items, you'll be granting for a period. And they will all come in at once they'll all be granted straight away. And then the licensing authority to have the resource, the renewal at the interval that you set. And that, you know, I believe that's my colleagues talk to the resource implications to that. They would, you, you aren't staggering them now to come in at intervals within those periods. So that resource perspective is probably what my colleagues are talking about needing to bring that back to for council, but it is within the gifted authority to set the limit that it wants to have those, those items brought to them. The cost of keeping our streets safe isn't there so I'm just thinking, I'm just trying to try to balance out, I'll wait a way forward really. Yeah, I think if we're minded to extend the period we need to include within the recommendation when that starts from, and then when any other renewal kicks in that it comes into place. I will need to review the cost of that license at that point, because the license is based on the year, not two, three, four years and the cost of that cost for me to manage that going forward over a period of time because at the moment, the figure that is included is the management cost for one year, not four years. Because it will cost me more to manage it for four years, because we would still get, we will still need to check, we're still need to make sure compliance with the, the consent over four years and not over one year. So it costs me X number of pounds to manage a license for one year, we go out and do the checks, we're going to have to doubt for three more years as a cost implication for that. So the cost could increase. That's what I'm saying. So don't please don't get hooked up on it will be 225. I don't know what that figure will be. I'm not sure if I've explained that there's a lot, a lot of, a lot of that I'm guessing it's for processing. I'm new to this committee, but it seems to me that we, in licensing terms, we approve licenses and then when it goes wrong, we take them away. What's the process, because if you have a four year license, when able, then it's, it's really proved to be quite detrimental to the area. You haven't got the opportunity to review that every year. So what opportunity do we have if it goes wrong. In the proposed policy, and I'm not sure what section is is probably at the end of the first section under enforcement. I'm going to take a his hasten guests section nine of the policy if someone can check it for me that the enforcement powers are listed within the policy. And that is when basically you, we can certainly notice to remove the item from the height. So even if say you've got a premises license, they still have a license for boats, you can add like that, I mean, we got it and they're going to still like for. I'm, I actually, I'd like to support Mr Winchcombe. He's got an operation to run, and it's got to be funded. And it's all very well asked in here say, Oh, let's extend it to that. And that means they actually, even might not have the resources to do the job he's trying to do. I think we have to ask myself to go away and do his costs analysis, and then come back to us if you like and say, have a license for that. For the years or whatever the case may be. So does that mean that really we need Mr Winchcombe to put this together and then it to come back to us before it goes to full council or are we going to go ahead with it going to full council when we're not really clear what we want. Should it not come back to us. The guidance, Kevin, pleasure. The. We would just need to, if you choose, you wish for us for me to bring it back to this committee, it's not my to determine it's that's for you to choose. But what you would note, if you wish me to do that, I'm not sure what the date of the next licensing committee is, but it would, it would mean that the decision would be need to be deferred from the next fall council, which is. It would be really weeks time for weeks time. So that would be removed from the full plan for that meeting in place on, on the full plan for future meetings. And I'm more than happy to do that for you. That's not a problem. That's, that's what I'm here to do. And I'm happy to do that. But I'm just explaining what the consequence of that, that that is. Sorry, sorry, I was just a second. You'd want, would you miss, which can be a recommendation for what it is you're looking for. So, for example, you're looking at what are the costings for three year licenses. So. Sorry, check. And then it's we're not making a decision on the policy here, it's going to be a full council. Would it be appropriate and helpful if the amended word or the options, you go to go away, look at what a shared with the committee, we could do that use that as a consultation. Would that be. Could we do it that way, then you won't lose any time we're going to full council. Yes, that that is possible. The problem I will have. And this is, this is more from a, a, a public committee services process that I think I've got to. When do I need to turn the report around by. Mrs. McDonald. I might have an email, I think. The call over. I would need to have the report prepared for the end for the end of the month. That's that's clearly possible. Other key things that may be coming in in the next couple of weeks that we needed to sort out, but yeah. I'll commit to doing that. But my problem is is how I write that report for full council. And what is the recommendation from this committee. You know, you could, we. We could do a virtual consultation. But then do we have a. How we then get a decision from this committee through that process. Chairman, I. I'm very mindful that there's a proposal on the floor from Council Jones and seconded by council that Adams, what my suggestion might be is that there. There wouldn't necessarily need to be the further consultation envisaged. Your motion proposal and resolution today could say to approve this. Policy subject to the removal of the 1.5 meter limit on a boards. And subject to it. It's report to full council, including costings for. Licenses at 1 year, 3 