Bean Leisure Trading A Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Leeds City Council

A licensing authority deciding whether to renew a sexual entertainment venue licence has a broad evaluative discretion under Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. The court’s role is supervisory and does not extend to substituting its own assessment of local sensitivity. An authority may adopt a materially revised policy and reconsider an existing licence annually, provided it gives due weight to the earlier decision and intelligible reasons for any different conclusion. Numerical limits do not require the authority to issue the maximum number of licences. Proximity to sensitive uses or locations may justify refusal, even where other premises are closer to different sensitive uses. The authority must separately address the statutory grounds, act rationally and proportionately, and comply with substantive equality duties.

Leeds City Council refused to renew sexual entertainment venue licences for Wildcats, operated by Bean Leisure, and Deep Blue, operated by Ruby May. The Council had adopted a revised policy which identified sensitive uses and locations and stated that a maximum of four venues might be appropriate in Leeds city centre, subject to those qualifications.

The claimants sought judicial review on grounds including procedural unfairness, inadequate reasons, irrationality, unlawful departure from earlier licensing decisions, disproportionality under Article 1 of the First Protocol, and failure to comply with the public sector equality duty. Both applications were heard as rolled-up permission hearings. The central issues were whether the Council had lawfully applied its revised policy and whether it had adequately explained its different conclusions from those reached in 2012.

1. Outcome. Permission was granted in both applications, but both challenges failed. The Council’s decisions were rational, proportionate and consistent with its published policy.
2. Statutory discretion. Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, as amended by section 27 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, gives the Council a broad evaluative power under paragraphs 12(3)(c) and 12(3)(d). The court’s function is supervisory. It cannot replicate the Council’s local knowledge or substitute its own evaluation.
3. Policy and comparison. The revised policy lawfully placed emphasis on sensitive uses and locations. It did not create a rigid hierarchy or require mathematical weighting. The Council was entitled to regard the civic buildings on the North side of the Headrow as more sensitive than the locations of other venues. A maximum of four licences did not create an entitlement to four licences, or to a licence for any applicant whose premises were near sensitive properties or locations.
4. Reasons and renewal. An authority may take a fresh look at an annual renewal application. It must give due weight to the previous grant and provide intelligible reasons for a different result. The decision letters, read with the amplified reasons, identified the relevant policy change, sensitive locations, local circumstances and reasons for refusal. The amplified reasons genuinely elucidated the original reasons and were not an impermissible ex post facto justification.
5. Human rights and equality. Any Convention interference was at a low level. The Council struck a fair balance between the operators’ economic interests and the public interest. The public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 was a duty of substance, not form, and had been sufficiently taken into account.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. No appeal history is stated in the judgment.