BOROUGH OF POOLE

LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE

10 JULY 2013

The Meeting commenced at 5.30 pm and concluded at 9.00pm

Present:

Councillor:Mrs Rampton (Chairman)

Councillors:Mrs Parkinson and Wilkins

Also Present:

Nick Maguire- Democratic Support Officer, Legal and Democratic

Services, Borough of Poole (BoP)

Lesley Johnson -Consumer Protection Officer, Environmental and

Consumer Protection Services (ECPS) (BOP)

Frank Wenzel -Principal Licensing Officer ECPS, (BOP)

Russell Wileman -Senior Solicitor (BOP)

The applicant:

Mrs Sandra Graham – HLF Solicitors, representing the Applicant

Mr John Budimir and Mrs Budimir

Objectors:

Mr C Allenby, Mrs S Buckley, Mr A Digby, Councillor Mrs C Evans, Mr R Gregory, Councillor M Howell, Mr J MacDiarmid, Mr A Neale and Mr P Noyce

Members of the Public Present:2

LSC07.13APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

No apologies for absence were received.

LSC08.13DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PEUNIARY INTERESTS

No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were made.

LSC09.13PURRFECTLY DISCREET

The Chairman outlined the Rules and Procedure for dealing with the Application to consider a Sex Establishment Licence, to enable the Premises known as ‘Purrfectly Discreet’, Poole, situated within the Poole Town Ward, to trade as a licensed Sex Shop.

The Speakers were identified as Frank Wenzel, Principal Licensing Officer, Mrs S Graham (representing the applicant), Mr J Budimir (the Applicant) and the following objectors: Mrs S Buckley, Mr A Digby, Councillor Mrs C Evans, Mr A Neale, Mr C Allenby, Mr R Gregory, Councillor M Howell and Mr J MacDiarmid

The Principal Licensing Officer read out the Report of the Head of ECPS, which detailed the proposed Application. It was noted that the Applicant proposed to operate the Premises as a Sex Shop, trading seven days of the week from 10.00 hours to 22.00 hours Monday to Saturday and 11.00 hours to 17.00 hourson Sundays. These hours were contrary to the “Times of Operation” listed in the Standard Conditions and if granted would be attached as a Special Condition. This was due to the fact that Standard Condition 5 prevented a Sex Establishment from opening on Sundays or any Bank Holidays/Public Holidays, except with the previous consent of the Council.

The Chairman reminded the Sub-Committee that the premises known as Purrfectly Discreet currently operated and did not require a licence to sell what it was currently selling and therefore the Council had no influence in its operation. The granting of a licence would however allow the Council a certain degree of control over the operation of the business.

In response to a question from Mrs Graham, Mr Wenzel confirmed that all the statutory notices had been published within the prescribed timescale and no response had been received from any of the Statutory Consultees, including the Police.

The report stated that there had been 63 letters of objection and 12 letters of support. Copies of all the letters had been attached to the report of the Head of ECPS.

The Chairman invited the applicant and his representative to outline the case for the granting of a licence.

Mrs Graham advised the Sub-Committee that:

  • the application was a corporate application submitted by Dimova Ltd which was a Registered Company;
  • The applicant had a 10 year lease of the premises;
  • The existing shop would remain as it currently did not need a licence;
  • The shop currently sold lingerie and sex related articlesfor which it did not require a licence; and
  • The articles sold in the shop were not available in any other shop in Poole.

Mrs Graham informed the Sub-Committee that the granting of a Sex Establishment Licence would enable the shop to extend its range to other items including the sale of R18 videos, dvds etc as governed by the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 which specified that a licence would be required if these articles formed a ‘significant’ part of the overall sales of a shop.

She stated that the Sub-Committee was looking at the shop itself but at what is carried out inside the premises. Many similar shops operated without a licence. She quoted 143 Ann Summers shops in the UK and as far as she was aware none of them had a licence. The Sub-Committee was reminded that the granting of a licence would enable the Council to have some form of control as it could restrict hours of opening and regulate the window displays.

Mrs Graham outlined the reasons by which an application for a licence could be refused. The mandatory and discretionary conditions were:

Mandatory

  • If the applicant was under 18 years of age;
  • Was disqualified from holding such a licence;
  • The Corporate body was not registered in the UK, and
  • Has had an application for a licence previously refused.

Discretionary

  • The applicant has been convicted of an offence;
  • If granted the licence would benefit a 3rd party; and
  • The application exceeds the number of sex establishments previously agreed by the Local Authority in its Sex Establishments Policy.

Mrs Graham advised the Sub-Committee that the application complied with all the Mandatory conditions and that the applicant had not been convicted of any offence and if granted the licence would not benefit a 3rd party.

