|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Thompson, R (on the application of) v Oxford City Council  EWHC 1819 (Admin) (28 June 2013)
Cite as:  EWHC 1819 (Admin)
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| R (ALISTAIR LOCKWOOD THOMPSON)
|- and -
|OXFORD CITY COUNCIL
Ranjit Bhose QC (instructed by Jeremy Thomas, Head of Law and Governance of Oxford City Council) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 11th June 2013
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE:
The Lodge at Pennyfarthing Place in 2007
Lap-dancing starts at Pennyfarthing Place in February 2010
Adoption of new licensing regime in April 2010
"(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"
Oxford Mail in 2011
"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."
He declined to comment further on the application, but said that the proximity to the church "may be a factor in the decision."
Licensing hearing on 2nd March 2011
"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."
Pennyfarthing Place closes in June 2011
Application for lap-dancing at Oxpens Road
Licensing hearing on 12th July 2011
Decision of 18th July 2011 granting SEV licence for Oxpens Road
"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 of 19/04/2010 (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 the Human Rights Act 1998 and European Convention on Human Rights as well as its duty under the Crime 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."
Lap-dancing starts at Oxpens Road in November 2011
Hearing of renewal application on 24th September 2012
Claimant's representations at the hearing
• "What was the motivation behind objectors' representations? Were the local residents expressing their concerns or groups putting forward their views? There was no hard evidence from local people that this club caused any detriment to them.
• Most people would not know that the club even existed in its current location. It was completely innocuous;
• The advertisement hoarding by the railways station showed only a women's face and could not be said to be offensive, even more so when the hoarding next to it (for skin cream) showed a naked woman;
• No-one from Thames Valley Police had made any representation against local area – had this happened, it might give more weight to arguments about a change of circumstances;
• There was no evidence of a correlation between the opening of the club and an 18% rise in references to the sexual violence support group – this could have been caused by a host of other factors;
• No-one has complained that the club is badly run;
• The Council decided a year ago that the area was appropriate – to say otherwise now would be perverse."
Objectors' written and oral representations
(1) The Ice Rink. There was evidence that this was approximately 85 metres away. One interested party noted that it "has night-time sessions which are much used by student sporting groups". Another noted "it is a family facility and it is not acceptable for it to have a sex establishment cheek-by-jowl". One objector in her oral representations made a point about the Ice Rink being open "late at night" and said: "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…". Another referred to the Lodge being "close to a large number of residential properties". Two others referred to private houses in Woodbine Close and in Thames Street.
(1) A lecturer at Oxford Brooke's University wrote objecting on, inter alia, the following grounds:
"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?". The letter continued:
"[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."
Objections about the effect on the local area
(1) "I go to midnight ice hockey every Wednesday and have to walk past The Lodge. [...] I have frequently felt uncomfortable walking past it and have on two separate incidents been harassed by individuals in the street who have left the club."
(2) "Having lived on the same road as The Lodge, I felt very threatened if I ever had to walk/cycle home at night. The street makes you feel very isolated when the only other people there are men either pumped about going to such a venue or worse who are leaving, probably more excited and with more skewed views towards women than when they went in."
(3) "Just walking past The Lodge I have had cars stop and ask if I am offering "business" (i.e. engaged in prostitution) and have had other cars wind down their windows to shout sexual expletives at me. This hasn't happened anywhere else in town, it's specific to that part of Oxpens Road (and therefore The Lodge). I try to avoid that area, especially after dark as I fear one day the problem will escalate from verbal abuse to something else."
(4) "In a doorstep consultations with residents, members of Oxford Feminist Network heard stories from residents about men leaving the club (5am) shouting sexually explicit epithets whilst walking down the street…"
"Such entertainment debases and degrades women and legitimises a view of women as existing for men's sexual appetite."
Summary of objections
"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 of 24th September 2012 refusing renewal of SEV licence for Oxpens Road
"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 of 19/04/2010 concerning generally inappropriate locations for sexual entertainment venues.