year and 4 year length. And that would then negate the need for further consultation. If that was possible. I'm looking to my colleagues to do that. All that would require them is to bring the policy. For for council as it stands, but with the cost recommended costings for. And I give these an example because they've been mentioned today. For costings for the license at 1 year, 3 years and 4 years, for example. And then you could make your decision at full council, faced on which one of those 3 options you wanted to adopt at that time. So that would mean that you've seen the policy. Consider that major recommendation and then that would be taken to full council. And it remains open to people in the room to vote against that as a motion and make a further proposal. But that isn't the type of motion I think this committee could make if that were possible. I think that's clearly possible. But what I wouldn't want the committee doing is making this decision purely purely on the cost of that license. Because that's basically what you're suggesting here is that we're going to review the cost of that license and make a determination based on how much it's going to cost an individual premises. And those costs can change yearly and they will change yearly with what the full cost recovery cost looks like each year with pay awards with additional costs for rechargeable costs, etc, etc. The key thing is is for this committee to determine whether they feel it is safe or unauthorized able to be placed on the highway up until a point where an island roads area supervisor is contacted or noted that the the board is causing an obstruction to the highway. That's how it works now. If an a board is causing an obstruction to the highway and it's brought to our attention either roads attention or just purely from their inspections than the a board will be removed or relocated. That is how it works now. I understand, Councillor Jones evidence is his comment and it's a very valid one that perhaps all labeled should be consulted and I think that is the critical bit today. Is whether you believe that an a board should be licensed or granted consent under the highways at one one by that is the critical bit here today. The charging and everything else, but I didn't want you to get hooked up on when I mentioned early is not to start making a decision around, it's going to cost 225 for, for premises, because that's what it is now based at what we, what, what is set the criteria we need to do. I'm going round and circle a little bit here and probably waffling a little bit, but basically the criteria is if you believe a board needs to be licensed, recommendation should be, we believe that all way board should be licensed for a period of XYZ and then it's them for me to go back and put that in place. And it's just a very, very quick question, and it's just part of character flaws on from what Mr Anderson said which is this is that my suggestion to the floor wasn't a recommend a legal recommendation it's a matter for this committee is to decide on what it wants to decide on this. So it's, it's open to you to make such a resolution as you see fit in the circumstances, absolutely. Yeah, okay, Council quite. I totally support the idea that all labels should be licensed. I don't like tables. I think they're dangerous then obstruction but any policy that makes it cheaper is actually not a particularly helpful policy to the public is helpful to shopkeepers. Isn't a helpful policy for the public. I'd like to keep it at one year, make, make it clear that it's reviewed. The situation is, is under ongoing view. And actually, it's not as attractive and options it might be if you have the same fee or a slightly less high fee for a much longer period so I'm, I'm totally in favor of the first part, but not in favor of the second part. Chairman, what I got from the sort of tail end of our debate when we started talking about having two year licenses and three year licenses, and this was to spread the cost of the 225 over three years. And quite clearly, to me, that's not feasible. Because we have to cost things as we do them. And then as Kevin said, you know, he doesn't know, put his hand on his heart and say that costs won't go up. It might do. And I think we have to have that flexibility saying, well, let's give them a license for four years. Yes, it helps the business, but actually doesn't cover the costs. Okay. So, I'll just turn to council Jones Evans. Are you happy to go ahead with that original proposed amendment. Mr, which can completely right. Are this the principle today that we're discussing and need to be clear on as a committee is, is the licensing of all labels. And for me, that's actually fundamental. So, I don't know in law, it's different from a chair, but to me, it's no different at all from a chair, anything else on the highway and keep and having a quality access for our public spaces is absolutely important. We have each, each table is licensed, then that means that it's in the right place. It's enough room, it's not obstruction. There's one through a process. It's fine. That's great. So, I think it's going to work. I think it's a bit of red herring going down the costings of it all mentioning it. I think that I can imagine for council, that is going to be a bit of a nightmare. People are arguing toss here there and everywhere, and losing sight of that fundamental thing. We're trying to keep our highways safe for people. So, I think if that's encapsulated in the, in the amendment. I think I'm absolutely fine with that. And this, which I think is her plenty today from our thoughts of the committee to come back with a way forward. And, you know, if we could just see it, if the committee could just see it. But what that looks like before our full council papers are a printer that might just be helpful. That's possible. Thank you. Council Adams. Council Adams. Council Adams. Council Adams. And I, are you happy to go ahead with your second motion. Just just very, very quickly. A question for me. Our next licensing committee is November time, isn't it? So, as regards to. Trustees, and for the