Importancia de la Rentabilidad

The fundamental purpose o f the town and country planning system is the regulation o f the development and use o f land in the public interest (PPGl para 2). W ho or what is this public and why does it appear that the development and use of land for commercial sex is not in their interest?

This is not an easy question to answer. Public interest has not been defined, although at paragraph 39 o f PPG 1 it states that 'the planning system does not exist to protect the private interests o f one person against the activities o f another, although private interests may coincide with the public interest in some cases'.

Seeking clarification o f this point from the DoE I was informed that 'the public interest is a nebulous thing' (Massinghani. interview), which broadly concerns that which is in the interests o f the community as a whole, as opposed to the people who are lik e ly to be affected by a particular proposal [ibid.). The basic question is not whether owners or occupiers o f neighbouring properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular development, but whether the proposal would unacceptably affect amenities and the existing use o f land and buildings which ought to be protected in the public interest (PPGl para 40). The question that arises is who makes the decision o f what is in the public interest and on what basis. Unfortunately it appears that a largely male and white profession has made major assumptions about 'the public' based more often than not on a white nuclear fa m il\ norm (G LC 1986). The recent case o f the Vice Chancellor o f Manchester Universiix is indicative o f this, where it was decided that it would 'not be in the public interest' to prosecute him fo r charges o f kerb crawling.

The argument that a particular use is detrimental to the amenity and environment o f a locale , and thus not in the public interest, has frequently been utilised in action against undesirable activities such as amusement arcades and sex shops (Brand and W illiam s

1985, W ilkinson 1980). What how ever is amenity and how is it measured? Am enity, like the public interest is another key concept in British planning and a phrase

frequently used although never defined. The legislation merely states that i f it appears to a local planning authority that it is expedient in the interests o f amenity it may take certain action (C ullingw orth 1988:196). As illustrated in the W estminster appeals it is a phrase w idely employed in refusing planning pemiissions, indeed the phrase 'injurious to the interests o f amenity' has become part o f the stock-in-trade jargon o f the planning world (ibid.). It is perhaps a concept that is easier to recognise than define but it is obviously susceptible to subjecti\ e decision making as seen in Soho.

The amenity argument is a catch all for controlling unpleasant land uses whereby 'aesthetic control is effectively used as a social filte r' (Punter quoted in Cullingw orth 1988:209). The consistent application o f this policy argument to sex related land uses o f all types appears to me to represent a misuse o f the discretionary powers accredited to local authorities and is based more on a preconceived notion o f im propriety

associated w ith these uses than solid planning grounds.

This is not to deny that planning issues exist. For example neon advertising panels in an area devoid o f such signs can be intrusive and would require control. Plates 6 and 7 illustrate the effects o f such advertising at night on part o f the Pigalle area o f Paris where advertising o f this nature is not otherwise abundant. However the 'traditional' uses in Soho, London, are such that neon advertising is part o f the character o f the area as plate 8 illustrates, which suggests that the comments made by the Inspector in the appeal decisions may have had more to do with the content o f the signs than their presence.

In the case o f sex establishments in England the window displays are controlled under the Indecent Displays (Control) .Act 1981 and so the street frontage is often a blank facade as plate 9 illustrates. The upper half o f this plate features licensed premises, the lower half unlicensed where although facades are blank advertising in more prominent. The objections levelled against these uses seem to be based on the material on sale or available w ith in the premises, the clientele it attracts and the impact o f this combination o f products and people on the loealit \ . This point has been amply illustrated by the comments made by the Inspectors at enforcement appeals in Soho. The va lid ity o f this argument in planning terms is dubious as objections concerned with matters o f m orality or public order are not for consideration under planning legislation (Planning Inspector quoted in Brand and W illiam s 198.S).

Given that crime prevention has been considered to be w ithin the rem it o f town

planning (Circular 1/84. PPGl ) the approach to street prostitution has more va lid ity, as both soliciting and loitering and kerb crawling are crim inal offences. However in practice the measures taken are often in reaction to resident fears and objections and not a balanced approach to the public inieiest'.

The problem in dealing with the issues outlined above is that some o f the arguments most frequently used against sex related land uses are based on concepts which have never been defined, that is, public interest and amenity. Therefore in reading the facts presented in defence o f planning action it is not possible to say w ith im punity that reasonable planning tirguments ha\ c not been put forward.

P l a t e 6 : N i g h t i m e i n P i g a l l e , P a r i s .

•

f?