2. The Resolution of 19/04/2010 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:
-  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 of 19/04/2010 on generally inappropriate locations was engaged in respect of the Ice Rink and College.
-  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.
-  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.
-  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.
-  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.
-  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 under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to take reasonable steps to prevent crime and disorder.
-  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."
THE CLAIMANT'S CHALLENGE
Stay and rolled up hearing ordered
Summary of Grounds of Challenge
(1) Insufficiency of reasons.
(2) Taking into account irrelevant and/or inaccurate considerations.
(3) Apparent bias in a member of the sub-committee.
GROUND (3): 'APPARENT BIAS'
(1) First, the 1999 noise dispute was ancient history and appears to have been a minor spat. It took place some 13 years ago and was not evidence of any discernable current animus by Councillor Cook towards the Claimant.
(2) Second, Councillor Cook was not declaring in 2008 (ex rel the Oxford Mail) that he was against all lap-dancing for all time, but merely expressing a somewhat dim view about Oxford having regular licensed "fetish shows" involving such things as "topless dancing", "topless KY jelly wrestling" and "fetish snake shows", the latter reportedly starring "a 12 ft albino python".
(3) Third, the comments by Councillor Cook when interviewed by Oxford Mail on 6th January 2011 were appropriately guarded and neutral. In my view, the reasons that Councillor Cook gave on 2nd March 2011 for not recusing himself were justified (see above).
THE STATUTORY BACKGROUND
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982
Licensing Act 2003 regime
Policing and Crime Act 2009
Home Office Guidance to 'Sexual Entertainment Venues'
"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."
Statutory grounds for grant or renewal or refusal
"(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."
THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES
(1) Local authorities are granted a very wide statutory discretion to decide whether or not a licence should be granted (per Collins J in R v Newcastle Upon Tyne City Council ex p. The Christian Institute (unreported), 5th September 2000) at .
(2) Local authorities can take into account "any strong body of feeling in the locality" which objects to the existence of a sex shop there (although this does not include moral objections to its activities) (per Collins J in The Christian Institute (supra), at .
(3) The legislation expressly contemplates that the circumstances in which a license has been granted or renewed may change and there can be no expectation of annual renewal (per Turner J in R v LB Wandsworth ex p. Darker Enterprises Limited (1999 WL 478089)).
(4) Local authorities have "a very broad power to make an evaluative judgment" whether the grant of a licence would be inappropriate having regard to "the character of the relevant locality" (under criteria (d)(i)). This imports "a significant evaluative power" at two levels: first, in assessing whether the grant or renewal of the licence would be "inappropriate" (a very broad and general concept); and, secondly, in assessing the character of the relevant locality (which, again, involves questions of fact and degree and local knowledge which import, at that level also, a broad power of evaluative judgment to be exercised by the local authority) (per Sales J in R (KVP ENT Limited) v South Bucks District Council  EWHC 926 (Admin), at .)
(5) There is no radical conceptual divide between the first two criteria under sub-paragraph (d), i.e. (i) "the character of the relevant locality" and (ii) "the use to which any premises in the vicinity are put". Criteria (i) is a concept calling for "a compendious and general evaluative judgment to be made by the authority", having regard to a range of factors which may be relevant to that question, including not least the use to which properties within the relevant locality happen to be put. Criteria (ii) simply provides an additional ground for refusal if, e.g., it cannot be said that it would be inappropriate to grant a licence given the general character of the locality, but the use of particular premises within the vicinity does give cause for concern, viz. e.g. a church, or primary school (per Sales J in KVP ENT Limited, at  and .)
(6) Considerations inherent in paragraph 12(3)(d) were intended by Parliament to be considerations for the local authority's own evaluative judgment, subject only to this court's supervisory jurisdiction on a claim by way of judicial review (per Sales J in KVP ENT Limited at ). This follows from the omission of a statutory right of appeal to the magistrates in relation to sub-paragraph (d) (see above).