Mr Wenzel confirmed that the Council’s Sex Establishment Policy had not defined the number of sex establishment premises that could be licensed in the Borough but reminded Members that there already existed a sex shop on the Ashley Road in Parkstone.

Mrs Graham referred to the venue of the shop located on Poole’s High Street and made the following comments:

  • Nearby premises included 2 public houses, a tattoo shop, 5 betting shops and 2 casino type premises.
  • The economy was not in a good condition and any business that wanted to invest in the High Street should be supported.
  • The shop would benefit the whole community.
  • The shop was not out of keeping with other premises in the High Street. Mr Budimir had decorated the outside of the shop in a sympathetic style with other local shops. He had spent over £40,000 on decorating and fitting out the shop.
  • A considerable amount of money had been invested in the shop,
  • Gone were the days of ‘seedy backstreet’ shops frequented by ‘men in dirty macs!’
  • 80% of the current clientele were women, and it was very unlikely that women would go into one of the ‘backstreet shops’, they wanted clean, safe and open premises;
  • The sex shop on Ashley Road also had 2 public houses nearby as well as a bigger residential area and had children walking passed; and
  • Poole’s High Street should be treated the same as Ashley Road.
  • The applicant was prepared to abide by any conditions set down by the Council, including signage, window displays, door openings and cleaning up around the exterior of the shop.
  • The applicant was prepared to contribute to the economy of the area including the flower displays and Christmas lighting.

The inside of the premises were ‘disability friendly’ with three rooms. The First room contained lingerie; the second room contained sex objects for sale and the third room would contain the videos and dvds etc. Each of the first two rooms displayed warning notices advising customers of the nature of what was on sale in the next room. All the video and dvds would have the British Board of Film Censors classification of R18 which allowed licensed sex shops to sell such material.

The shop displays leaflets/booklets produced by the NHS concerning ’safe sex’ and it was intended to serve the whole community irrespective of sexual orientation. The premises has CCTV in all areas including over the front door. The applicant operated an ‘Over 25’ policy, although entry was restricted to persons over 18 years of age anyone who appeared to be under 25 was challenged to provide proof of age.

Mr Budimir informed the Sub-Committee that he:

  • had been resident in the Borough for the last 4-5 years;
  • had been in the ‘trade’ since 1990;
  • had held a Sex Establishment Licence for premises in Southend-on-Sea since 2003;
  • would personally run the Poole premises with the assistance of his wife;
  • might, if the licence is approved, employ addition staff; and;
  • was prepared to hold and maintain an ‘incident log’ on the premises.

Mrs Graham circulated an album containing an editorial and photographs prepared by the applicant which showed licensed premises in Poole and Bournemouth as well as unlicensed premises in Bournemouth. It also showed photographs of Purrefectly Discreet as it currently existed together with ‘mock up’ photographs of the shop with half frosted and full frosted windows.

In conclusion, Mrs Graham suggested that the majority of the objections were in the principle of the existence of the sex shop and she reminded the Sub-Committee that the Police had raised no objection to the application. She also read out comments made in the letters of support, one of which stated that the writer would visit the shop with his wife as it is in a nice location but would not entertain visiting it if it were in a back street.

Mrs Graham asked the Sub-Committee to approve the application.

The Chairman thanked Mrs Graham and Mr Budimir for their presentations and invited Members of the Sub-Committee if they had any questions for the applicants regarding the application.

The Chairman made the following points/questions:

  • it was noted that the CCTV recording was kept for a period of 14 days, could it be retained for a longer period of time, say 30 days?
  • Does the applicant hold an incident register and had anything been entered into it.
  • Has the applicant been troubled by any sex workers?

In response Mrs Graham confirmed:

  • There were currently four CCTV cameras on the premises but their was scope for a further two. The images were held on a ‘hard drive’ which could be retained for 30 days.
  • There is an incident register in the shop but as yet no entries had been made; and
  • The applicant had had no problems with any sex workers.

Councillor Wilkins:

  • noted that there were signs indicating that no person under the age of 18 should enter the premises, he enquired as to what further actions he could take to ensure that no ‘minors’ were served; and
  • also noted that when Members of the sub-Committee had held a site visit to the shop he had noticed that there were outer and inner doors and enquired what the applicant proposed to do to ensure that younger people did not hide between the doors to view inside the establishment.

In reply Mr Budimir stated that

  • he operated a challenge ‘Over 25’ policy which eliminated the younger looking individuals; and
  • a CCTV camera was sited between to two sets of doors and staff could monitor this space.

Before inviting the objectors to present their objections to the Sub-Committee

Reminded the meeting that central government had decide that licensed sex shops were lawful and in reaching this decision consideration had been given to moral and religious objection. Therefore the Sub-Committee could hear such objections it could not take them into consideration when determining this licence application. He reminded the objectors that all the Members of the Sub-Committee had received and read thoroughly all the letters of objection that had been received by ECPS and which had been circulated with the agenda.

