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

A licensing authority may reconsider renewal of a sexual entertainment venue licence without proof of a change in the locality. It must give due weight to the earlier grant and explain any departure from the previous decision where there has been no relevant change. The authority may consider imminent or ongoing development when assessing the locality, but the court indicated that this discretion is not unlimited. Reasons are adequate if, read fairly, they explain the different conclusion and identify rationally relevant grounds.

The appellant sought judicial review of Oxford City Council’s refusal to renew the sexual entertainment venue licence for The Lodge, a lap-dancing club at Oxpens Road, Oxford. A differently constituted licensing sub-committee had granted the licence in 2011, but refused renewal on 24 September 2012 under paragraph 12(3)(d) of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.

Haddon-Cave J dismissed the judicial review. The appellant appealed, challenging the adequacy of the reasons, the treatment of the earlier decision, the consideration of developing student accommodation, and procedural fairness. The central issues were whether renewal required a change of circumstances, what weight and explanation were required when departing from the earlier decision, and whether the matters relied on were legally relevant.

Appeal dismissed unanimously. The court held that Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 gives licensing authorities a wide discretion when assessing whether renewal would be inappropriate having regard to the character of the relevant locality or the use of nearby premises. The annual maximum duration of a licence supports frequent reconsideration.

1. Renewal does not require an objector to prove a change since the licence was granted. The authority must nevertheless give due weight to the previous grant.
2. A licensing authority may depart from an earlier decision by a differently constituted committee, but must have regard to it, grasp the substance of any disagreement and give rational reasons for the different conclusion. This common-law duty is reinforced by paragraph 10(2) of Schedule 3. The court applied the general reasoning on adequate reasons in Dunster Properties Ltd v First Secretary of State [2007] EWCA Civ 236 and South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter (No. 2) [2004] UKHL 33.
3. The 2012 reasons were adequate. They showed that evidence from the first year of operation, including reported effects on residents and users of the area, increased student use of Oxpens Road and other relevant matters led to the different conclusion.
4. The court indicated, without deciding the abstract limits of reliance on forthcoming development, that imminent or ongoing development may be relevant. In this case the references to student housing illustrated an increasing pattern of pedestrian use rather than treating future development itself as determinative.
5. The appellant had notice of the live issue concerning pedestrian use of Oxpens Road and suffered no procedural prejudice from the particular formulation of the written reasons.

The refusal to renew the licence was therefore lawful.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal against Haddon-Cave J’s dismissal of the judicial review claim dismissed. The court upheld Oxford City Council’s refusal of renewal dated 24 September 2012.