Covent Garden London
The heart of London's West End
A Good Night Out!8. PROPOSALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS8.1 INTRODUCTION 8.2 TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS 8.3 TO THE HOME OFFICE 8.4 TO THE LORD CHANCELLORS DEPARTMENT 8.5 TO WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL 8.6 TO THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE 8.7 TO THE METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE 8.8 TO BREWERIES AND ASSOCIATION OF THE LICENSED TRADE 8.9 TO INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS AND AMENITY GROUPS 8.1 INTRODUCTION The Complex Statutory Framework The main problem about licensing is that the statutory framework is very complex, administered by different bodies and in some areas out of date and uncoordinated. Existing procedures are only randomly enforced with considerable overlap in some areas and gaps in others. Legislation generally does not take sufficient account of the views of immediate neighbours who have to live with any nuisance the premises may cause. There is no integrated framework within which the commercial pressures can be managed and the 'knock on' effects also considered and met. One clear example is that as more and more premises hold late night licences, the demand for late night transport has increased. This has resulted in a very marked growth in unlicensed (and sometimes unsafe) mini cabs and unauthorised taxi ranks forming, often double parked, to wait for clients. Sanctions against licensing breaches vary between the draconian (i.e. total loss of the liquor licence) and therefore seldom undertaken, to derisory (no enforcement action taken at all or low fines imposed) when action is taken. The Need for Reform Commentators on the licensed trade, specialised solicitors and many business people in the hospitality industry feel that what is needed is a thorough review of licensing and entertainment law to bring it up to date. This Working Party also feels that a review is needed to make the whole process much more user friendly from the point of view of both the trade and for neighbours and residents. The aim should be to provide an integrated 'one-stop' service. The Governments' Proposals We welcome the review of licensing carried out by the Cabinet Office's Better Regulation Task Force but believe that it has not been balanced in its approach. Its consultation has predominantly been with representatives of the industry. While it highlights convincingly what is wrong with licensing at present, its proposals for reform do not address the objectives it identifies and other proposals are incomplete (for example, the section on enforcement only deals with the issue of under age drinking). Their proposals would simplify procedures for the trade but contain insufficient safeguards for residents. See Appendix 9. Licences, Who needs them? We believe that there should be an entire reconsideration of why licences are needed? We agree with the Better Regulation Task Force that the fundamental objectives of law in this area should be: * Promoting a safe and peaceful society, i.e. protecting the general public from nuisance and disorder. * Restraining citizens from 'damaging' themselves, i.e. protecting young people in particular from inappropriate exposure to alcohol. We would like to see a much simpler and unified procedure to achieve this. To reduce costs and time for the trade, to free up court time and make a more understandable and transparent system for the public. It should support licensees who run premises well and without complaint and provide a clear and graduated set of penalties for those who do not. In order to promote 'a safe and peaceful society' we believe that the interests of immediate neighbours, especially residents, are of fundamental importance in such a review and must form a key part of any new system as they have to live with any nuisance caused. A Single System The result should aim for a unified system to be handled by one body so that it can integrate all aspects of legislative control. The best body would be the local authority, so that it can integrate policy with its other existing areas of responsibility e.g. environmental health, town planning, tables and chairs licensing, entertainment licensing, etc. and also be publicly accountable for its decisions. Streamlining the Process Licensing should be streamlined and simplified with the emphasis on ensuring that licensees run their premises in a responsible manner towards their customers and take due account of the effect of their premises and patrons on the surrounding environment. Amending the current system In the short term, and in the absence of fundamental new legislation, there are a number of specific proposals that we wish to make which we believe will better regulate and improve the existing position. The proposals are grouped and made to the authority which would take responsibility for implementing them. 8.2 TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS 1. REVIEW THE USE CLASSES ORDER We are aware that there is concern that the Use Classes Order 1987, as amended by the General Development Order 1988, may have relaxed control over A3 uses too far. For example, we are aware that the London Planning Advisory Committee (LPAC) has recently considered the A3 use and found that of 33 London Boroughs, two thirds are experiencing problems with the relaxation of the order in relation to A3 uses. We believe that the current single generic use is too wide and gives insufficient control. We support the changes proposed by LPAC. We recommend that a review of the Use Classes Order is carried out which will, amongst other things ensure that a separate use is created for those A3 premises which will, by their proposed method of operation, use or have a substantial impact upon the public highway and the surrounding environment by reason of noise, numbers of people, the use of external tables and chairs, the external consumption of alcohol, performance, broadcast music or other similar matters. 2. THAT LOCAL AUTHORITIES BE GIVEN POWER TO TAKE OVER LIQUOR LICENSING TO CREATE AN INTEGRATED LICENSING SERVICE. Please see our recommendation to the Cabinet Office, Home Office, Lord Chancellors Department and Westminster City Council making the case for a transfer of liquor licensing to local authorities to create a unified and integrated licensing service. We recommend that the DETR promote legislation to give local authorities the powers in order for this to be carried out. Until such time as this is achieved the DETR should issue guidelines to local authorities to encourage them to take the lead in coordinating policy and procedures with local Justices Licensing Committees in this area. 3. ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING We recommend that support is given to the principles set out in the draft Bill which has been drawn up by Westminster City Council on behalf of the Association of London Government to modernise entertainment licensing. Until such a Bill becomes law and in the absence of it, we recommend that local authorities are given guidance on the need to circulate by post to neighbouring premises details of applications for entertainment licences as is currently done in the case of planning applications. Where a premises is on a local authority boundary notice should also be sent to neighbours in the adjoining authority. The use of signs on premises/lampposts is flawed and frequently does not work in practice. We recommend that local authorities are given guidance by the Department to require them to publish the policy context within which they will operate as is currently done by the London Borough of Ealing, setting out their policies as to hours, numbers, noise and residential amenity. 4. GUIDANCE TO THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE If the DETR is serious about promoting sustainable city living in order to reduce commuting, make better use of the existing built environment, reuse brownfield sites and promote mixed use development then it must recognise that residential amenity is an important issue and support local authority policies in this area. We recommend that the Planning Inspectorate is given guidance on the issues raised in this report so that the potential loss of residential and other amenity is given sufficient priority in appeals concerning A3 applications. 8.3 TO THE HOME OFFICE 1. REVIEW OF LICENSING This Working Party believe there is a strong case for a thorough going review of the purpose of licensing legislation as set out below. Transfer Liquor Licensing to Local Authorities Using Licensing Justices to decide liquor licence applications has built up over the years a system that has concentrated too much on procedural and legal matters while virtually ignoring the public policy implications. It is a time consuming and expensive process which appears to operate mainly to the benefit of lawyers and it clogs up the judicial system. If a product needs to be licensed it is because it is considered that an unrestricted market would be harmful. The best body at a local level to consider the policy implications of liquor licences would be the local authority, who already control the use of premises through town and country planning legislation. They are better able to meet criteria of transparency and accountability in their decisions. Local authorities know their areas in detail and have unitary plans to guide activity within them. They already have responsibility for other aspects of policy which effect licensed premises, (town planning, environmental health, building regulations, entertainment licensing and highways consent for table and chairs) and so would be able to integrate procedures and prevent the inconsistencies which continue to occur with the current system. In order to ensure consistent standards throughout England and Wales, this transfer of responsibilities should be backed up by model rules of procedure set up by the Home Office together with local authorities and licensed trade representative bodies. These rules of procedure should be mandatory and set standards to safeguard the impartiality of decision making from local authority to local authority. Appeals should be heard in the first instance in the Magistrates Court by slimmed down Licensing Committees. This would further free up time in the Crown Court. Some of the resources saved in the court system would need to be transferred to local authorities to meet the costs of their new responsibilities to avoid an extra charge on the council tax payers. However, a thorough review of the fees charged for liquor licensing could ensure that appropriate application fees and annual renewal fees are charged to off set the administrative costs. A New Licensing Act A new unified system will require a new licensing act to transfer responsibilities to local authorities. It would be desirable to modernise local authority entertainment licensing at the same time and incorporate it within a unified system. A new act would also need to contain sections repealing the 1964 and other Licensing Acts, various Local Government Acts and to set in its place the new licences that local authorities would decide upon and the procedures they should operate within. It is beyond the scope of this Working Party to recommend detailed legislation but we set out below the principles and powers the act should contain. * Standard rules and procedures should be drawn up by the Home Office following consultation in the form of a National Code of Guidance which all local authorities in England and Wales should generally operate within. These procedures should be periodically reviewed and updated by the Home Office, again following consultation. * The procedures should seek to ensure that local authorities make decisions on a consistent basis without wide variations across local authority boundaries and in a manner which will give the licensed trade confidence that applications will be dealt with fairly and impartially. * There are two key licences required: one for the person and one for the premises. * The act should maintain the distinction between 'off' and 'on' sales with personal and premises licenses applying to both types of sales. PERSONAL LICENCES * A prospective applicant for a personal licence should undertake recognised training in order to qualify for a licence granted by the local authority. An applicant would be expected to reach a recognised standard of knowledge in all aspects of running licensed premises. * Existing licensees at the date of the Act would have the right to a new personal licence, subject to applying for one * The personal licence would entitle a holder to retail all types of alcohol on an 'off ' sales, 'on' sales or combined basis. * This personal licence would be held indefinitely, subject to periodic renewal (e.g. every five years) and a fee levied to cover the administrative costs of