Agenda item

Applicant: the Private Shop, represented by Mr Clive Sullivan (Management Consultant), Mr Colin Mason (Director), Miss Janice Singleton (Licensing Administrator)

Representation and Petitioners: Miss Jo-Ling Chew (making representation), Ms Charlotte Barnes (Petitioner), Ms Jona Wiskowski (Petitioner), Mr John Smythe (Petitioner)

The Senior Public Protection Officer summarised the report and invited the Sub-Committee to determine the application.

Mr Sullivan submitted that the procedure to be followed for this item was not compliant with a High Court judgement, that the objectors should not be present during the hearing of the application and should not be able to question the applicant. The Sub-Committee adjourned to consider his objection. When the Sub-Committee had reconvened, the Chair drew Mr Sullivan’s attention to the fact that the report that had been circulated to the parties in advance, and to the Council’s procedure where it stated that “the hearing will take the form of a discussion” and that “formal cross examination will be discouraged and, should they be necessary, supplementary questions allowed for clarification purposes only”. She said that she would allow the objectors to remain present and question the applicant after the statement of their case, but would not allow cross examination. Mr Sullivan accepted this whilst reserving his position.

Mr Sullivan submitted that the Court of Appeal had distinguished between an application for renewal and an application for grant and that in the case of a renewal due weight must be given to the fact that a licence has been granted. He said that there had been a sex shop on this site for thirty-five years. He further submitted that the Act distinguishes between mandatory grounds for refusal and discretionary grounds for refusal, and that in turn the discretionary grounds were subdivided into the suitability of the applicant and the suitability of the premises. As far as the suitability of the applicant was concerned, the Private Shop owned one hundred premises in the UK and had never received a conviction and had no prosecutions pending against it. Turning to the suitability of the premises, he submitted that to apply one of the discretionary grounds there had to be a more than ordinary degree of the condition to which the ground referred. For example, it was not sufficient reason to refuse an application because the premises would be passed by children, as this was usually the case with all such premises. He cited the statement of a Minister in the House of Lords to the effect that it was not for Local Authorities to decide whether or not sex shops should be permitted; Parliament had decided that they should be. The Private Shop was a legal operation selling legal products. He submitted that the only objection made by the objectors that the Sub-Committee could take into consideration was the proximity of schools to the shop. He submitted that in fact the schools were at some distance and pointed out that it was an offence to allow underage people to enter the shop. In conclusion he said that by granting the licence the Council kept the premises under control by being able to regulate its opening hours, its appearance and its staff. He requested the Sub-Committee to renew the licence.

Miss Chew put questions to Mr Sullivan. She asked whether Mr Sullivan considered it appropriated that a sex shop should be located in the same street as a charity to help victims of sexual trauma. Mr Sullivan replied that he suspected that the Private Shop had been in its present location for longer than the charity had. The Chair ruled that a number of other questions were  irrelevant to the grounds of refusal and they were therefore disallowed.

Miss Chew stated her case. She said that the shop was close to two schools, and Oldfield Park Infants was only 453ft away. Its location so close to schools could give the impression to young people that pornography was acceptable and might encourage them to look at it at a young age. Young people might be able to circumvent the age restriction on entry to the shop or persuade adults to buy material for them. A number of Miss Chew’s statements were ruled irrelevant by the Chair and Miss Chew was advised to limit her representations to the grounds of refusal as set out in the report. The Chair further advised that matters relating to the principle of pornography in general were matters for Parliament not the Local Authority.

In his closing statement Mr Sullivan submitted that the only relevant issue raised by the objectors was the proximity of the schools. He suggested that that they were sufficiently distant as not to make this an issue. He pointed out that no objections had been received from the schools themselves, and that in fact that they had never made any objections to the premises. He urged the Sub-Committee to allow the Council to continue to exercise control over the premises by granting the renewal.

Following an adjournment the Sub-Committee RESOLVED to renew the licence of the Private Shop for one year.

Reasons

Members have today determined an application to renew a premises licence at The Private Shop, Lower Bristol Road, Bath. In doing so they have taken into consideration schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, the Council’s Policy and the Human Rights Act 1998.

The applicant made a procedural point relating to the apparent adversarial nature of the proceedings. Turning to the application however, it was said the company was fit and proper in that it had not been convicted of any offences and there were none pending. They further stated that the grounds of the objection appeared to be based on policy and morals and were not matters to be considered by the committee. The conditions attached safeguard children and residents and were appropriate to the premises which had operated without concern for some 30 years.

The objections said a renewal would affect families moving to the area, have a negative impact on culture, objectify women and make it appear abuse was acceptable in relationships. Further the premises were close to schools which in turn could lead to children being interested in pornography.

Members were careful to note that the procedure to be followed clearly stated the process was not adversarial but rather designed to be a conversation where questions could be asked stopping short of formal cross examination.

Members were mindful that the application must be considered on its merits, in the context of schedule 3 of Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and with regard to the importance of consistency in the decision making process. Members noted that these premises had operated since 1994 without complaint, breach of condition and that there had been no change in the extent, location or nature of the business. Whilst Members acknowledged the objection they placed little weight on it and therefore the application was granted with the attachment of the standard conditions. Authority was delegated to the Licensing Officer to issue the licence.