Click Here for the Best London Hotel Deals!

Covent Garden Community Association's

comments on the

Home Office White Paper

"Time for reform: proposals for the modernisation of our licensing laws"

Our comments represent the views of the Covent Garden Community Association's Executive Committee, which includes residents, businesses and people who work locally. The CGCA seeks to enhance the amenity of the 6,500 residents in the area and actively works to maintain the special character of the area. The proposed extension of hours for licensed premises and the removal of some of the existing protection for residents is therefore of paramount importance, as Covent Garden has a very high density of both licensed premises and residential dwellings side-by-side.

People's outlook on life has changed greatly over the past 20 years and the definition of what is 'acceptable' has become less defined. Personal behaviour has changed in line with what is publicly acceptable and with disposable income steadily increasing, a larger amount per head of the population is spent on alcohol and entertainment whilst eating out has become a regular event.

All these factors have had an impact on the lives of people living near licensed premises, with the most marked effect in the West End of London and, presumably, other city centres. The increase in alcohol consumption and the decline in standards of behaviour have occurred simultaneously, and both have had a very marked effect on our community and quality of life.

The CGCA's comments are based on the experience of living and working for almost 30 years in one of the most vibrant parts of London's West End. Our views have been shaped by the complaints from our members, personal experiences and the overview that we are able to take of a large number of factors, all affecting the amenity of residents and the character of Covent Garden as part of a world class city.

General comments:

Whilst welcoming a comprehensive overhaul of the inadequate and outdated licensing laws, these proposals are very disappointing in their lack of protection for residents living near licensed premises.
Some of the proposed changes have the potential for bringing benefits to residents and communities as they simplify some of the more obscure and unhelpful parts of the existing legislation. However, the White Paper is very much aimed at bringing benefits to the licensed trade and entertainment industry. The proposals are weighted towards a more liberal drinking regime and do not give sufficient recognition to the problems of residents living near licensed premises.
More seriously, these proposals display a severe misunderstanding of the existing problems in central London. Without an accurate analysis of the existing problems, it will be impossible for the Government to introduce new legislation that is both fair and effective.
The main shortcomings of the proposals in this white paper include:
1. no recognition of the exceptional situation that exists in central London - the density of licensed premises in a relatively small part of London is very high.
2. a failure to understand the special needs of communities in the West End of London - Covent Garden is a 'village', has a special character and the various uses in the area are very delicately balanced (the equivalent of a fragile ecosystem).
3. too much reliance on the Police - the Metropolitan Police will not be able to play a pro-active role in licensing and is already finding it very difficult to provide its current and barely adequate service.
4. the loss of the only 'break' Covent Garden gets from most noise and hustle-bustle by removing the special status of the Sunday.
5. a complete lack of proposals to stem the tide of alcohol-induced anti-social behaviour - as a very minimum, an instant fine for urinating in public should be introduced.
6. the misguided belief that public order problems and nuisance will somehow be reduced dramatically if no fixed closing times are imposed.
7. the distinction between "unreasonable public nuisance" and other forms of nuisance - any form of nuisance or disorder is wholly unacceptable, particularly as there will be scope for residents to be exposed to this nuisance 365 days each year.
The CGCA's comments on the various parts of the white paper, using the original numbering are set out below.

