Sussex Man wrote:
Wharfie wrote:
well its the secretary of state that does exemptions not daptac, but authorities first have to prove steps taken like swivel seats and opening up the market,
Wharfie
That's a valid point. If councils wish to have an opt out, they have to prove that there would be drastic fall in the number of HCs. In a restricted area, that ain't going to happen.
This whole test is a bit of a nonsense.
If you've got two identical towns, town A with PBs and town B with saloons, then currently you'll have a large PH sector in the town A, but a small one in town B.
Thus with the DDA implemented in the town A the numbers would status quo would prevail, but in town B there would be a significant move to PH.
Thus in terms of the opt-out, town B might get an opt-out because of the reduction in the number of HCs in the area.
But the two towns are identical, but the test has resulted in fundamentally different outcomes.
The point is that in areas with PBs already then the 'unacceptable reduction' has already happened.
So anywhere that currently has PBs has effectively suffered an 'unacceptable reduction' in the number of HCs!!
I'd be interested to what 'unacceptable' means as well, this could be anything.
Dusty