“(c) That “Sexual Entertainment Venues” are not generally appropriate near or in locations or areas containing any of the following: (i) Historic buildings or tourist attractions (ii) Schools, play areas, nurseries, children’s centres or similar premises (iii) Shopping complexes (iv) Residential areas (v) Places of Worship” (i) Historic buildings or tourist attractions (ii) Schools, play areas, nurseries, children’s centres or similar premises (iii) Shopping complexes (iv) Residential areas (v) Places of Worship”
“We believe that lap-dancing clubs demean women, undermine marriage and depersonalise God’s good gift of sex, so we would not be in favour of a club anywhere. We feel that the location of the Lodge is particularly inappropriate as it is right next to the Westgate Centre and car park, which is a gateway to our historic city for may visitors. It is near a number of residential properties, as well as being just a few yards down from St Ebbe’s Church, which holds not only church services but also a thriving toddler group and clubs for children most days of the week.”
“City councillor Colin Cook said last night: “Before the new law, we did not have power over licensing of sexual entertainment venues, but now we have those extra powers.”
“Councillor Cook explained that his comments on activities in nightclubs made in 2008 were made in response to an enquiry from the Oxford Mail, and in his roles as Chair of a licensing committee at that time, he believed that the activities would breach City Council licensing conditions in force at that time. The personal relationship referred to Oxford City Council occurred 10 years ago and was related to complaints made about another licensed premises. He did not believe that any reasonable person would infer that he had any personal grudge against the applicant as a result of this. Therefore, he would continue in his role at the meeting.”
“Decision and reasons of the Licensing Registration Sub Committee 1. The Sub Committee examined all the documents submitted and considered all the representations made at the hearing. It had particular regard to the written objections concerning the location of the premises and the Council resolution of19/04/2010 (The Resolution) concerning generally inappropriate locations for sexual entertainment venues. 2. The Sub Committee noted that government guidance and case law made clear that moral objections to sexual entertainment were not relevant to consideration of the Application. With this in mind the Sub Committee disregarded any passages within the representations received which expressed moral concerns. 3. The Resolution states that “sexual entertainment venues are not generally appropriate near or in locations / or areas containing any of the following: • Historic buildings or tourist attractions, • Schools, play areas, nurseries, children’s centres or similar premises, • Shopping complexes, • Residential areas, • Places of worship,” 4. The Sub Committee noted that relevant locality is not defined in The Resolution nor in the applicable legislation or government guidance. Without a full assessment of the entire area The Sub Committee felt that it had insufficient information to allow it to define the dimensions of an exact area as the relevant locality, nor to reach a decision on the appropriate number of sex establishments in such an area. 5. However, for the purposes of deciding the Application the Sub Committee found that the relevant area in this case is the area near to the proposed premises. It further found that the only buildings sufficiently near the proposed premises to engage The Resolution, and which could fall within the categories set out, are the Oxford Ice Rink and Oxford and Cherwell Valley College. Neither fall squarely within any of the categories but the College is similar to a school and the Ice Rink does attract many children and tourists. 6. Despite the location of the College and Ice Rink the Sub Committee were satisfied that with the amended hours of operation at the proposed premises the College would be closed and public skating sessions over well before any sexual entertainment began. There was evidence that private skating sessions tool place after 23:00 but the Sub Committee found the risk of these sessions bringing children or vulnerable people into contact with the Premises was very low. 7. The Sub Committee noted the representations concerning proximity of the proposed premises to residential and shopping areas but found that whilst the premises are between the residential areas of St Ebbes and St Thomas’s they could not reasonably be considered to be in or sufficiently near them to engage The Resolution. Nor are they sufficiently near the Westgate shopping centre. 8. The Sub Committee also considered the representations concerning incompatibility of the proposed premises with planning policy aspirations for the west end of Oxford City. However, the Sub Committee had to base their view on the character of the relevant locality and nearby premises at the time of application and not as it may develop in the future. If granted any license would in any event require annual renewal which would take into account the character of the locality at the relevant time. 9. The Sub Committee noted the Applicant had the benefit a good track record in operating a sexual entertainment venue (SEV) at a similar Oxford premises and that Thames Valley Police did not object to the application. It was significant that the Applicant appeared willing and, from his track record, able to operate premises discretely, anonymously and with no external indication as to the nature of entertainment taking place. Given the location of the Ice Rink, the College and coach parking area the Sub Committee found it particularly important that any SEV in the proposed location have no external indication of the type of premises or entertainment being carried on. 10. In considering The Resolution the Sub Committee focused on the harm it seeks to address or objectives it aims to achieve. In the absence of any specific detail in the Resolution on these points the Sub Committee found that among the primary concerns should be the welfare of children and prevention of nuisance and crime. With appropriate conditions the Sub Committee felt that the premises could operate without aggravating these aims. 11. Taking all these factors into account the Sub Committee found that whilst The Resolution was engaged at a low level in relation to the Ice Rink and College there were good reasons to believe the premises would not be inappropriate in the proposed location and an exception to the general position should be made in this case. 12. The Sub Committee found that in order to ensure the proper running of the premises it is necessary to attach conditions to the license. The Licensing Authorities Standard Conditions for Sexual Entertainment Venues should apply together with all conditions on the Applicant’s existing premises licence at The Lodge so far as they relate to the carrying on of sexual entertainment, also the additional conditions offered by the Applicant during the hearing. These conditions should be combined in one clear schedule avoiding any duplication. 13. The Sub Committee had regard to theHuman Rights Act 1998 and European Convention on Human Rights as well as its duty under theCrime and Disorder Act 1998 . However, it found that it had heard no evidence that any persons human rights would be infringed by granting the application nor sufficient to convince it that any significant crime and disorder would be caused by the grant. Decision: The Application as amended is granted subject to the conditions set out on the attached Schedule.”