nr	comments
Fw	The Home Secretary's foreword does not place sufficient emphasis on enforcement, yet it refers to the fact that some licensed premises attract trouble and cause a nuisance. It acknowledges that local residents' lives are "...fundamentally affected..." by licensing.
Fw	It overemphasises the importance of the licensed industry and its contribution to the economy but recognises the fact that a large proportion of the population is potentially affected by licensed premises: "...shape the future of our villages, towns and cities".
Fw	The Home Secretary admits that protection for residents is currently poor. He wishes to strike a balance and wants to hear our views. We set out our concerns over the proposed reforms, particularly where they appear to reduce protection for residents. They are as follows:
9	"Bewilderment and confusion" is an enormous exaggeration; it is unfair to portray the situation like that, as this is most certainly NOT the impression that most visitors have when they visit London.
16	There is a big difference between the impact of a 'restaurant', 'bar' or 'night-club' on the community; if categorisation is no longer felt to be appropriate, restrictions must be placed (through conditions in the operating plan) on premises with the highest likelihood of disturbance to residents, based on the most intensive or the noisiest part of their operation at any time.
27	We welcome the proposals in respect of sales to young persons
31	We welcome the proposed powers to temporarily close off-licences, but are very concerned about the proposal to allow the sale of alcohol at any time of day or night, as this is likely to exacerbate the problems with rowdy and anti-social behaviour in the street at night by people who buy alcohol from a shop after previously drinking in a bar, pub or club.
40	We welcome the introduction of 'personal' and 'premises' licences; we believe that the training & accredited qualification system should include a specific item on 'impact of licensed premises on residents' and a knowledge of the locality/community in which the licence holder will be working; we welcome the proposed endorsement of personal licences but need the strictest of sanctions for breaches of licensing laws.
41	We fear that a national database could easily be open to abuse and corruption and would be interested to see more detailed proposals in respect of its conception and use.
42	We do not believe that a licence holder's 'social responsibilities' should determine whether he/she is suitable for managing large or complicated premises; any licence holder wishing to manage large or difficult premises should be required to satisfy the licensing authority that he/she has the necessary experience and ability to do so.
43	We object to the 'exceptional circumstances' under which the licensing authority can question a licence holder's suitability; as a matter of course, the Police or licensing authority should be able to query the suitability, even in less exceptional circumstance; we know from experience that the licensee's ability and attitude can make a huge difference to the adverse impact of his/her premises and customers on the community.
45	We suggest that this is reversed and that applicants opt-in if they wish to provide any particular features or extend their hours after 23:00 hrs.
46	We object to the meaningless phrase "unreasonable public nuisance" - all forms of nuisance are unreasonable and such premises should not be licensed. Whilst we would in-principle support the inclusion of all conditions in an 'operating plan', we fear that conditions and their enforcement will become even more crucial than they currently are; it is hard to provide proper protection for residents through conditions, instead of through different types of licences. We object to the large number 'temporary permissions' that you propose to include each year and we suggest that this is reduced to no more than one a month.
46	We query the fact that "... licensing decision should not... be a re-run of the planning decision." It is essential that licences are ONLY granted to premises that can lawfully be used for food & drink or entertainment use; this should be a prerequisite. Where planning conditions exist that restrict the use of the premises or the hours during which they can be operated, then the licensing authority should take account of these. Planning conditions should not be overridden by the operating plan attached to the premises licence; the most onerous condition, whether planning or licensing, should always apply and be adhered to.
46	The periods during which people are notified and people can make representations should be extended a little, as we know from experience that 15 days is often insufficient. We query how residents and businesses within the licensing area will be notified, as this is crucial if they are to get a fair opportunity to make observations. We suggest that notifications are sent to occupants and that the system does not just rely on notices on lamp posts or in windows.
46	The presumption in favour of granting a licence that is uncontested should only apply to licences before midnight; any later licences should be determined by a licensing panel or committee.
46	We fear that the 'burden of proof' will be a legal minefield and that residents living near licensed premises will lose out, as it can be difficult to prove the impact of a new licence for premises that do not currently exist.
46	We believe that any reasonable request to review a licence should be granted, rather than the licensing authority being able to ignore such request.
51	We welcome the proposed new powers but disagree that they are "tough'"- this is a complete exaggeration, as a 24-hour period is not a sufficient deterrent and could create an additional burden to senior Police officers if repeated 24-hour periods were required. We believe that this period should be extended to 2 weeks or a month.
54	Temporary licences for noisy events could be the cause of serious loss of amenity for residents. We are opposed to the all-inclusive licence that would enable temporary events in temporary locations, as even the nuisance caused by a one-off event on one day should be prevented.
55	We query the involvement of the Police in every aspect of the proposed new licensing legislation and suggest that as many aspects of licensing as possible are dealt with by the local authority. The suggested 5-day notification period seems unnecessarily short - all events that require an occasional licence are planed in advance and a longer notice period, e.g. a month, would not be unreasonable.
57	Similarly, the notification period of 5 days seems unreasonably short and therefore unacceptable.
61	We are unable to support your assumption that by abolishing 'permitted hours' the problems with public disorder will be resolved. Our experience has taught us that the usual pub 'chucking out' time simply shifts to later in the evening, even with premises licensed until 06:00 or 07:00 hrs (quite a few premises currently are licensed for public entertainment during these hours). Patrons tend to leave in groups, not in ones and twos. We have seen a marked deterioration of residential amenity, as noise and disturbance is spread over a much larger time slot - from a one hour window (23:00-midnight) to a three or four hour window (01:00-04:30 hrs).
61	This paragraph also implies that there are no residents in city centres and that any who do live there should not enjoy the same level of protection and amenity that others have. Covent Garden is home to almost 6500 residents - very residential by central London standards.
64	The research used as a justification for the extension of closing hours was commissioned by the alcohol industry and we would not expect any other outcome. We believe that the very disappointing recent Home Office crime statistics speak for themselves - they reflect the explosion in late licensing hours in the West End of London and show a direct correlation between the growth in late-night entertainment and drinking venues and crime.
64	The suggested decrease in reports of nuisance and noise are wholly unrealistic. Residents in Covent Garden, given the choice, would favour the high density and concentration of patrons leaving licensed premises, as this reduces the number of times one is woken up in the night by noisy and unruly revellers. One learns to live with a short burst of noisy activity, but never gets used to broken sleep and loss of sleep, particularly over a protracted period of time.