renewal. The purpose of the periodic renewal would be to ascertain that an individual continues in the licensed trade or can demonstrate that their knowledge of it is up to date. Without renewal the licence would lapse. * The licence could be surrendered or subject to forfeit at any time. * The licence would have a provision for a local authority to attach 'penalty points' in substantiated cases of a limited number of misdemeanours. These would include:- i) Repeated evidence or a flagrant breach of the rule prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors. ii) Evidence of drug dealing or misuse on the premises. iii) Repeated evidence of not complying with the permitted hours for the premises or a flagrant breach. iv) Repeated substantiated complaints from neighbours in relation to nuisance and disturbance. v) Breaches of the premises licence in relation to conditions or undertakings or statutory regulations (e.g. fire). * After a certain number of penalty points had been attached to the licence by a local authority, the holder would lose the licence for a period of years decided upon by the local authority but not less than 3 years. * Licensees should be able to make use of a 'due diligence' defence as is available in relation to food hygiene legislation. * Personal licences and penalty points attached to them would be recorded by local authorities and held on a central register financed by and run under the supervision of the Home Office. PREMISES LICENCES * To ensure that breweries, companies operating chains and other owners take responsibility for their premises there would also be a premises licence for each premises selling alcohol and/or providing entertainment. * This premises licence could only be applied for if the premises have a valid A3 or D2 planning consent and have been constructed in accordance with it. * A premises licence would not need periodic renewal but there would be a duty on the owner of the premises to inform the local authority of any intended material alteration to the premises licence and to seek their consent. Failure to do so would render the premises licence invalid. Fees to cover the cost of granting a premises licence and its updating should be provided for. * A premises licence would be in the form of a brief description of the premises amplified by a single layout plan for each floor. The description would include the following: i) The opening hours ii) The maximum number of customers, seated and standing, within the premises iii) The maximum numbers of customers to be served, if any, both seated and standing, outside the premises iv) The type and maximum hours of performance of any entertainment, whether recorded or live v) Brief reference to the fire precautions vi) Brief reference to the quantity of toilet provision vii) Any undertakings offered by the owner viii) Any conditions imposed by the local authority * A copy of the premises licence should be displayed on the premises. The plan and current planning consent should be available at all reasonable times for inspection by any member of the public. * Every premises holding a premises licence would be the management responsiblity of at least one individual holding a personal licence. * The premises licence would also be liable to have penalty points attached for substantiated incidents which infringed the terms of the licence. Once a certain number of points had been attached a premises would lose its licence for a period to be decided by the local authority but not less than 3 years. This would give owners a substantial incentive to ensure premises were operated properly (and also overcome their use of Russell v DPP 1986 to avoid corporate responsibility). * During the period that a premises loses its licence, it would be open to the owner to use it for any A3 Food and Drink use not requiring a licence or to use it for another planning use held or obtained for the premises. EXTENSIONS TO PERMITTED HOURS * The owner of a premises with A3 or D2 consent would be able to apply for a premises licence for that premises to remain outside the normally permitted hours (i.e. 11am to 11pm Monday to Saturday and 12 noon to 10:30pm Sundays) * The local authority would be required to assess such an application against the following criteria: A - where the application is for 'on' or 'off ' sales between the hours of 8am and 12 midnight. Assessed against: i) any comments and/or objections from occupiers of neighbouring premises ii) the adequacy of any measures required to mitigate foreseeable nuisance iii) the appropriateness of staffing, including the experience of the personal licence holder(s) to manage the premises iv) whether the proposal involved any element of drinking outside the premises. B - where the application is for 'on' or 'off' sales between the hours of 12 midnight and 8am. Assessed against: i) any comments and/or objections from occupiers of neighbouring premises ii) the adequacy of any measures required to mitigate foreseeable nuisance iii) the appropriateness of staffing, including the experience of the personal licence holder(s) to manage the premises iv) whether the proposal involved any element of drinking outside the premises v) the published policy of the local authority as to late night premises licences vi) the number of residents living in the immediate environment vii) the number of premises holding similar licences already operating in the area. GENERAL MATTERS * Local authorities would be required to publish and periodically review a policy in relation to late night premises licences and this document should set out the local authority's policies on residential amenity, nuisance, number of premises, and other similar matters. * Monitoring and enforcement would be by officers of the local authority licensing section who should have undergone recognised training and work within the rules and procedures set out in the Home Office approved National Code of Guidance. They would assess applicants for personal licences, assess premises for premises licences, assess the case for penalty points, assess the period a licence should be revoked and in each case make written recommendations to members setting out their reasons. * The Home Office should produce a tariff of penalty points setting out the seriousness of each breach, e.g. failure to display a licence 5 points, locking fire exit door 25 points. * The local authority should give written reasons for their decisions. * Appeals relating to the