01252 617119

Planning Law Solicitors

Sex Entertainment Venue Licensing - Discretion & Reasons

March 20th, 2013 by Louise Humphreys

Posted In: Licensing

In a judgment that will be of great assistance to licensing authorities, the High Court has recently dismissed an application for judicial review against a refusal to grant a Sex Entertainment Venue licence for a lapdancing venue in a rural location.

In the case of R (KVP ENT LTD) v South Bucks DC, the applicant applied for a licence to operate a lapdancing club on the edge of a rural village. The application attracted 201 representations against it. A week prior to the sub-committee hearing of the application the same authority but in its role as the local planning authority granted planning permission for a change of use to use as a lapdancing venue. The grant followed the recommendation by the planning officer, which itself had made a detailed assessment of the 'character' of the surrounding area and concluded that there were no reasons to refuse the application.

The licensing sub-committee were told that planning permission had been recently granted and advised that the two regimes, planning and licensing, were separate and that the grant of planning permission did not bind them in their decision-making. No attempt was made by the applicant (who was represented by counsel) to raise the contents of the Planning Officer's Report or suggest that any of his findings as to character in the planning context ought to be followed.

The licensing sub-committee resolved to refuse the licence on the basis of Paragraph 12(3)(d)(i) of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. At first their reasons merely said:

Reason for REFUSING this application...
That the grant of this Sex Establishment Licence would be inappropriate having regard to -
the character of the locality where the Premises are situated in accordance with paragraph 12(3)(d)(i) of the 1982 Act in particular the Premises being in close proximity to a residential area.

The applicant wrote a letter before claim alleging, amongst other things, that the reasons were inadequate; but also that the fact that planning permission had been granted so recently meant that the sub-committee's decision to refuse the application was perverse and/or needed to be justified by specific reasons.

In response to the criticism about the extent of reasons, the sub-committee reconvened to provide amplification of the reasons for its decision to refuse, a statement of which was then sent to the applicant by way of response to its letter before claim. The applicant nonetheless made a claim for JR and got permission on the papers to argue its case fully.

At a substantive hearing, the claim for judicial review was dismissed, the Court indicating that:

  • The local authority was entitled to provide and rely on the amplified reasons provided after the letter before claim. It was 'clear' that the amplified reasons elucidated, rather than changed or modified, the brief reasons originally given;
  • The regimes of planning and licensing are distinct, and as such there was no mandatory requirement to have regard to the Planning Officer's Report or to 'distinguish' the conclusions contained within it before 'departing' from it. The views of the Planning Officer (adopted by the Planning Committee) were not binding on the sub-committee who had to come to their own judgment within the terms of the test contained in Schedule 3.
  • The focus of the assessment of character in the Planning Officer's Report was distinct and referable to the planning control regime and there was no requirement to have regard to it in the context of this application.
  • The sub-committee had not 'wrongly conflated' (as was contended) the question of the character of the relevant locality (for Paragraph 12(3)(d)(i)) with the uses to which premises in the vicinity were put (from 12(3)(d)(ii)). Questions of character will inevitably include consideration of the use to which premises are put; there may be cases where although the character of a locality does not compel refusal, the use to which specific premises nearby are put (for example a primary school) would.
  • Indeed the shifting of the SEL regime from the Licensing Act 2003 to the provisions of Schedule 3 was done specifically to widen the grounds on which applications for SEV licences could be considered and refused.

Comments

Log In or Register to add comments.