mixed. Tribunal varied the Responsible Authority's decision: permit for the adult sex bookshop to issue subject to retention of the condition requiring removal of the eastern‑façade sign and amendment of...
Key principles
The Tribunal granted a permit for the use of the land as an adult sex bookshop, but retained a condition requiring removal of the eastern-façade sign and amended the permit's...
Proximity to an aquatic and ten‑pin bowling centre, on the facts of this case, was not a sufficient planning reason to refuse a permit for an adult sex bookshop where the...
The character of patrons of the proposed use is not a planning matter; planning assessment focuses on amenity effects identified by the planning scheme (Reasons: 'Put plainly it...
Issues before the court
Whether the proximity of the proposed adult sex bookshop to an aquatic and ten‑pin bowling centre (a sensitive use frequented by children) justified...
Whether the eastern‑façade sign should be permitted as part of the development or removed as a condition of permit.
Clarity and scope of condition limiting offensive/objectionable material visible from shop windows/doors.
Plain English Summary
VCAT allowed a permit for an adult sex bookshop in an Industrial 3 Zone but kept a condition deleting a proposed eastern‑facing sign and tightened the condition limiting offensive materials visible from the shop windows/doors. The Tribunal found that on the specific site facts—orientation of openings away from the neighbouring aquatic and bowls centre, intervening driveway and fencing, proposed landscaping and limited sightlines—proximity did not create unacceptable amenity impact or unacceptable risk of children being exposed to objectionable material. The Tribunal emphasised that planning analysis focuses on amenity impacts prescribed by the planning scheme, not the character of patrons.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
Deep Dive
1,703 words · generated 20/08/2026
What happened
This VCAT matter concerned two linked review applications about a proposed adult sex bookshop named "Everything Sexy" to be located in Unit 1/8 Colchester Road, Rosebud West, within an Industrial 3 Zone. The Responsible Authority (Mornington Peninsula Shire Council) granted Permit No. P08/1249 on 18 December 2008 for change of use of a warehouse to an adult sex bookshop, but included a condition requiring deletion of a sign proposed for the eastern façade and other conditions controlling signage and window displays.
Cited legislation
2 cited instruments linked from this judgment.
There were two reviews before the Tribunal:
P64/2009: neighbouring operators (Wayne Brasser & Ors and Stephen & Cheryl Szemere, representing the aquatic centre, ten‑pin bowling and Rosebud Swimming Club) sought review of the decision to grant the permit (s 82 review).
P376/2009: the permit applicant, Jeff Holland, sought review of permit conditions (s 80 review), in particular seeking removal of the condition that required deletion of the eastern‑façade sign.
The Tribunal joined the parties and heard the matter on 17 June 2009. Member Ian Potts issued orders on 22 October 2009: the Tribunal varied the Responsible Authority's decision by directing that the permit issue subject to retaining the condition deleting the eastern‑façade sign, and by amending Condition 5 (which governs what may be visible through the shop windows/doors) to a more precise formulation referencing the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) Act 1995. The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request to remove the sign‑deletion condition but amended the visibility condition to reduce ambiguity.
Why the court decided this way
The Tribunal's decision was founded on an analysis of the planning provisions relevant to the Industrial 3 Zone and on a close fact‑based assessment of visibility, orientation, physical separation and landscaping.
Key legal and factual reasoning:
Statutory and scheme rules: Adult sex bookshops are a permit triggered use in the Industrial 3 Zone; Clause 32.03-1 sets a 200 metre distancing requirement from certain sensitive uses (residential zones, Business 5, hospitals, primary and secondary schools). Clause 33.03-2 requires industrial uses not to adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood (appearance, emissions, etc). Clause 52.05 governs signs and advertising. The Tribunal also had regard to Clause 65 decision guidelines and State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks (Reasons).
The Tribunal emphasised that planning scrutiny is directed to amenity effects as those are the matters the scheme requires to be considered. It noted that the character of patrons is not a planning matter: "Put plainly it is not a planning issue." That distinction drove the approach to risk‑assessment (the Tribunal would not make findings about who would patronise the shop).