imposition of penalty points by a local authority to personal licences, or premises licences, conditions and permitted hours or other matters would in the first instance be held in the Magistrates Court in that local authority drawn from a panel of the Licensing Committee who have received appropriate training. * Penalty points would lapse after five years. Appeals against the imposition of penalty points must be to a Magistrates Court within the local authority that had imposed the penalty points and notice of appeal made within three months of the points being awarded. Any appeal about the final award of penalty points triggering the loss of a licence would therefore have to be about that matter and not reopen the earlier penalty points decisions. * Magistrates should have a duty to have regard to the National Code of Guidance and local authority policy guidelines in hearing appeals. They should not be given unfettered discretion. * The act should contain enhanced and clearer powers for a licensee to refuse to serve alcohol to a person or persons who while not drunk are at risk of becoming so whilst on or at their premises. NB. It has been proposed that areas like the West End would be appropriate for a large number of late night premises licences. Under the assessment criteria above the West End being a heavily residential area would not be as appropriate as at first sight. There may be other locations such as purpose built shopping complexes, newly regenerated areas without residents, specially designed leisure areas etc. which will provide a better environment in which to satisfy demands for 24 hour or very late night provision. 2. ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING We are aware of the Entertainment Licensing Bill prepared by the City of Westminster on behalf of the Association of London Government. It is clearly still at an early stage and may yet be redrafted following consultation. Some of its proposals overlap with our proposals above. However, as drafted at the time of finalising this report (August 1998) we support the thrust of the Bill as drafted to update entertainment licensing (See Appendix 10) although we are concerned that as drafted the Bill may have an adverse effect on performance by live musicians while not controlling the noise generated by recorded and amplified sound. 3. DEREGULATION The Wrong Move We oppose the short term deregulation of liquor licensing. It is only likely to add to the problems of irresponsible behaviour by both a minority of customers and licensees in a context where society is beginning to realise and acknowledge that individuals must balance their rights as individuals and consumers with their responsibilities as citizens to others in the community. Similarly operators have civic duties towards the environment they operate within. To deregulate now gives totally the wrong signal to society at the wrong time. We also believe that it would conflict with the aims of the new Crime and Disorder Act which seeks a partnership between local authorities and police to prevent disorder and the risk of disorder. Short term deregulation would be very harmful to the amenity of residents if the proposal to abolish the need to provide entertainment in order to qualify for an Extended Hours Order is implemented in the absence of other reform. We oppose this proposal from the Better Regulation Task Force. 4. INTERRELATING THE EXISTING WORK OF LICENSING JUSTICES WITH LOCAL AUTHORITY PLANNING CONTROLS. In the absence of new legislation following the review by the Better Regulation Task Force we believe that there needs to be much better co-ordination of existing procedures between local authority and licensing justices. Please see our recommendations to Westminster City Council to simplify and cross relate licensing e.g. dovetail licensing, drinking up time and wording of planning consents as to opening hours. We would recommend that the Home Office supports and encourages such action. 5. AMEND THE LICENSING ACT 1964 PENDING MORE FUNDAMENTAL REVIEW Again, in the absence of a more thorough going review we believe that there are a number of ways in which the 1964 Act could be amended by secondary legislation to improve the present position. We recommend as follows:- i) An amendment is needed to ensure that in deciding if an applicant in all respects is a 'fit and proper' person it should be the duty of the police to make available to the court any previous complaints against that applicant as a licensee and to keep adequate records in order to do so. ii) In part IV restaurant applications, justices should be allowed to take into account of the number of existing Part IV licences in deciding whether or not to grant such a licence. iii) Although an 'off ' sales consent normally is only renewed every three years together with the 'on' licence, the Working Party propose that this should be changed and that where the Police or local authority have reasonable grounds they should be able to ask the Licensing Justices to revoke the 'off ' sales part of the consent at any transfer session without necessarily effecting the 'on' licence. iv) Doubt has been cast on the enforceability of 'conditions' attached to licences by an MPS Solicitor. This position should be clarified so that past and future conditions attached to licences are watertight. Legislative changes must clarify the enforceability of 'conditions' (the only sanction at present appears to be revocation proceedings or non renewal of the licence at triennial review) and voluntary 'undertakings' (currently, apparently, unenforceable), set out what form monitoring and enforcement will take and what sanctions there will be against breaches v) The tariff and level of fines should be reviewed urgently and up dated to more realistic levels which act as a sufficient deterrent in view of the nature of the profit being made and the nature of the offence. vi) Amend the procedures at the triennial review or proceedings for revocation so that magistrates have to take into account the number and type of complaints received by the statutory authorities (police, fire and local authority) since the last review before deciding whether to regrant the licence. vii) A plan should be displayed within the premises, but visible from the outside, for public inspection indicating any external area licensed not forming part of the highway and brief terms of the licence (including conditions) effecting that area. viii) That the Licensing Justices in considering the grant of any licence shall take into account the cumulative effect of the number of licences already existing in that area. ix) That it should be the duty of the local magistrates court to circulate to adjoining occupiers, by post, notice that an application has been received and giving brief details. (As is currently done for town planning applications.) This should include notifying those in an adjoining licensing division where the application is situated on the boundary. 