The Chairman then invited the objectors to state their grounds for objecting to the application.

Mr J MacDiarmidexpressed his views which included:

  • although a Minister at a local church he was not objecting on moral grounds (he was aware that this was not an area where objections were considered to be valid) but would be objecting on the distress caused to his parishioners some of which had to walk passed the premises when on the way to church.
  • He was not against sex shops per se but they should be in an appropriate location and he did not consider this as an appropriate location.
  • The shop mighthave an adverse affect on the tourist trade inthe area. It might discourage families from walking down the High Street which would have an effect on the local economy.
  • It is opposite a school outfitters shop which is frequented by mothers with young children.
  • He suggested that the number of establishments already identified near to the premises were having an adverse effect on the area.
  • It was a Heritage/Conservation area.
  • Inappropriate location to sell ‘hard core porn’.
  • He had seen children pointing at the shop and heard them asking their parents what it was in view of the window display.
  • Would the sale of the additional items enhance personal relationships.

Mr. A Nealeexpressed his views which included:

  • If the application was approved it would make a disgrace of the licensing policy.
  • There is a marked difference between the shop is it was now and a licensed sex shop.
  • The selling of dvds would result in a significant detrimental effect on personal relationships. Research had been carried out in the USA and in Rochdale showing a detrimental effect on young people’s relationships.
  • Would encourage sexual activity in which women may feel they are being forced into.
  • The shop would have a detrimentalaffect on the area.
  • It sends the wrong message to young people, sending them into a spiralling cycle rather than having a consensual relationship.

Mr C Allenbyexpressed his views which included:

  • Ashley Road was not such a pedestrian area unlike the High Street.
  • The landlord of the premises should have questioned the suitability of this business operating. It was very risky.

Mr R Gregoryexpressed his views which included:

  • What kind of High Street do you want?
  • The top and bottom ends of the High Street were high quality but the middle section was not, with casinos, betting shops and a tattoo parlour.
  • Doesn’t want Hen/Stag parties targeting the area.
  • This type of shop is not what the people of Poole want. ‘Poole is a Beautiful Place:.
  • He was speaking on behalf of 100 people.
  • He was surprised that the shop was supported by the NHS.
  • The doors to the shop could be wedged open.

Councillor M Howellexpressed his views which included:

  • He objected on two valid grounds:
  • The character of the area, and
  • The use of the premises.
  • The Borough was endeavouring to link up the Quay area with the Dolphin Centre area.
  • Regeneration of this area of the High Street does not want this kind of establishment.
  • Conservation and historic area of Poole.
  • The Quay Foyer is nearby where vulnerable young people lived.
  • It is in the wrong place.
  • If the Sub-Committee was of a mind to approve the application he recommended a condition that frosted glass be used in the windows fronting the High Street as per the photographs circulated by the applicant.

Councillor Mrs C Evansexpressed his views which included:

  • She was a Ward Councillor for the Poole Town area as well as Vice-Chairman of Children’s Services.
  • Protecting young people s a core function of the local authority and the application could have an adverse effect on the young vulnerable residents of The Quay Foyer.

Mr P Noyceexpressed his views which included:

  • Agree with all the points the previous speakers mentioned.
  • The Company was started in 2012.
  • The applicant was associated with many companies which had failed.

(At this point the Chairman intervened and asked the Senior Solicitor whether the comments concerning other businesses was relevant. Mr Wileman reported that these matters were not relevant to this application and the applicant could not be held responsible for the actions of other persons)

  • If granted would the Licensee observe all the conditions laid down in the licence?
  • The business could encourage people to seek out further such material on the internet.
  • Poole has a large amount of teenage pregnancies and instead of a sex shop the Borough should be providing a counselling service.

The Chairman thanked all the objectors for presenting their grounds for objection and asked the applicant’s solicitor if she would wish to respond the any of the points raised.

Mrs Graham made the following points:

  • Mr Budimir was the sole director of the company applying for the licence.
  • Free condoms were given out with each purchase – promoting ‘safe sex’.
  • If the licence was granted the Borough had complete control and could revoke the licence at any time.
  • Ashley Road had as many if not more young/vulnerable residents.
  • Bournemouth has four sex shops hand has not recorded any reduction in tourism as a result.
  • Currently the shop could wedge the doors open but not if it were a condition of a licence.
  • The comments concerning the effects on personal relationships was straying into moral grounds of objection which could not be taken into consideration.
  • 80% of the current clientele were women.
  • The landlord of the premises would obviously want to see a successful and profitable business.
  • Mr Budimir had sold similar sex related item in his shop in Southend with no problems to local residents or the authorities.
  • It would be better to control the shop and live in harmony with its neighbours.

Mrs Graham thanked the Sub-Committee for considering the application and recommended approval of the application.