66	We agree that 'zoning' is unlikely to produce the desired result. Areas such as Covent Garden, Marylebone, Bloomsbury and Soho contain many large pockets of residential dwellings, interspersed with licensed premises. This increasingly results in untenable situations, with residents moving away because they are unable to sustain repeated loss of sleep and the effects of anti-social behaviour by revellers.
67	Whilst sufficient sound-proofing should always be a prerequisite, the wording used here infers that noise nuisance would be acceptable before "...a certain time...". This is objectionable and totally unrealistic (see our comments on 66 above). We believe that licensed premises should completely contain any noise they produce, so inaudibility should be the base-line for any premises.
70	The last sentence in this paragraph appears to be the only recognition of the problems that have arisen from the dense concentration of licensed premises in Covent Garden, Soho, Camden Town, etc. It is exactly the nuisance from drunks and people gathering outside licensed premises in the early hours creating unreasonable disturbance.
74	This paragraph recognises the problems that could easily arise from off-sales late at night. The proposed measures to combat the problem would be totally unnecessary if permitted hours for off-licenses were retained. The regular input from the Police in problem cases is unlikely to be possible in central London, where Police priorities will never be able to include licensing matters, and would, in turn, raise other issues and cause further problems.
75	We are opposed to the sale of alcohol from off-licences at night and strongly object to the suggestion that objections to unrestricted hours can only be made by the Police. It is essential that members of the public, amenity groups and other bodies should also be able to object and request limited hours for off-sales.
81	We welcome the proposals in respect of children and under-age drinking.
82	The abolition of 'standardised permitted hours' is based on a misunderstanding of the problems related to licensed premises and we object strongly to this proposal. In our view, the most logical way to deal with potential problems is for the licensing authority to be able to draw up its own local policies to address specific problems, e.g. because of the unusually high density of licensed premises or of residents in a specific area. The authority should also be able to impose conditions as it sees fit in order to deal with local problems and circumstances.
82	Any form of public nuisance should be a ground for the imposition of conditions, not just by the Police but also in response to requests by residents and amenity groups.
86	We object most strongly to the proposed removal of restrictions on Sunday licensing hours. This is, without question, the only time that residents in Covent Garden get a 'break' from the relentless pressure caused by licensed premises. Most premises close at the end of normal licensing hours - noise levels and nuisance from patrons then usually drops to a level where residents are able to open their windows or enjoy a relatively quiet time at home. If the Government proceeds to deregularise licensing hours, we request that special consideration is given to Sunday as an exception from late licensing hours. Common sense alone dictates that residents in the West End of London and other city centres need at least one break each week to unwind. Without such a day, living near licensed premises is likely to become untenable and will result in a substantial loss of the residential population of central London.
92	Whilst we would welcome "effective" sanctions and punishments, we are not convinced that these proposals are adequate. The "tough new powers" that the Home Secretary mentions are not found in these proposals. We welcome some of the proposed measures to deal with problems once they arise, but we believe that the aim should be on prevention, rather than cure.
94	We believe that licensing authorities should be obliged to consider all reasonable complaints and objections. To suggest that they should be free to reject these at will would be against the principle of natural justice.
98	Allowing trading to continue when sanctions are being appealed will, no doubt, be much welcomed by the licensed trade, but it will do nothing to instil faith in the licensing system in people living near troublesome licensed premises. Whilst an appeal procedure is essential for natural justice, it should not stop sanctions being effective immediately, whilst subject to an appeal.
102	We welcome the tightening-up of the law relating to non-profit making registered clubs. We note with interest the last three sentences in this paragraph - they are perhaps the best recognition of problems associated with licensed premises. We wish the "counter-balancing controls" to protect the public were more prevalent in the rest of the Government's proposals to counter-act the much greater freedoms proposed in them.
111	Similarly, the statement that "... the greater the public access to the premises, the tighter any operating conditions would need to be to prevent disorder and ensure public safety" should be applied to all licensed premises, not just to non-profit making registered clubs.
116	We welcome the proposals set out in 112-116.
123	We welcome the proposal to make the local authority the licensing authority, subject to local licensing policies and adequate funding for these additional responsibilities (made available through the licensing fee - see our comments below). We particularly welcome the better scope for integration of town planning and licensing laws and the local authority's statutory duties under the Environmental Protection Act and the Crime & Disorder Act.
126	We strongly believe that a local licensing authority should set its own local licensing policy, similar to the Licensing Board in Scotland. This is essential if local circumstances are to be taken into consideration, particularly in relation to issues of saturation and the cumulative effect of licensed premises in central London. Local authorities already set their own local planning and development policies (through Unitary Development Plans) and we would welcome the integration of licensing with planning polices, perhaps through a combined Development Plan. Therefore, we object to the last point in this paragraph, as the licensing authority should take account of its own policy, rather than having blanket-guidance from the Home Secretary imposed on it.
127	Whilst we are not opposed to the proposed "fair procedures and appeals", we are concerned that legitimate objections from residents and community groups will be stifled as a result of the Crown Court appeal route. The fear of costs in the Crown Court and the Court's reluctance to allow an individual or community group to make its own representations creates an unfair and unequal situation. If the Government proceeds with this appeal option, we believe it will be necessary to ensure that legitimate objectors are safeguarded from the potentially huge risk of costs.
131	We agree that the licensing system should be self-financing and we are strongly opposed to any form of subsidy of any aspect of 'licensing'. The White Paper's suggested licence costs appear completely unrealistic, however. The fees currently charged by local authorities for public entertainment licences and similar licences would no longer apply, leaving local authorities with a huge workload and no income from licence fees to even begin to resource their service adequately. This will result in either a very poor enforcement regime or a huge subsidy of 'licensing' from the public purse - both of which are extremely unacceptable. The suggested licence fees are extremely cheap by central London standards and present no burden whatsoever on the licensed trade. In fact, the existing fees charged by central London local authorities are no burden either, as can be witnessed by the incessant demand for such licences. In view of the fact that licences will last for 10 years, a realistic licence fee, based on all costs incurred by the licensing authority, is extremely unlikely to place any burden on the licensed industry.