“The presence of the club makes women afraid to walk the streets alone, and it does not help improve the general attitude towards women.” (2) Oxford & Cherwell Valley College. There was evidence this was 78 metres away, had a nursery attached and held classes in the evening. The Chair of the St.Ebbe’s New Development Residents’ Association recorded it was open for use by its pupils until 22:00 hours. (3) The Oxpens Car and Coach park. There was evidence this was less than 100 metres away. It was referred to as a place “where visitors arrive from all over the world to visit Oxford”. (4) Residential accommodation. One objector stated that “this area consists overwhelming [sic] in residential accommodation…”
“The site of this club is not appropriate. It is sited near a college which has a nursery attached and thus young people cannot help but come into contact with it. It is also next to the ice rink which by its very nature attracts young people and families. The fact that this club is next to a coach park which brings tourists to Oxford sends out far from the right message about the City of Oxford when the first thing in view is a so-called ‘gentleman’s club’.” (2) A member of the City Council wrote objecting on behalf of some of his constituents on, inter alia, the following grounds: “[T]he granting of such a renewal would frustrate the four licensing objectives adopted by the Council in line with the national legislative requirements. The provision of a sexual entertainment venue at this unsuitable location close to the city centre, to housing and to major tourist and leisure facilities, will jeopardise the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, and the prevention of nuisance. The proximity of such an establishment to two distinct quiet residential areas also risks clear and egregious conflict with all four objectives, most critically, the fourth objective to secure the protection of children from harm because of the nature of the sexual entertainment to be provided.” (3) A member of the City Council wrote on behalf of some of his constituents, complaining about the very large advertisement for the Lodge on a bill board at Oxford Railway Station which “…leaves no doubt in visitor’s minds that the City has a full scale sex entertainment place. Is this unfortunate as the City tries to establish the idea that Oxford is a world heritage site?”
“[M]y objection to the Lodge is the place where it is situated. Such places – if Oxford is prepared, as it appears to be, to allow such places – should be in areas where their presence is well away from residential areas, educational areas and places where normal sporting activities take place.”
“The Oxpens location is most inappropriate for entertainment of this sort. It is immediately opposite The Oxford and Cherwell Valley College, which is open for use by its adolescent pupils until 10.00 pm. It abuts onto the coach park which is used regularly and frequently by school parties of all nationalities. It is about 100 yards from the Ice Rink which has night-time sessions which are much used by student sporting groups. It would be hard to find a place in Oxford more full of impressionable young people to be intrigued by advertisement and present in the vicinity during the hours of operation of the club.”
“Decision and reasons of the Licensing Registration Sub Committee 1. The Sub Committee examined all the documents submitted and considered all the representations made at the hearing. The Sub Committee had particular regard to the written objections concerning the location of the premises and the Council resolution of19/04/2010 concerning generally inappropriate locations for sexual entertainment venues. 2. The Resolution of19/04/2010 states that “sexual entertainment venues are not generally appropriate near or in locations / or areas containing any of the following: • Historic buildings or tourist attractions, • Schools, play areas, nurseries, children’s centres or similar premises, • Shopping complexes, • Residential areas, • Places of worship,” 3. The Sub Committee found that the relevant locality for the purposes of deciding the application is the area near to the premises. 4. Taking into account the ground of refusal at paragraph 12 (d) of Schedule 3 of the Act the Sub Committee found that renewal of the license would be inappropriate having regard to the character of the relevant locality or use to which premises in the vicinity are put. The Sub Committee reached this conclusion for the following reasons: • [1] The premises are near to Oxford Ice Rink, Oxford and Cherwell Valley College and the Oxpens car and coach park. The Ice Rink is a facility which attracts many children, young people, families and tourists and the College is similar to a school. The Sub Committee therefore felt the Resolution of19/04/2010 on generally inappropriate locations was engaged in respect of the Ice Rink and College. • [2] The Oxpens car and coach car park, whilst not an ‘attraction’ in itself, nevertheless brings many tourists, visitors and local residents into the area of the premises at all hours. The operation of a sexual entertainment venue in the locality was therefore not appropriate. • [3] The Oxpens road is a busy transport link and pedestrian route for visitors and residents living in the St Thomas and St Ebbs areas, a sexual entertainment venue was not appropriate in such a well used location. • [4] The increasing concentration of student accommodation in the area, including development of student housing at Luther Court, Mill Street and Park End St, meant an increased use of the locality by young and possibly vulnerable students as a route to and from their accommodation. • [5] Many of the representations received indicated there had been a negative change in the character of the vicinity brought about by the opening of the premises. • [6] Many of the representations received indicated that the operation of premises had created a hostile atmosphere in the locality and a heightened fear of the risk of sexual violence. Whilst acknowledging there was no evidence of any violent incidents attributable to the operation of the premises, the Sub Committee gave weight to the representations and felt the heightened fear reported was at least in part due to the existence of the premises and the type of entertainment it operated. The Sub Committee were mindful of the Council’s duty undersection 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to take reasonable steps to prevent crime and disorder. • [7] Of particular concern were reports contained in the representation of Louise Livesey concerning incidents of harassment by users of The Lodge toward a user of the Ice Rink. Whilst recognising these reports were both anonymous and hearsay and accordingly carried limited weight the Sub Committee nevertheless took some account of them. The Sub Committee recognised that its findings were a departure from the Council’s decision to grant the license in July 2011 but found that as a differently constituted Sub Committee with the benefit of evidence concerning the operation of the premises over the last year they were entitled to reach a different conclusion. The Sub Committee were aware of the human rights considerations as set out in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Head of Environmental Development’s report, but found that the Applicant’s right to protection of his license was not a right so significant as to override their own calculation of the public interest. Decision: The Application is refused on the grounds that a sexual entertainment venue at the Premises would be inappropriate, having regard to the character of the relevant locality and the use to which other premises in the vicinity are put.”