The Tribunal assessed sightlines and physical separation: the shop's door and all windows faced away from the Centre; the eastern wall facing the Centre would be blank and subject to landscaping; the two buildings were separated by a utility back‑of‑house area including a 6 metre sealed driveway and a 2 metre security fence; main entrances and car parking associated with the Centre were located away from the shop; the visibility of any internal displays would be limited (Reasons: discussion under 'What can be seen and will it be offensive?').
The Tribunal drew on and distinguished prior VCAT decisions. It accepted the guidance in those cases that social effects must be demonstrated and that intermingling and proximity vary with context. In Gowans (a proximate children's gym adjacent to proposed bookshop), the intermingling and shared parking elevated risk. On the facts before it, the Tribunal found the separation and orientation meant the bookshop would not be "in the face" of the Centre and thus did not present the same risk.
On signage, Council's landscaping objective was to break up the bulk of the blank eastern wall and improve presentation to Colchester Road. The Tribunal found the proposed eastern sign would undermine that objective, add unnecessary clutter, and likely be screened by landscaping, so maintaining the deletion condition aligned with the planning intent for appearance and amenity.
Because of these factual determinations and the focus on scheme amenity considerations, the Tribunal allowed the permit but retained the condition disallowing the eastern sign and reformulated the window display condition to be clearer and tied to statutory definitions of indecency/obscenity.
Before and after state of the law
Before this decision:
The planning framework already treated adult sex bookshops differently from brothels (noting brothels have particular statutory distancing from places regularly frequented by children under the former Prostitution Control Act). VCAT had earlier decisions (HGC Administrative Services, Debenlee, Gowans, Johnson) articulating that social effects and risk of intermingling must be demonstrated, and that local context matters.
After this decision:
The decision reinforces the principle that factual context (orientation, separation, landscaping, sightlines) is critical in assessing whether a sex shop's proximity to a sensitive recreational facility justifies refusing a permit.
It confirms that permit conditions can be refined by the Tribunal to provide clearer, objective standards (here, adopting the statutory classification definitions for indecency/obscenity in Condition 5).
It emphasises that planning assessment is concerned with amenity impacts set out in the scheme, not moral judgments about patrons.
This decision does not alter statute or planning scheme provisions; rather it applies them to the specific site facts and continues the trend of case‑by‑case factual evaluation.
Key passages with plain-English translation
"Put plainly it is not a planning issue." (Reasons)
Translation: The Tribunal will not base a planning decision on who might come into the shop or their personal character. Planning law assesses concrete amenity effects (e.g. visibility, noise, traffic), not the moral character of patrons.
The Tribunal's reworded Condition 5:
"No indecent or obscene word, figure or representation or an objectionable publication or an objectionable advertisement as defined in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) Act 1995, must be exhibited in, displayed in or be visible through or from the windows or doors of the premises."
Translation: The Tribunal chose an objective statutory standard (classification definitions) to decide what materials cannot be visible from outside, reducing ambiguity and anchoring enforcement to existing classification law.
"There is thus little opportunity for full, close up views of the shop from the Centre or its car parks."
Translation: The Tribunal found the layout and structures meant the risk of children or Centre patrons inadvertently seeing objectionable material was low.
"The sign would stand in contrast to the intent of the proposed landscaping."
Translation: The sign would defeat the landscaping’s purpose of softening and improving the look of the building; therefore the sign was inappropriate in that position.
"Tribunal decisions are not binding; each matter is to be decided on its merits and own particular circumstances."
Translation: Past VCAT cases guide analysis but do not control outcomes; factual differences matter.
What fact patterns trigger this precedent
This decision is most relevant where:
A proposed adult sex bookshop sits adjacent to or near a recreational facility used by children (swimming pools, bowling centres, children's gyms).
The site has physical features that affect visibility and intermingling risk (e.g. orientation of doors/windows, intervening driveways, fences, setback distances, landscaping).
The Responsible Authority proposes signage or window displays that might be visible from neighbouring sensitive uses.
Objectors rely on general fears about social effects rather than demonstrable amenity impacts.
This decision shows that, where orientation, separation, and landscaping materially limit sightlines and intermingling, a permit can be granted subject to conditions limiting visibility and removing signage that undermines landscaping objectives.
How later courts have treated it
The decision itself cites and treats earlier VCAT authorities as persuasive but not binding (Gowans, HGC Administrative Services, Debenlee, Johnson). It is an example of the Tribunal applying that approach: using prior decisions for guidance on questions of social effects and intermingling risk, then deciding on the facts.