Conclusion:

After careful consideration of these proposals, the Covent Garden Community Association is of the opinion that they are unbalanced and require significant redrafting before the Association could support them. In particular:

Reference to 'unreasonable' nuisance should be removed - this is a nonsense; any form of nuisance is totally unacceptable.
All licensed premises should be subject to an 'inaudibility' condition in respect of noise and music produced on the premises.
Licensing Authorities should set local policies, based on local circumstances.
The cumulative effect of large numbers of licensed premises should be recognised.
Urinating in public should be made a specific offence and special powers should be given to the Police to curb this menace.
The proposed removal of 'permitted hours' for 'on' and 'off-sales' will make it very difficult to balance individuals' right to sleep with a licence holder's wish to stay open for longer and increase business; it would be much better if the proposals retained the existing 'standard' licensing hours and offered licensed premises an opportunity to apply for longer hours.
The equalisation of Sundays with other days of the week - this will result in the loss of Sunday evenings as an essential 'break' from noise and problems for residents.
The Government's stated aim of increasing the population of inner city areas sounds rather hollow in the light of the far-reaching proposals in the White Paper on Licensing Reforms, as many of the proposals will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for residents to remain living in busy, mixed-use inner city areas.

We conclude that the Government is seriously misguided on this important subject. Its approach in this White paper is one-sided, designed to favour the licensed industry and without sufficient consideration of the problems already faced by residents living in inner cities. The acceptability of some forms of 'nuisance' is indicative of this lack of understanding. The proposals are not 'balanced' - they are inadequate and reduce the limited protection currently enjoyed by residents. The unrealistically low licence fees proposed will result in poor and very sparse enforcement action by the licensing authority, as proper enforcement is costly and should be entirely self-financing. The role of the Police, although not very clear, is set to increase significantly; this would appear to be another impossibility, as their service is already over-stretched in many parts of the country, with 'licensing' not on its list of priorities.

The CGCA would be more than pleased to discuss any of the above comments or to enlarge upon them, if required.

Jo Weir, Chairman CGCA
31st July 2000

Web site developed by Liam Delahunty of Mega Products Ltd.