What would it take to refuse this licence?

But I draw your readers’ attention to the points made by Cllr Bertie MacKay, the Independent member for Stoneleigh. In a thoughtful contribution he outlined several factors directly related to the council policy, to which members must have regard in considering a licence. He drew attention to the housing situated in Wise Street, a short cul de sac, which is only accessible by passing the door of Shades. He quoted the legal definition of an SEV (sexual entertainment venue) : its purpose is the sexual stimulation of members of an audience. It is self evident that, having been aroused, men will exit the club – some perhaps to have a smoke on the pavement outside. So it is entirely rational that women express fears of lewd comments and unpleasant behaviour if their journey home by bus or from the station takes them past the club. But others dismissed this perception out of hand simply on the basis that it does not appear in a police log, so no evidence.

A number of councillors just declared “it’s not a residential area” or “it’s a mixed area” as if the residents of Wise Street are non persons. Little concern for the evidence there. It was said that “Leamington is a rough old place and I don’t frequent the area”, with a jokey reference to an occasional visit to the dentist. Another chose to quote Shades’ solicitor as the law, in asserting that proximity of housing means “next door or opposite”: a remark that had to be firmly corrected by the council’s own legal advisor.

A reasonable observer might well have wondered: what weight of objection would actually be required for some of these councillors to refuse the licence? - Richard Ashworth, chairman, Leamington Society, Willes Road, Leamington.