Practitioners should note the clear approach here:
Use factual matrix (sightlines, orientation, parking layout, fences, landscaping) to argue either way.
Provide social/empirical evidence where social effects are alleged; speculative fears are insufficient.
Expect the Tribunal to refine permit conditions for clarity and to adopt objective statutory benchmarks where ambiguity exists.
Subsequent VCAT matters dealing with adult sex premises will likely continue the fact‑sensitive approach shown here; this decision supports refining conditions to manage visibility rather than imposing blanket refusals where separation and controls suffice.
Still-open questions
Quantification of separation: The decision does not establish any new measurable separation distance between adult sex bookshops and recreational uses frequented by children (unlike the 200 metre rule for some categories). It leaves open how close is too close apart from fact‑specific findings about sightlines and intermingling risk.
Evidence thresholds for 'social effects': The Tribunal reiterated that social effects must be established rather than based on perception. However it did not detail the kind or quantum of evidence (e.g. surveys, expert evidence, incidents) that would satisfy that threshold.
Signage and landscaping timing/enforcement: The Tribunal retained the sign deletion condition because it conflicted with landscaping intent. Questions remain about enforcement where landscaping might later be altered, or where signs are modified in appearance but still undermine landscaping intent.
Interaction with statutory classification regimes: The Tribunal anchored window display controls to definitions in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) Act 1995. How that interacts in practice with local planning enforcement and possible changes in classification standards may raise future issues.
Broader community standards and cultural shift: The judgment noted submissions about community attitudes shifting. It did not treat such perceptions as determinative. Future cases may address how evolving community standards about sexualised advertising affect 'offensiveness' and amenity assessments.
This deep dive is based only on the text of Brasser & Ors v Mornington Peninsula SC & Anor [2009] VCAT 2214 as supplied. It explains what the decision says and how the Tribunal reasoned, highlights practical issues to consider in similar matters, and identifies areas where factual evidence and careful conditions are decisive.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. I may make mistakes. Before you act on or rely on this analysis, or use any draft document based on it, get a qualified Australian lawyer to check it.
Judgment (45 paragraphs)
[1]
Brasser & Ors v Mornington Peninsula SC & Anor [2009] VCAT 2214 (22 October 2009)
[2]
Applications under sections 80 and 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Industrial 3 Zone. Use of land for adult sex bookshop. Proximity to aquatic and ten pin bowling centre. Display of signs.
The decision of the Responsible Authority is varied.
The Tribunal directs that Permit No. P08/1249 must contain the conditions set out in the Permit P08/1249 issued by the Responsible Authority on 18 December 2008 with the following modifications:
(a) Condition 5 is amended to read:
No indecent or obscene word, figure or representation or an objectionable publication or an objectionable advertisement as defined in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) Act 1995, must be exhibited in, displayed in or be visible through or from the windows or doors of the premises.
The Responsible Authority is directed to issue a modified permit in accordance with this order.
[6]
Ms Nidia Medel, town planner of Mornington Peninsula Shire Council.
[7]
For Mr Wayne Brasser & ors and Stephen & Cheryl Zsemere
[8]
Mr Paul McGuinness, solicitor of Mc Guinness & Hosking Pty, Barristers & Solicitors.
[9]
Change of use of a warehouse (factory) to an adult sex bookshop.
Mr Holland proposes to operate an adult sex bookshop, to be known as "Everything Sexy" from a factor unit to be constructed at 1/8 Colchester Road, Mornington.[1] The Mornington Peninsula Shire council granted a permit for this use, with a condition requiring the deletion of a sign from the eastern façade of the building. Mr Holland objects to that condition and has made an application for review seeking to have this condition removed from the permit.
As chance would have it, the eastern façade faces toward an indoor aquatic and ten-pin bowling facility contained in one building. The operators of the aquatic centre and the ten-pin bowling centre, along with the Rosebud Swimming Club object to the granting of the permit for Mr Holland's shop. As joined parties to Mr Holland's application,[2] in the alternative that a permit is granted, they support the Council in having the east facing sign removed from the plan.