GROUND (1): 'REASONS' CHALLENGE
"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."
Claimant's specific complaints
Ex parte Sheptonhurst Limited 
"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."
(1) Parliament has drawn no distinction between grant and renewal of licences and provided that a licence shall not last for more than a year; and it follows there is no fetter on the discretion of the local authority in the case of renewal.
(2) There is, however, a distinction between applications for grant and renewal in that when considering an application for renewal the local authority has to give "due weight" to the fact that a licence was granted in the previous year.
(3) In a case where there has been no change of circumstances, if the licensing authority refuses to renew on the ground that it would be inappropriate having regard to the character of the relevant locality, it must give its reasons for refusal: see paragraph 10(20) of the Schedule.
(4) If the reasons given are rational, that is to say "properly relevant to the ground for refusal", then the court cannot interfere.
(5) The requirement to give reasons, is the true protection for a licence holder applying for renewal against a wayward and irrational exercise of discretion.
(6) The fact that in previous years the licensing authority did not choose to invoke those reasons for refusing to grant or renew the licence does not make the reasons irrational.
Dunster Properties Ltd v. The First Secretary of State 
South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter (No. 2) 
"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."
Decision on 'reasons' challenge
Analysis of 2012 Reasons
(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 of 19/04/2010 on generally inappropriate locations was engaged in respect of the Ice Rink and College". The members of the 2012 Sub-Committee were entitled to take a fresh look and a different view of the matter. As Mr Bhose QC points out, had the 2012 Reasons ended there without more, the Claimant's might have had some reason to complain. But the 2012 Reasons went on to give six further reasons (see below).
(2) The proximity of the Oxpens car and coach car park only merited a glancing reference in the 2011 Reasons (paragraph 5). In contrast, however, the second bullet point in the 2012 Reasons made the point that the Oxpens car and coach car park brought "many tourists, visitors and local residents into the area of the premises at all hours" and the 2012 Sub-Committee clearly regarded this factor as significant enough to justify their view that a SEV in the locality was therefore "not appropriate".
(3) The 2011 Reasons expressed the view that the residential areas of St Thomas and St Ebbe's were not sufficiently proximate to engage The Resolution (paragraph 7). In contrast, however, third bullet point in the 2012 Reasons made the practical point that the Oxpens Road was "a busy transport link and pedestrian route for visitors and residents" living in the St Thomas and St Ebbe's areas and the 2012 Sub-Committee clearly regarded this factor as significant enough to justify their view that a SEV was "not appropriate in such a well used location".
(4) The 2011 Reasons make no mention of any increase in student accommodation in the area. In contrast, however, the fourth bullet point in the 2012 Reasons expressly referred to the fact that the development of student housing at Luther Court, Mill Street and Park End Street and the fact that this meant "an increased use of the locality by young and possibly vulnerable students as a route to and from their accommodation". (The Claimant brings a separate challenge in respect to this evidence – see further below).
(5) The fifth bullet point in the 2012 Reasons highlighted the 2012 evidence regarding the change in the character of the vicinity "brought about by the opening of the premises".
(6) The sixth bullet point in the 2012 Reasons highlighted the 2012 evidence that operation of the lap-dancing club had created "a hostile atmosphere in the locality" and "a heightened fear of the risk of sexual violence". The 2012 Sub-Committee went on to express the view that, whilst there was no evidence of any actual violent incidents, the heightened fear reported was at least "in part" due to the existence of the lap-dancing club and they were "mindful" of the Council's duty to take reasonable steps to prevent crime and disorder.
(7) The seventh bullet point in the 2012 Reasons referred to the 2012 anonymous and hearsay evidence of incidents of harassment by users of The Lodge toward a user of the Ice Rink and took "some account" of them.
GROUND (2): IRRELEVANT AND/OR INACCURATE CONSIDERATIONS.