8.4 TO THE LORD CHANCELLORS DEPARTMENT 1. PROCEDURAL MATTERS We recommend that the Lord Chancellors Department should ask the Justices' Clerks' Society to update their Good Practice Guide to encourage magistrates to make sure that as far as possible their policy guidelines on licensing take better account of the needs of the public as potential objectors. We recommend that sufficient resources are made available so that notice of liquor licence applications are sent by post to neighbouring premises. 2. POLICY GUIDELINES We recommend that policy guidelines are drawn up by all local licensing committees and that they are always published in addition to procedural matters. Magistrates should be required to take account in such policy guidelines of the likely effect on the local environment of the cumulative number of 'on' licenses and restaurant licenses granted in an area, of licensing areas of the Highway used for Tables and Chairs, the effect on the neighbourhood of the opening hours proposed and whether the premises are suitably adapted as far as is reasonably practical to curtain noise generated by the premises. The Ealing Licensing Committee's Policy Statement seems a model in this respect and we attach an extract from it. (Appendix 11) 3. PROCEDURES ON TRIENNIAL REVIEW We recommend that Licensing Justices should be asked to ensure that proper account is taken of statutory (including Local Authority Noise Teams) and non-statutory comments and complaints in the last three years (not just in the immediate period before renewal) before deciding whether to regrant a licence in the light of an objection as to the likelihood of nuisance in the future. 4. 'OFF' SALES We recommend that Licensing Justices satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the undertakings offered in respect of external supervision, cleaning and safety before granting an 'off ' sales licence where it is clear the external drinking will be a substantial part of the applicant's trade. We recommend that Licensing Justices should be asked to consider carefully whether to regrant a licence allowing 'off ' sales, where problems have been caused repeatedly by external drinking and complaints have been substantiated or where previous undertakings have not been adhered to. 5. PLANS We recommend that magistrates should be asked to request that a plan be displayed on the premises for public inspection indicating any external area licensed, the reasonable number of people allowed to consume alcohol in the designated area and brief terms of the licence effecting that area. 6. TRAINING We recommend that Judges hearing liquor licensing appeals and Magistrates hearing entertainment licensing appeals are briefed on the issues raised in this report. We further recommend that Magistrates sitting on Licensing Committees should visit the area they are responsible for before taking up office and be briefed on the issues they are likely to encounter. 8.5 TO WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL We believe that effective monitoring and enforcement at the local level is critical in ensuring compliance with existing laws and that insufficient manpower and resouces appear to have been devoted in the past to this aspect of Westminsters responsibilities. We would also like to see much greater liaison between Planning Officers and Licensing Officers and also regular liaison with the Licensing Justices and the Licensing Officers of the Metropolitan Police Service to create a unified approach to these matters. Again, the London Borough of Ealing have pioneered this approach. We would recommend that Westminster City Council resolve to allocate sufficient resources on a continuing basis to implement, monitor and enforce the following recommendations:- 1. PLANNING POLICY CHANGES While most new planning consents for A3 use specify opening hours, many older consents do not. i) Standardisation of Conditions and Hours We recommend that Westminster City Council's Environment and Planning Committee takes the lead to put in place systems which dovetail the conditions and hours attaching to planning consents with the conditions attaching to Westminster City Council Licensing Sub Committee licences. They should also provide the same information to Justices Licensing Committee's so that there is no confusion or inconsistency as to opening hours and the wording of conditions with liquor licences. (We understand that there has been confusion over closing hours with imprecise wording. For example, a planning consent having a condition giving consent to be open between the hours of 11:00am and 12 midnight could allow an alcohol licence to be granted to midnight which would give a further 30 minutes drinking up time.) The Most Onerous Limit Applies to an Applicant Such proposals should also make clear that where there are differing times, the most onerous will apply because each limit is backed by a specific piece of legislation and that each piece of legislation must be complied with. We would suggest that in relation to opening hours the common wording relates to the latest time which orders can be placed -[TU3] 'Last Orders' - as drinking up or eating up time varies and can cause inconsistencies if the wording relates to the time by which customers should have left the premises. A time that 'all persons' must leave the premises would be impractical as it hits staff working or carrying out maintenance/cleaning after customers have left. ii) Standard Conditions for Noise In relation to noise we recommend that two standard conditions are added to all planning consents stating: 1. For premises with opening hours beyond normally permitted hours (11pm) "No music shall be played on the premises in such a way as to be audible within any adjoining premises or on the adjoining highway." 