Thompson, R (on the application of) v Oxford City Council

A licensing authority may refuse to renew a sexual entertainment venue licence even where the locality has not materially changed and the licence was previously granted. Under Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, renewal involves a fresh evaluative judgment, although due weight must be given to the existing licence.

The authority may consider the present and prospective character of the locality, the use of nearby premises, changing patterns of development, and evidence of adverse effects on the area. Reasons need be intelligible and adequate, but need not address every point in the earlier decision or every material consideration. Judicial review is confined to supervisory control of the statutory discretion.

The claimant sought judicial review of Oxford City Council’s refusal to renew a sexual entertainment venue licence for a lap-dancing club. The licence had been granted for one year in 2011 under Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, as amended by the Policing and Crime Act 2009.

The renewal application was refused on the basis that the venue was inappropriate having regard to the character of the relevant locality and the use of premises in the vicinity. The claimant alleged insufficient reasons, reliance on irrelevant or inaccurate considerations, and apparent bias. The central issues were whether the authority could take a fresh view on renewal and whether its reasons lawfully explained the refusal.

1. Apparent bias. The apparent-bias ground was dismissed in limine because the claimant had failed to raise it before or at the renewal hearing, having previously raised the issue in earlier proceedings. In any event, no fair-minded and informed observer would have concluded that there was a real possibility of bias: the earlier dispute was remote, the 2008 comments were limited, and the 2011 comments were guarded and neutral.
2. Statutory discretion. Paragraph 12(3)(d) of Schedule 3 confers a broad evaluative discretion. There is no conceptual divide preventing the authority from considering both the general character of the locality and the use of particular premises nearby. The absence of a statutory appeal to the magistrates in respect of paragraph 12(3)(d) reinforces Parliament’s intention that the authority should have wide latitude, subject to judicial review.
3. Renewal and earlier decisions. A renewal application is not governed by a presumption of continuation. The authority may take a fresh look and reach a different conclusion from the previous year, while giving due weight to the earlier grant. The reasoning need not analyse the earlier decision point by point.
4. Reasons. The reasons had to be intelligible and adequate, enabling an informed reader to understand the decision and the principal important controversial issues. The 2012 reasons identified the statutory ground and seven relevant considerations, including nearby educational and leisure facilities, the coach park, pedestrian routes, student accommodation, reported changes in the locality, fear of sexual violence, and harassment evidence. They were rational and properly relevant to the statutory ground.
5. Relevant considerations. The authority was entitled to consider both present and future character because the licence was prospective and limited to one year. Evidence of developing student accommodation and the reported impact of the club on the locality was capable of supporting refusal, even though there was no evidence of actual violent incidents.
6. The claim was dismissed on all grounds.