“1.3 Section 27 gives local authorities more powers to control the number and location of lap-dancing clubs and similar venues in their area. These powers are not mandatory and will only apply where they are adopted by local authorities. Where adopted, these provisions will allow local authorities to refuse an application on potentially wider grounds than is permitted under the 2003 Act and will give local people a greater say over the regulation of lap-dancing clubs and similar venues in their area.”
“9(1)…[A]ny licence under this Schedule shall, unless previously cancelled ...or revoked…, remain in force for one year or for such shorter period specified in the licence as the appropriate authority may think fit.”
“(3) The grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above are— (a) that the applicant is unsuitable to hold a licence by reason of having been convicted of an offence or for any other reason; (b) that if the license were to be granted, renewed or transferred the business to which it relates would be managed by or carried on for the benefit of a person, other than the applicant, who would be refused the grant, renewal or transfer of such a licence if he made the application himself; (c) that the number of sex establishments, or of sex establishments of a particular kind, in the relevant locality at the time the application is determined in equal to or exceeds the number which the authority consider is appropriate for that locality; (d) that the grant or renewal of the licence would be inappropriate, having regard— (i) to the character of the relevant locality; or (ii) to the use to which any premises in the vicinity are put; or (iii) to the layout, character or condition of the premises, vehicle, vessel or stall in respect of which the application is made. (4) Nil may be an appropriate number for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(c) above. (5) In this paragraph “the relevant locality” means — (a) in relation to premises, the locality where they are situated; and (b) in relation to a vehicle, vessel or stall, any locality where it is desired to use it as a sex establishment.” (i) to the character of the relevant locality; or (ii) to the use to which any premises in the vicinity are put; or (iii) to the layout, character or condition of the premises, vehicle, vessel or stall in respect of which the application is made. (a) in relation to premises, the locality where they are situated; and (b) in relation to a vehicle, vessel or stall, any locality where it is desired to use it as a sex establishment.”
“10(20) Where the appropriate authority refuse to grant, renew or transfer a licence, they shall…. give him a statement in writing of the reasons for their decision.”
“The legislature must be taken to have known that a local authority is a body of changing composition and shifting position, whose changes and shifts reflect the views of the local electorate. What is ‘appropriate’ may be the subject of different perceptions by different elected representatives.”
“35. It may perhaps help at this point to attempt some broad summary of the authorities governing the proper approach to a reasons challenge in the planning context. Clearly what follows cannot be regarded as definitive of exhaustive nor, I fear, will it avoid all need for future citation of authority. It should, however, serve to focus the reader's attention on the main considerations to have in mind when contemplating a reasons challenge and it generally its tendency is to discourage such challenges I for one would count that a benefit. 36. The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the ‘principal important controversial issues’, disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example, by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration They should enable disappointed developers to assess their prospects of obtaining some alternative development permission, or, as the case may be, their unsuccessful opponents to understand how the policy or approach underlying the grant of permission may impact upon future such applications. Decision letters must be read in a straightforward manner, recognising that they are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced. A reasons challenge will only succeed if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that he has genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision.”
“…renewal of the license would be inappropriate having regard to the character of the relevant locality or use to which premises in the vicinity are put”, i.e. the ground of refusal atparagraph 12(d) of Schedule 3). Seven separate reasons for reaching this conclusion are set out by the 2012 Sub-Committee in the bullet points (see above). The following observations are pertinent to each bullet point: (1) It is clear from the first bullet point in the 2012 Reasons that the differently constituted 2012 Sub-Committee came to a different conclusion from the 2011 Sub-Committee when concluding that “the Resolution of19/04/2010 on generally inappropriate locations was engaged in respect of the Ice Rink and College”