I have considered the submissions and materials tendered in these proceedings. I have also visited the site to assist in understanding the site context. Having done so, I conclude that the permit should issue, subject to retention of the condition requiring the removal of the east façade sign. I have also directed the amendment of Condition 5 of the permit that relates to the nature of displays in the shop's windows. I here set out my reasons for these orders.
[19]
IS THE SITE TOO CLOSE TO THE AQUATIC & BOWLS CENTRE?
[20]
The objecting parties submit that they do not necessarily object to Mr Holland's business operations. Their concern arises from the proximity of the shop to the aquatic and bowls centre (the Centre). It is submitted that there is too much of a risk that children will be vulnerable to 'undesirable' patrons of the shop or will be exposed to objectionable materials given that it will be next door to the centre. Safety concerns for centre staff are also raised.
[21]
In arguing against the permit being issued, Mr McGuinness relies on purposes of Industrial 3 Zone, which include inter alia:
[22]
To provide for industries and associated uses in specific areas where special consideration of the nature and impacts of industrial uses is required or to avoid inter-industry conflict.
[23]
To provide a buffer between the Industrial 1 Zone or Industrial 2 Zone and local communities, which allows for industries and associated uses compatible with the nearby community.
[24]
To ensure that uses do not affect the safety and amenity of adjacent, more sensitive land uses.
[25]
He submits that the use will result in a conflict with the centre and presents safety and amenity impacts for this more sensitive community use, contrary to these purposes. It is argued that the centre is a sensitive use in that the facility is:
[26]
Frequented by large numbers of school aged children and family groups; and
Is utilised by schools as part of off-campus curriculum activities.
[27]
He submits that the underlying principles for constraining the location of adult sex bookshops in respect to schools or other similar facilities should apply to the centre because of the parallels that can be drawn in the patronage of large numbers of children.
He also submits that the more recent decision of Gowans[3] supports these propositions. He suggests that as a more recent decision, as compared to HGC Administrative Services[4] or Debenlee[5] , the Gowans decision reflects a cultural shift in the assessment of these matters; a shift he says is in line with the community's more recent and public objections to overt sexual advertising.
The thrust of the submissions is that the presence of the adult sex bookshop presents an inherent rather than quantifiable risk to children. The risk will arise from the children being able to see materials within the shop and from the presence of, and possible interaction with, shop patrons, some of whom may have an 'undesirable' character.
I am told that centre staff are also concerned about their safety when using the rear staff car park which is located on the common boundary with the factory unit development.
Mr McGuinness submits that on a first come first serve basis, the Centre has been established for some 20 years and provides an important community service. He suggests that the two centre managements are concerned that their operations will be compromised by perceptions of risks held by parents when they see an adult sex bookshop located next door.
[28]
The issue of what can be seen and will it be offensive?
[29]
An adult sex bookshop is a section 2, permit required use in an Industrial 3 Zone. Such a use is required to meet the following conditions or else it will be a prohibited:
[30]
[It] Must be at least 200 metres (measured by the shortest route reasonably accessible on foot) from a residential zone or Business 5 Zone, land used for a hospital, primary school or secondary school or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a hospital, primary school or secondary school.
[31]
The use of land in an Industrial 3 Zone is subject to the requirements of Clause 33.03-2 of the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme. Amongst other conditions, the use:
[32]
...must not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood, including through the:
[33]
Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land.
Decision guidelines call for consideration of a range of matters, which includes the usual references to Clause 65 decision guidelines and State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks.
Other considerations, including the impact to adjoining sensitive uses of land, are limited to the use being for industrial purposes. As much as others may seek to rely on the consideration of impacts to sensitive land uses, such requirements are not a consideration when a non-industrial use is proposed. Nevertheless, the conditions for use call for a more general consideration of the potential for adverse impacts to neighbourhood amenity, as is also required to be considered under Clause 65.01.
In this respect, I concur with the Council and Ms Wilson that the main amenity issue will be about what can be seen through the windows or doors of the shop.
It is relevant that the shop door will face away from the Centre, as will all windows. The only wall facing toward the Centre is one that will in light of this order, be blank and subject to intervening landscaping. Also relevant is the fact that the Centre's public entrance and main front car park are located on the eastern side of the Centre building and away from the shop's location.
