Agenda item

White Tiger Europe Limited have applied for the renewal of the Sex Establishment Licence to permit the premises to trade as a sex shop for a further twelve-month period.

The applicant also requests replacement of the shop sign.

The Licensing Authority has received one objection.

This matter is brought to the Licensing Sub Committee for determination.

Present:

BCP Council:

Nananka Randle – Licensing and Trading Standards Manager

Linda Cole – Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee

Michelle Cutler – Clerk to the Sub-Committee

The Chair made introductions and explained the procedure for the hearing, which was agreed by all parties.

The Licensing and Trading Standards Manager presented the report, a copy of which had been circulated and a copy of which appears as Appendix A to these minutes in the Minute Book.

The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the renewal of the Sex Establishment Licence for the premises known as ‘Easy Tiger’, 27 The Triangle, Bournemouth, BH2 5SE, to permit the premises to trade as a sex shop for a further twelve-month period. The applicant also sought permission to replace the outside shop sign for a black version.

As a result of the consultation 1 objection was received against the renewal of the licence.

The following persons attended the hearing and addressed the Sub-Committee to expand on the points made in their written submissions:

Mr Jonathan Spencer – licence holder and proprietor

Mrs Susan Stockwell – Objector

The Sub Committee asked various questions of all parties present and were grateful for the responses received. All parties were invited to sum up before the Sub-Committee retired to make its decision.

RESOLVED that the application to renew the Sex Establishment Licence for the premises known as ‘Easy Tiger’, 27 The Triangle, Bournemouth, BH2 5SE, to permit the premises to trade as a sex shop for a further twelve-month period, be GRANTED and that the applicant’s request to replace the outside shop sign for a black version also be GRANTED. 

Reason for Decision:  

The Sub-Committee considered in detail all the information which had been submitted before the hearing, including the report of Sarah Rogers, Principal Licensing Officer, which was presented by Nananka Randle, Licensing and Trading Standards Manager, the written submissions of the objector, Susan Stockwell, and the written submissions of the applicant, Jonathan Spencer. The Sub-Committee also considered the verbal submissions made by all parties at the hearing and was grateful to all parties for their responses to questions.  

In making its decision the Sub-Committee had regard to the provisions of Schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and the available grounds for refusing the application contained within paragraph 12 of that schedule. The Sub-Committee did not consider there was sufficient evidence in the objector’s submission to support a refusal on any of the available grounds.  

The Sub-Committee noted that the business has traded as a sex shop at its current location for 16 years under the current ownership and a further 9 years before that at another location in the Triangle.  

The Sub-Committee was informed that one objection had been received against the renewal of the licence from Mrs Susan Stockwell citing objection to the renewal on the basis that the shop was too near the library, which had a children's section; that the operator had on numerous occasions left the door of the shop open in what appeared to be breach of the conditions and that the operator had repeatedly dressed the window in a manner unsuitable for children to see. Mrs Stockwell was particularly concerned that the name of the shop and, inappropriate window dressing, may encourage under 18s to access the premises website, which wasn’t age restricted, to look at age restricted products. 

The Sub-Committee noted the points raised in the objection regarding the location of the premises near a library, which was accessible to children, but did not consider that there had been a material change in the locality since the licence was renewed last year. They considered the Triangle area to be a particularly inclusive area of the town centre and that there was no reason to refuse this application on the grounds of locality.  

The applicant informed the Sub-Committee that he did keep the door open and explained that when the door was open customers would immediately see a large sign directly in front of them that advised admittance to the premises was strictly for persons aged 18 years and over. In addition to this there was a sign above the door advising it was an ‘Adult Store’ and an A-board outside the store stating the same. The applicant also advised that all age restricted goods were displayed on the first floor of the premises, and he operated a challenge 25 process at the shop to ensure under 18s were denied access. 

Regarding the issue of inappropriate window displays raised by the objector, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that no evidence had been provided by Mrs Stockwell to support her claims, and that the website address was not shown on the premises façade. The Sub-Committee heard from the applicant that no pornographic items were sold online, and it was noted that it was the responsibility of Ofcom to regulate online safety under the Online Safety Act and not in the remit of the Sub-Committee. 

The Sub-Committee was mindful that there had been no other objections from any responsible authority, organisation, local resident or any other member of the public to the application. 

The Sub-Committee noted the points raised by the applicant in terms of his premises being a valuable addition to the local community, collectively supporting local businesses and the LGBT community and that he was recently declared the Bournemouth Echo ‘Business Trader of the week’. The Sub-Committee were confident that the applicant ran the business responsibly and was very aware and had processes in place to prevent under 18’s from accessing the shop. 

Public Sector Equality Duty  

In considering the application, and in coming to its decision, the Sub-Committee had regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, foster good relations, and advance equality of opportunity between those with a protected characteristic, and those without and found no reason to refuse the application on this basis. 

The Sub-Committee determined that some of the points raised in the objection were not grounds contained in paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 on which the application can be refused. 

After full consideration of the objections raised, the grounds set out in paragraph 12 of schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and the Equality Act 2010 the Sub-Committee did not feel there was any basis to refuse the application and therefore resolved to grant it.  

Right of Appeal  

There is no right of appeal to this decision as the application has been granted as applied for and no extra conditions have been added to the licence. The objector to the application may seek a judicial review in the High Court if the decision is considered unlawful, irrational, or procedurally unfair. This is not an appeal on the merits of the decision but a review of the legality of the process.