2. In relation to ancillary plant and machinery which may operate 24 hours a day "At 1 metre outside the windows of any neighbouring habitable room, the level of noise from all plant and machinery shall be at all times at least 5 decibels below the existing background noise level, expressed in dB(A) at such locations. Where the noise from plant and machinery is tonal in character the difference in these levels shall be at least 10- dB(A)". This would set a higher standard than Westminster City Council's existing standard condition. iii) Protecting Residential Amenity in the UDP We believe that the current UDP does not give adequate protection to residents in respect of the nuisance that can be caused by licensed premises. We therefore recommend that the detailed amendments set out in Appendix 12 are incorporated in the plan during its first review. iv) Saturation Point We believe that certain areas of Soho and Covent Garden have reached saturation point as regards to A3 consents. While market forces may adjust the position in time, much of the diverse character and many facilities have been lost. We recommend that the City Council formulates policies in time for the first review of the UDP to mitigate the consequences of over concentration of A3 consents on the local environment. In the interim, we recommend that Westminster City Council should produce and consult on, as a matter of urgency, a new policy as Supplementary Planning Guidance to the UDP (to be incorporated into the UDP at its first review). This policy should set out a clear statement of the Council's policies to prevent saturation of A3 uses in an area and to protect residential amenity. The policy should state that the City Council will not normally grant A3 use below residential upper floors nor openable shopfronts where live or recorded music will be played on the premises. It should set out a general presumption against late hours (that is after 12 midnight) unless there are good reasons. In such cases it should be the responsibility of the applicant to carry out an environmental impact assessment in terms of potential nuisance caused and showing the mitigation measures proposed. The policy should also set out guidance on the use of the pavement, openable shop fronts, recorded/broadcast sound and other matters. It should make clear that it will expect such matters to be dealt with by way of binding Section 106 Agreements and it should ensure that such a policy is widely publicised, including being sent to the Licensing Justices Committee to assist them in their deliberations We recommend that in the spirit of the Crime and Disorder Act the relevant police divisions are consulted in drawing up such a policy in order to comment on issues which may give rise to a risk of public disorder.. We further recommend that the City Council draws up a policy for the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) to ensure polices are appropriate on a more detailed basis than by area. The character of an area can change on a street by street basis and uses which might be appropriate in one street (or even one part of a street) are not appropriate in another. Therefore, a new policy of fine grain zoning within the CAZ should be drawn up making reference to the existing uses which define the character of a street. Where a street is defined as being substantially in residential use then certain types of entertainment use involving late hours or noisy operations would not normally be regarded as appropriate. v) Section 106 Agreements There is a substantial enhancement of value to operators from the A3 Food and Drink planning consents they receive. We would recommend that in relation to any large A3 application, Section 106 agreements are negotiated to ensure benefits to the locality in terms of enhanced street environment, such as the provision of litter/large waste disposal bins, compaction refuse units, CCTV and improved public convenience facilities. 2. ENTERTAINMENT LICENCES i) We are aware of the draft bill and explanatory notes produced by Westminster City Council on behalf of the Association of London Government. We support the principle behind the proposed legislation. ii) Until any new legislation is adopted, we believe that current entertainment licensing policy could be strengthened in the following ways:- * Any Application for an entertainment licence, night cafe licence etc. should be notified to neighbouring premises by post. This is already done for planning applications. The current system of posting notices on lamp posts or the premises does not work and timescales are short. Such a process would demonstrate Westminster City Council's commitment to consulting residents on these applications which are often likely to effect residential amenity. * Where an application involves a premises staying open later than 1.00am, Westminster City Council should amend its guidance notes to say that the presumption will generally be against granting such an application unless the applicant has carried out an environmental assessment to ascertain the numbers of people living and working in the immediate area and to show how any such neighbours are likely to be effected by the application and the measures that will be taken to mitigate any potential nuisance. * We recommend that itinerant musicians, singly or in a group are licensed and controlled and we support the City Council's proposals to do so. iii) We believe that the guidance notes to applicants are very fair and well balanced. However, we recommend that they be strengthened by a simple and straight forward introduction which makes applicants aware of the policy context and the factors Councillors on the Licensing Sub-Committee will take into account. This document should set out the Councils' policy as to hours, noise and other matters with the potential to create nuisance. Appendix 13 sets out a sample policy used by London Borough of Ealing which makes their position abundantly clear. iv) We understand that the City Council's Noise Team are not always aware of the details of the Entertainment Licences granted by the Licensing Sub-Committee and the conditions attached to them. We recommend that watertight procedures are put in place so that Noise Team staff are aware of the details of the entertainment licence before visiting a premises which is the subject of complaint. 