To confirm the procedure for the hearing (attached).

The procedure for the meeting was noted.

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

To hear and determine an opposed application for the renewal of a sex establishment licence.

Participating in this item were:

·         Clive Sullivan (Consultant representing the applicant)

·         Phillip Taylor (Local resident)

·         Rosemary Jarvis (Representative on behalf of Twickenham Christian Concern)

Clive Sullivan, the management consultant representing the applicant, began by stating the applicant’s case:

·         He reminded the Sub-Committee that this hearing was being held for a Sex Establishment Licence renewal and that the shop had been operating, without any reported trouble for 6 years.

·         The conditions that had previously been imposed upon the shop were mandatorily applicable, and he felt it would be unnecessary for the Committee to change the conditions.

·         There had been no notable changes to the local character since the Committee originally agreed to grant the shops licence.

·         Mr Sullivan said that although the Council had introduced a policy as to the appropriate number of sex establishments within the borough as being nil per ward, he asked that the Sub-Committee judge this licence renewal on its own merit by exercising their discretionary powers.

·         Darker Enterprises had advertised their intention to seek a renewal of the licence in their shop window and in a local newspaper which circulates in the locality in which the premises are situated. There had been no objection from the Falcons Preparatory School for Boys or the Spear Homeless Hostel amongst others.

Following questions from members of the Sub-Committee, Mr Sullivan stated that the conditions imposed by the Committee on the façade of the shop would not be enforceable if the shops’ licence was revoked. The owners could continue to trade, unlicensed, and use windows to display articles sold within the shop.

Phillip Taylor, a local resident, made his representation:

·         He felt that the original licence granted by the Council had been flawed and the renewal application should have been dismissed on the grounds that it was contrary to the Councils policy for nil sex establishments per ward.

·         Mr Taylor said a referendum decision on whether there should be no sex establishments in the borough should be made by full Council. He urged the Committee to recommend this.

·         Mr Taylor said that the renewal of the licence was inappropriate due to the character of the locality.

·         He recommended the Sub-Committee exercise its discretionary powers to refuse the application.

The Committee’s legal advisor confirmed that a full consultation and new Sex Establishment and SEV Licensing Policy had been approved by Regulatory Committee, rendering the request for a referendum unnecessary.

Rosemary Jarvis, a representative on behalf of Twickenham Christian Concern, made her representation. She agreed with Mr Taylor that the shop was inappropriate due to the character of the locality.

Ms Jarvis responded to questions from the Committee stating that it would be preferable not to renew the licence as this would restrict the material being sold at the premises. She recalled there had been considerable opposition to the sex shop before the licence was originally granted.

Mr Sullivan responded to the Committees questions stating that the shop restricted admittance to under 18s.  As part of the licensing agreement, staff in the shop had been recording incidences where they had challenged customers they suspected of being under 18 years old.

Ms Jarvis, Mr Sullivan and Mr Taylor made closing statements re-emphasising the points already made.

The Committee retired to consider the points raised during in the meeting.

RESOLVED that the opposed application for the renewal of a sex establishment licence be Granted.

The REASONS for the decision were:

The Committee considered that there was no basis for mandatory grounds for refusal as set out in paragraph 12(1) of schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.

The Committee agreed the discretionary grounds did not justify a refusal for the following reasons:

·         The Committee considered that the locality was not inappropriate. Without objections from residents, the school or any other local interested party within the immediate vicinity the Committee could not apply its discretion in this regard.

·         The premises had traded without objection by any dept of the Council or Police for six years. Refusing the licence would remove the 40 conditions imposed on the premises which prohibited any window display and required the shop to have a lobby and buzzer entrance;

·         There had been no new evidence to refuse the licence renewal on the grounds of the relevant locality.

Please refer to the decision notice (attached) for full details of the decision and reasons.