It will only be those centre patrons who park in the Centre's southern, Colchester Road informal car park area that will actually see the shop building, and then most of the view will be the east facing blank rear wall. For those using this car park, attention is more likely to be drawn towards the Centres large glazed windows or other car movements within this car park.
Condition 5 of the permit seeks to ensure no offensive materials are visible in the windows or through the doorway. With the agreement of the Council and Mr Holland, this condition will be reworded to make such intentions clearer.
Further to the above, the Centre and the shop are separated by the utilitarian back of house use of the Centre, largely comprising of a 6m wide sealed driveway. There is also a high (2m) wire security fence along the common boundary. While there is a rear window to the aquatic centre at this point, this window is screened from the driveway by a canopy and screening wall.
There is thus little opportunity for full, close up views of the shop from the Centre or its car parks. Apart then from some signage to the front and Colchester Road side of the building, there will be nothing external to the building that can be considered in the planning sense to be offensive or cause an adverse impact to the amenity of the neighbourhood.
[35]
The central theme to the objections put by Mr McGuinness is the proximity of the Centre to the shop. As I have noted earlier, several previous Tribunal decisions have been bought to my attention. In fact all parties rely variously on these decision to support their respective positions.
In respect to these previous decisions, I note first that Tribunal decisions are not binding; each matter is to be decided on its merits and own particular circumstances. However, it is useful to have regard to the approach adopted in these decisions and the basis on which they were made. In having regard to these decisions, the following guidance can be drawn:
Social effects need to be established and not be about perceptions or fears held by one or more groups of the community: Johnson v Greater Shepparton CC (Red Dot) [2005] VCAT 1432. .
The potential for shop patrons and children to intermingle heightens the sense of risk, and sits at odds with other planning scheme requirements for separation. The degree of intermingling that may occur should be determined from a consideration of proximity of the location(s) where children may congregate or where intermingling with shop patrons could occur: Gowans v Casey CC[2008] VCAT 1689.
The context of the shop's location and how discrete its presentation will be to the wider public: Debenlee Pty Ltd v Frankston CC[2003] VCAT 204.
The statutory differences in the limitations placed on brothels and that of adult sex bookshops. The exclusion of brothels includes not being within 200m of any premises where children might regularly frequent for recreational or cultural activities.[6] There is no similar limitation on adult sex bookshops: HGC Administrative Services Pty Ltd v Darebin CC[2004] VCAT 1205.
Mr McGuinness concedes it is difficult to present social evidence of impacts and that the concerns raised are about perceptions and the fear of risks.
[36]
It follows from the above reasons that I find that the location of the adult sex bookshop to be acceptable. It is sufficiently separated from the Centre's main areas of activity and centre patron movement such that its presence will be innocuous. Further the form of controls over signage and displays limits its 'offensiveness'.
In arriving at this conclusion I make no findings or implications as to the character of patrons to the adult sex bookshop. While Ms Wilson went at length to describe the female and couple friendly nature of the proposal, in line with previous decision, I find it unnecessary to consider such factors. Put plainly it is not a planning issue. The matters to be considered in respect to planning are those that are set in the scheme assisted in the guidance available from earlier Tribunal decisions. It is these that I have had regard to.
[37]
The approved development plan seeks to include landscaping along the eastern façade where Mr Holland seeks to place a large, flood light sign. Ms Medel informs me that the intention of the landscaped area is to break up the bulk of the blank wall of the warehouse development. Council submits that the sign is inappropriate in this location, as it will compromise this intent.
Mr McGuinness submits that the sign would increase the bookshop's prominence from the Centre's side car park and be offensive to the amenity of those using the Centre.
Ms Wilson submits that in the clutter of all the other signs, this sign will not be adverse and is tastefully designed and inoffensive. She submits that the sign will assist in promoting the presence of the bookshop to passing traffic in Boneo Road.
I agree that there is a clutter of signs in the area. I do not think that this is a reason to add to this clutter unnecessarily. I am not convinced by Ms Wilon's submissions this eastern sign is necessary. Even if I were to accept that 'passing trade' would form some of the patronage, the sign would eventually be partly if not completely screened by the required landscaping, neutralising the its intended purpose.