3. TABLES AND CHAIRS ON THE HIGHWAY The Working Party wishes to make the following recommendations to improve and extend the licensing of tables and chairs on the pavement. Although condition 14 to existing Westminster City Council's Highways Act licences requires the licence to be displayed on the premises, it is not done in practice. In addition, although a premises may have a licence this may be for quite a small area of the highway yet in practice tables and chairs spill out forcing pedestrians into the street. The licence therefore should show the area being designated so that a member of the public or an enforcement officer can easily see if it is being ignored as markings on the pavement have been ineffective in the past. i. Licence Displayed We recommend that all existing tables and chair licences should be displayed in a position easily visible from the street, stating the date of the licence, the person it applies to, the area licensed, the date of renewal, any conditions and to whom any complaints should be addressed. Sanction for non-display We recommend that deliberate failure to display the licence should be grounds for the licence being immediately revoked to provide an effective sanction to promote compliance. ii. Pavement Marking We recommend that the area designated in the licence should be clearly marked on the pavement, preferably by a continuous white line. Members of the public will then see the area that is licensed and whether it is being overstepped. We are not convinced that present policy in relation to marking out with black paint on corner angles is either effective or being carried out in practice. The objection to white lining on the grounds of visual amenity we believe is outweighed by benefits to pedestrian safety and proper compliance. iii. Condition for Licences We recommend that all new and existing Highways Act licences should have a standard condition attached stating: 'The outer footway is to be strictly maintained at all times. In the event that complaints are lodged with the City Council in respect of patrons of the establishment causing highway obstruction, and if these complaints are substantiated, the license will immediately be revoked and instructions issued to remove the tables and chairs.' iv. Renewal We recommend that for licences where there have been no substantiated complaints the licence should only need to be renewed every four years (subject to the annual charge) unless there has been a material change. Where there have been complaints renewal would be sought annually. If, after a period of one year, there had been no substantiated complaints then the licence would be renewed for four years. If five complaints are substantiated by Westminster City Council officers in any one year this would be grounds for permanently refusing a license while the premises are run by the same applicant. These changes would relieve licensees who comply with their licence the time and cost of yearly renewal applications and provide a sanction against those licensees who do not comply with the terms of their licence. v. Notice of Application We recommend that an applicant for a licence should post a notice on the premises for 21 days stating that they are applying for a licence, showing the proposed area on a small plan and giving the address at the City Council to which interested parties can address any comments. Neighbouring premises should also be informed by letter by Westminster City Council. This will ensure that members of the public can be consulted about the proposed use of the public highway in a manner which may cause noise and nuisance We are aware that other local authorities charge appreciably more for these licences than the City of Westminster and therefore recommend that the licence fee is raised to cover any additional cost these proposals entail. vi) Fines for unauthorised use Where a premises puts out tables and chairs and does not apply for a licence despite being asked to do so, or where they continue to do so where a licence has been refused, the owners of that business should be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding double that of level 5 on the standard scale. 8.5.1 TOURISM POLICY When the policy is next revised we would recommend that the City Council includes a new policy sub heading under Aim 3 (Protect residents from the detrimental effects of tourism). This would read: '3e Normally to restrict the opening hours of places of entertainment in proximity to residential streets to midnight and no later than 1am.' In order to live a reasonable life in Westminster residents need a period of approximately 8 hours of quiet at night in which to sleep. The trend towards 24 hour opening is eroding this. Action should be by way of opening hours conditions attached to planning consents and through hours conditions to licenses granted by Westminster City Council. 8.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH i) We recommend that sufficient resources are made available to the Noise Team so that information on the number of call outs (to the Noise Team) and the nature of the complaints for each licensed premises be recorded and made available to Westminster City Council's Licensing Sub-Committee and the Licensing Justices before an application is decided upon. ii) We recommend that the City Council should set up and host discussions to seek contributions from the Breweries and Licensed trade towards improving free public toilet provision. Westminster City Council itself should set aside sufficient resources to ensure that the signing of existing conveniences is improved and that their hours of opening increased. That where appropriate, new free public conveniences are provided by the City Council. We recommend that they re examine the case for free, low maintenance pissotiers for males only. 8.5.3 CLEANSING We recommend that the City Council reviews its contract with Onyx to increase the number of litter bins provided in streets containing A3 uses in Soho and Covent Garden, that it review its pattern of collections to ensure that it is sufficient for the levels of rubbish being generated, and that it increases provision for disinfecting the pavements and doorways in the area. We recommend that Westminster City Council review all its policies in the CAZ to see how infrastructure provision can be improved. While section 106 agreements and partnerships with the private sector can off set the cost we believe the City Council may need to allocate its own resources and should produce a medium term policy setting out its proposals. 8.6 TO THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE 1. We recommend that the CPS redefine 'in the public interest,' so that they are prepared to commence proceedings against licensees where residential amenity is lost due to repeated obstruction of the highway by outside drinkers or the illegal provision and positioning of tables and chairs. 