(a)

considered the report from the Director for Place;

(b)

heard from the applicant;

(c)

heard representations/read written representations from Strategic Housing Neighbourhood Manager and local ward Councillor as detailed below;

(d)

considered representations under the licensing objectives (as set out in the Council’s policy on Sex Establishment Licensing)  as follows:

(I)

Prevention of crime and disorder

(i)

it was believed that locating a sex establishment within one of the most densely populated and deprived communities which was also a conservation area and a gateway to the city did not protect the nature, amenity and character of the Stonehouse neighbourhood. It was believed that as a result of its presence there was an increased risk of crime and disorder;

this was not considered applicable as no representations were presented to the committee;

(2)

Protection of safety, health and public decency

(i)

it was believed that locating a sex establishment within one of the most densely populated and deprived communities which was also a conservation area and a gateway to the city did not protect the nature, amenity and character of the Stonehouse neighbourhood. It was believed that as a result of its presence there was a substantial risk of offending public decency; and that the wellbeing of children would be adversely impacted;

members accepted this representation but considered that the solution offered by the applicant of change to signage would address these concerns and members would impose a condition to confirm this;

(3)

Prevention of Nuisance

(i)

no representations heard;

(4)

Protection of Children from Harm

(i)

the establishment was based not 50m away from a Children’s centre providing childcare and support services for children aged 0-5yrs and their families, many of whom were considered vulnerable. It was also 50m away from 2 play parks, and 25m away from family social housing accommodation in Valletort House.

members accepted this statement but no evidence was presented to support this concern;

(5)

Protecting the nature, amenity and character of a neighbourhood

(i)

local residents groups such as Adelaide Community Project and Stonehouse Action had long been campaigning to compel Plymouth City Council to take every possible action to narrow the gap in the quality of life, that exists for residents in the Stonehouse neighbourhood and especially the Union Street vicinity as a result of the range of social pressures, including those caused by the Evening and Night Time Economy and Sex Establishment Trade. By not subjecting existing Sex Establishment businesses to the full consideration against the licensing criteria, it was viewed to be a missed opportunity to make a significant step to narrowing this gap for local residents. It also appeared to reflect the disregard of the significant housing stock located on or just off Union Street – residents have expressed anxiety that Union Street was accepted by Plymouth City Council as an area for lower end Evening and Night Time Economy provision, including Sex establishments without consideration to the impact on a sizeable residential community;

the licensing committee had fully considered the application in light of all the licensing issues in the council’s policy;

(6)

Quantity Limit Statement

(i)

considered the Council’s Policy and Quantity Limit Statement which stated that it was appropriate to have one sex shop in the Union Street location;

Members had heard no evidence to cause them to depart from the council’s policy in this regard;

(7)

Other considerations

(i)

no representations heard.

(1)

the signage at the premises should only display the business name and no reference to licensed adult shop or other description of products sold are to be included in the signage.

(2)

all other standard conditions to be applicable to the licence.