Critically the Council's submission highlights that the purpose of the landscaping is to not only address the blankness of the warehouse's back of house conditions, but to also enhance the presentation to Colchester Road. I agree with submissions that the sign would stand in contrast to the intent of the proposed landscaping.
I will dismiss the application to remove condition 1(a) from the permit.
[38]
Following submissions about the wording of condition 5, I have directed changes so that this condition will be more precise as to what can be and can't be allowed in the windows of the adult sex bookshop to avoid doubt as much as is possible in these matters. I think that it can be accepted that what is or isn't offensive varies between people and is often about perceptions and personnel views. With such community ambiguity, it is helpful to apply what has been considered lawful to achieve a balance between extremes and as an ongoing reflection of current and any future cultural norms.
[39]
For the above reasons I will direct the issue of a permit for the use of the land for an adult sex bookshop, subject to the modification of permit conditions contained in the Notice of Decision issued by the Responsible Authority on 18 December 2008.
[40]
[1] The construction of the unit is the subject of a separate permit which has been issued.
[41]
[2] I was advised that the applicants under P64/2009 had not been aware of Mr Holland's application under P376/2009. There was no objection to these parties being joined to this matter and I have made an order accordingly.
(Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) Act 1995
AI Analysis
Outcomemixed
Disposition:
Tribunal varied the Responsible Authority's decision: permit for the adult sex bookshop to issue subject to retention of the condition requiring removal of the eastern‑façade sign and amendment of Condition 5 to prohibit indecent/obscene words, figures, representations, objectionable publications or objectionable advertisements being visible through or from the premises.
I find that while the applicants for review raise concerns as to the proximity of the shop to the Centre, at first instance I can find little that will be overtly offensive under the planning scheme requirements in consideration of amenity.
As I have already concluded, the bookshop will be self contained with tight controls as to what can be seen of it from the outside. What will be seen will be, on the balance of views, inoffensive or at the very least material that would be viewable in other shops, such as lingerie clad mannequins.
The signage may contain the word 'sexy' and may raise questions from children to parents - but in this day and age, this would be no different to commonly seen signs to which children are exposed and parents have to deal with.
Finally there is the matter of intermingling of shop patrons and patrons of the Centre, including adults as well as children.
It is evident that the planning requirements for adult bookshops and brothels are to be restricted in part due to the interests and acknowledgment of concerns for children and families. What is central to this matter is how far each of these facilities is to be regulated to achieve this goal. As is set out in the decision of HGC Administrative Services, and noted earlier in these reasons, the range of limitations is less for an adult sex bookshop.
Mr McGuinness nevertheless urges an approach that draws from the controls on brothels and the approach adopted in Gowans.
In Gowans there was concerns because of the proximity of a proposed adult sex bookshop to a children's gymnasium; evidenced by adjoining parking and opportunity for mixing of children and shop patrons. It would be right to say that with such proximity, the bookshop would be 'in the face' of those attending the gymnasium. There may even be a greater risk of inadvertent glimpse into such a shop to see things that children should not see.
In this case, I do not find these same risks are present. There is good separation of the car parking of each facility. With the removal of the sign from the eastern façade, there will be nothing in the direct line of sight from the side or front car parks of the Centre to evidence the shop's use. Only those that drive past and can see the other signs or view the window displays may gain that information. And if they do, it will be covert rather than overt given the controls on such displays.
The physical separation between the Centre and the proposed shop is such that there is little chance of accidental or inadvertent intermingling of patrons.
I also find that in view of the current layout of the Centre's back of house, there appears to be little opportunity for staff car parking. If it does occur in this area, I find that I am in agreement with Ms Wilson that any staff safety risks are more to do about the present conditions of poor surveillance of this area. Given the separation between the two uses I have already set out, I do not find this to be a determinative reason to refuse a permit for the shop.
Finally I shall address the issue of voyeurism said to be of concern by some. It is suggested that 'unsavoury' patrons of the shop may look through the substantive area of glazing along the Colchester Road side of the aquatic centre either deliberately or when in passing along Colchester Road. It seems to me that the unfortunate but no less possible risk of deliberate or inadvertent voyeurism in this way would be something of concern regardless of the shop's presence. However in respect to the patrons of the adult sex bookshop, given the acceptable separation of the shop from the Centre and the deep setback of these windows from Colchester Road, this bookshop in my view does not change such a risk.