8.7 TO THE METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE 1. Special Orders of Exemption -We recommend that the Metropolitan Police amend Section 13 of Notes for Guidance by Clubs and Vice Office (C.O.14) 'Applications for Special Orders of Exemption'. They should add a further bullet point to their assessment criteria 'whether there have been recorded complaints from local residents to similar S.O.E.'s granted in the past'. 8.8 TO BREWERIES AND ASSOCIATION OF THE LICENSED TRADE 1. BENEFITS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE TRADE In this report we support various measures to make liquor licences, entertainment licences and table and chair licences simpler and better and to cut bureaucracy and legal costs. However, we believe that the licensed trade must take more initiative to ensure that its operations do not have an adverse effect on the local environment and to take strong action where individual premises are repeatedly shown to do so. Those premises which are most likely to generate complaint and adverse comment are: * those which operate with long hours * those which cause substantial noise from patrons and/or music * those which have a high number of patrons drinking outside the premises We urge breweries and other company chains to take much more care in choosing suitable locations for such operations which will not have an adverse impact on residential amenity. As a matter of course we think it is in a company's best interest to carry out an environmental impact assessment at feasibility stage to assess the factors involved as to whether the site is suitable at all or what mitigation measures are required. Where the proposal involves operating until the early hours of the morning managers and licensees should be given guidance on ways to mitigate noise nuisance given that the level of ambient sound tends to fall late at night. Where the proposal envisages substantial open air drinking, fully openable shopfronts, the broadcast of live or recorded music, particular account should be taken of the concerns of neighbouring occupiers. This may involve physical mitigation measures and ongoing management control to ensure the operation stays within the criteria originally set for it. Without such action it is quite clear that individual residents and residents societies will increasingly press for revocation or the attachment of onerous conditions which will be difficult to 'bolt on' to an existing operation. 2. DRINKING OUTSIDE A PUBLIC HOUSE. With regard to drinking outside a public house the Working Party feels that the primary responsibility should lie with the licensee to ensure that any outside drinking is well managed and does not cause nuisance or obstruction. S/He and the brewery are the primary beneficiaries and so s/he should have the primary responsibility. With this in mind the Working Party makes the following recommendations to clarify and tighten up the position:- i) 'Off' sales Licensees with a licence for 'off 'sales should display on the premises, as part of that 'off 'sales consent, a plan (and mark physically on the ground) showing the part of their own premises such as over pavement lights, which their customers are licensed to use for outside drinking. ii) Numbers of drinkers The displayed plan should also specify the reasonable numbers of people allowed to consume alcohol in a designated area served from the licensed premises, taking into account the width of the pavement, toilet provision, public safety etc. iii) Door staff The licensee should also employ sufficient 'door supervisors' or similar suitably qualified staff who have been effectively vetted to control the external area. Licensing Justices should ask for undertakings which satisfy them that the proposed arrangements are sufficient and are adhered to throughout the licence. iv) Cleaning Licensees should be responsible for the cleansing of this designated area within permitted hours and up to one hour after closing time. v) Managing designated area Licensees should be responsible for managing the designated area within the undertakings set out in the consent. If those undertakings are not adhered to this would be grounds for the revocation of the licence. vi) Safety Licensees should only provide plastic glasses for drinks consumed outside the premises and should provide receptacles for empty bottles. 3. RESIDENTIAL LIAISON We recommend that Breweries and Associations of the Licensed Trade set up regular liaison meetings with local residents societies in Westminster to discuss matters of mutual concern. 4. GOOD PRACTICE CODE We recommend that companies should also produce 'Good Practice Codes' for all licensees and managers, covering external drinking, preventing noise generation, dealing with noisy customers, handling residents complaints, etc. We further recommend that all prospective licensees should receive training in these matters. 5. PROVISION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCES We recommend that they should also provide or contribute to the provision and maintenance of free public conveniences. 6. DELIVERIES Early morning deliveries of beer in aluminium casks and crates of drinks have the potential to cause a great deal of noise nuisance at unsocial hours. We recommend that breweries should look at measures to mitigate this problem, including training drivers, redesigning crates and casks in other materials to make less noise. 8.9 TO INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS AND AMENITY GROUPS Recent experience makes it clear that the most effective way to record and present activity which gives cause for complaint is by use of video recorders which both take pictures and sound of the events. It is important to clearly record the date and time the video is taken and to ensure when presenting it as evidence that facilities are available for playback. Some Councillors and Licensing Justices are unaware of the true extent of the problems caused and letters do not seem to have the same weight as video evidence. Video evidence will be strongest where it demonstrates a pattern of activity over time causing nuisance, rather than a 'one off' incident. A Good Night Out - Index A Good Night Out - 9. APPENDICES |
[ Home | About | Advice | Cartoons | Contact | Gallery | Handbook | Links | News | Newsletters | Sponsors ]