committee to understand that, how was that going to work? Or was that hybrid meeting? The setting fees isn't for committee to make. That is for an officer decision around, and it's quite clearly the legislation says how I set those costs. And what I will say to add to this resolution, what it would do to assist us as officers is have the date from when that resolution should be kicked in, because at the moment. A boards are not licensed that we need a start date when that has to happen from the recommendation from this committee. If that's. Yeah, and that that need not come necessarily from this committee exactly a matter for full council. Yeah, so your recommendation will be to remove the, by the 1.5 meter limitation on a force have all the, a boards, a licensed at a date to be agreed by full council is fine. And we would need to do some work with businesses to, to, to, to, to that process, because at the moment, there is, as everyone says, there are a number of labels out there, which we would need to go and speak to the premises and implement that. And implement that process. It'd be helpful if they're, I don't know if we're able to do it, but it's a, say it came in on the 1st, September that we gave almost like a year for businesses to actually cross the lines of all we got them to put there, invite them to put their applications forward. Is there kind of like a, we've got any leeway of time wise or take a different approach or do it by town approach, we're going to, I don't know, is there a way of just like, so you're not everything comes in at once. And that could also be lots, lots and lots of work, but, you know, we'll have a staggered approach to bring it in. I don't think that's possible. We have to be careful that we're not given other towns, precedence over. And if you think about it, we, for instance, let's make this example that we do ride in September, Newport, in January, the people in Newport, about three months extra ability to put a license to have a free abled out on the island. So we just need to be careful how we manage that. Could be possibly that we just invite them in during, if you've got an a board by 1st, September 2025, you're able to set your time span news, they wish to do so. The workload. Thank you. Probably just about ready to wrap this up now, I hope. So the recommendation to full council, would it not be useful for us to be putting a date in there and would be really I would need to be guided by you on when that date should be personally. My suggestion. If I'm allowed to. First of April 2025. That coincides with a financial year for me budgeting as well. And if that's if that's a clear answer because then that allows me to look at what the cost will be from there for the, et cetera, et cetera, and give me. And then you'd use that time between the policy being adopted by the council and the actual date kicking that would be our sort of buffer period, if you like, they all still coming at once. So I was just trying to work out how you can. It's kind of done and through experience. Most of those will leave it to the last minute before they send them in. Okay. But you could use that that time for six months or whatever that eight months we've got will be more of a comms thing as well. Councilor Chairman, I was going to get a propose that we implement this policy from the 1st of January 1st of April, 2025. That was all, but it might be wrapped up in the in the greater motion. Okay, so we got the proposal, we got the second. You're, you're, you're happy with all of that proposal and the timeline. Yeah, and I just want to sort of thank colleagues. It's been a really, really good discussion. I think I hope it counts as to which comes to got a good sense of what we are asking for. To you, again, Councillor Adams, you're happy with that. Okay. I think for clarity and sorry to go back to this. I'm not encouraging, but it is only for clarity because I had my colleague and democratic services asking me to clarify this so this is option to. And it's subject to approve the policy subject to any minor amendment. As opposed if the necessary, which is to remove reference to 1.5 metres in the policy for a boards to come into effect from 1st, April, 2025. That's the, that's that you are. You should now, and that's seconded by Councillor Adams on that basis, Chairman, you can propose what you can put to the floor for light. All in favour. Those against. And any abstentions. Thank you very much. So we go on to item. Sorry, I approve of the sex establishment licensing policy, ages 43 to 68. I will bring it Mr Winch come again to possibly speak on this. Thank you, Chairman. Again, it's a, it's a local policy that we need to create for sex establishment, which we require licensing. The local government miscellaneous, sorry, local government. General provisions at 1982 provides the power for us to, to license these. The report does clearly state everything that we need to be aware of within there. We did undertake a consultation. The consultation took place between the 9th and March to the 5th of April. We received one comment from the police to say they had no comment. There are some minor changes which are outlined in the evaluation section of the report. These are mainly just tidying the report up or tidying the policy up to make sure that some things are correct and are in good order. So I open the floor to any questions in relation to this policy, which Mrs Ball would probably be better to answer than me. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions from the floor? There are no questions. If we can spend an hour and a half talking about a frames and not talk about sex at all. Possibly no comment on that. Okay, so we've got a recommendation in front of us that the licensing committee recommend the approval and adoption. The revised sex establishment policy, 2024, 2029 to full council. Those all. And again. That is carried. Thank you very much. And then members questions. Any questions at all. I think we've exhausted ourselves haven't went that far. Okay. So close the meeting at 1729 and thank you for your attention. [BLANK_AUDIO]

Transcript