Please explain why you said yes

This will almost inevitably lead to the whole area developing a reputation for sleaze far beyond the town. Indeed its success will depend on such a reputation. Many users of such places come from some distance away as they value their anonymity, so we can expect customers from Coventry, where the council has a policy of not granting licences to any sex establishments.

Once this reputation for sleaze is established even more punters will be attracted to South Town looking for sleaze in all its forms, whether they exist or not at present. Once there is demand it will not be long before supply arrives to meet it, with the potential dangers and attendant nuisances of soliciting and kerb crawling.

In considering applications of this kind, members of the licensing committee have to decide whether such a licence “would be inappropriate given the character of the local area”. Why did the four members who voted for it think the character of our area is appropriate for a sex venue?

Why did the chairman Cllr Norman Pratt use his casting vote in favour of the application in the face of so much opposition from local residents, especially as the decision appears to go against the council’s stated policy of not granting sex licences to places in close proximity to residential areas?

This was one of the reasons why Shades, close by and with fewer neighbouring homes, was refused a licence. Does the presence of a sex club add to the area’s attractions for new businesses and in particular for the numerous landlords seeking tenants?

Will female students want to take tenancies in the area? Why should the interests of men from outside Leamington prevail over the interests of local residents who are council taxpayers?

We urge our four councillors who voted in favour of the application and especially Cllr Pratt to explain themselves through your columns. - Nick and Meg Bond, Radford Road, Leamington.