Covent Garden London

The heart of London's West End

Home | Map | Shopping | Leisure | Theatres | Restaurants | Pubs | Hotels | Food & Drink | Gallery | Blog | Contact

LICENSING REFORM WHITE PAPER

CONSULTATION RESPONSE FROM WESTMINSTER Police & Community Consultative Group LICENSING WORKING PARTY

Ratified at meeting 27.7.2000

Synopsis

The Home Secretary proposes reform which will balance rights and responsibilities and focuses on reducing crime, disorder and unreasonable disturbance. While welcoming the modernisation and simplification of out dated laws, we do not believe that the White Paper achieves this balance. We are concerned that it will achieve the reverse, certainly in terms of late night disturbance which will degrade further the amenity of residents and businesses and destroy the aim of having more, not less, people living in the centre of our cities (an Urban Renaissance?).

The Home Office will be aware from our previous report ("A Good Night Out") of the broad membership of this working group. However, perhaps it is worthwhile stressing that in Soho and Covent Garden alone there are 13,000 residents. Long term residents. These areas were laid out in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as residential areas not business districts and very substantial populations lived in these areas until the Blitz. Current residential includes a wide range of council housing stock provide by LB Camden and Westminster, at least 4 housing associations Peabody Trust, Soho HA, St Pancras HA and Community HA. A wide range of private landlords and private ownership. Residential use has been growing across all these types of tenure. Only a vary small proportion of the housing is for 'yuppie types who buy from companies like the Manhattan Loft Company and should know what their getting into' to quote from a recent press article. Other stress areas such as the Edgware Road, Bayswater and Queensway are even more residential.

Together these measures would give residents and neighbours of licensed premises, particularly in urban centres, reassurance that this a balanced approach not merely appeasing the trade.

We also note that European Convention on Human Rights issues have not been addressed despite its imminent implementation. Why have these not be addressed?

The overall impact of legislation should be to assess and address the environmental impact of a premises(or group of premises) on its locality and set in place measures to mitigate the adverse impacts. The principle should be: If effective mitigation can't be achieved: don't grant the licence. Yet the White Paper presents a single issue approach and is not joined up government. To proceed in this way is not reform, its just change and change which will have more adverse impacts than benefits.

The White Paper reforms and simplifies a very complex area of law which has become outdated. The two forms of licence - a Personal Licence for individuals and a Premises Licence for each property -makes the system much clearer for the public and trade to understand. That is very welcome.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE WHITE PAPER

Our comments are set out using the numbering of each chapter of the White Paper. It should be noted that the repeated use of 'tick' points rather than paragraph numbering makes comments relating to specific points difficult to cross reference.

1. Introduction

1.1 These proposals will not reduce crime and disorder but rather tend to encourage it.

Among the other reasons given for reform, there is a reference to tourist confusion. We suspect that is based on out of date research (the sources are not quoted or dates given). We are aware by anecdote of pressure for reform from the Dept of Culture Media and Sport but there is no transparency as to the basis for that pressure. Few tourists today appear to be hampered by our revised licensing laws to allow all day trading now including Sundays.

2. This is perhaps a smoke screen. There are many sections of business which may need the burden of regulation lifted, but it is doubtful if the very financially lucrative alcohol industry is a priority case. The impression is that the Home Office has become the prisoner of the Leisure and Entertainment industries and the lobby groups which represent them. All previous public consultations on piece meal reform using deregulation measures has been heavily biased in favour of trade groups with little attempt to seek fair representation from the wider community. The consultation list for this White Paper is not transparent. As an example, the Better Regulation Task Force in preparing its report on Licensing consulted not one residents association and only 4 bodies out of 36 consulted who might conceivably have put a resident's perspective.

9. Third 'tick' point. These separations are useful because different uses have different levels of local environmental impact (e.g. If a traditional tables and chairs restaurant operating within normal permitted hours changes to become a bare for mass volume vertical drinking with a late night licence, its impact suddenly becomes much greater).

Fourth 'tick' point. The White Paper inaccurately states the tourist confusion as referred to above and gives no sources. The Home Office's own research in the early stages of preparing for this White Paper showed that any greater licensing freedoms in other countries are carefully balanced by other responsibilities and enforcement regimes. For example, the Home Secretary proposes 'tough new powers' being the power for a police inspector to close a premises for up to 24 hours but in reality they will be the weakest in comparable European countries. The comparable power in Denmark is up to 30 days; in the Netherlands it is normally 3months; in Belgium and France up to one year. So actually these powers are very weak and the word 'tough' no more than spin!

Fifth 'tick' point. The relaxation of off sales in shops and supermarkets to allow sales whenever they are open in 24 hours will exacerbate the problems of off-sales at night to people who are already semi-drunk and will encourage late night crime and disorder.

Sixth 'tick' point. There may be a problem is some towns and cities with a fixed 11.30pm chucking out time but the evidence in the West End of London, which is the closest thing we have to a 24 hour society, is that all later hours do is push the crime and disorder issues back to later and later at night. They do not eradicate them. This increase in incidents takes place at a time when police and local authority resources are at their most limited and where to increase resources at that hour of the night is most expensive.

Seventh 'tick' point. This White Paper will make it even harder for residents to influence the process rather than as asserted because in future there is proposed a presumption in favour of granting the licence which residents will have to try and overcome. Also in areas of concentration or saturation of licensed premises, if unchanged, the local authority will explicitly be debarred from putting in place a policy to restrict or curtail further uses. It will be an ever grinding and remorseless process for local residents in those areas to try and put forward arguments against each application in advance to try and prevent further over concentration.

Eighth 'tick' point. Not all areas of England and Wales are the same. In our view it is desirable that there should be local licensing policies to take account of local factors and the cumulative impact of licensed premises. As long as these policies are transparent and the authority is open and accountable this should promote good local government. What is the point of local authorities having to produce long and costly UDP's, if the legislation envisaged by the White Paper is able, by central dictat, to make major material changes effecting every urban centre without allowing local authorities to develop local policies?

10. Second 'tick' point. What happens to sex licensing in these changes? It is not mentioned by the White Paper.

Third 'tick' point. Sometimes these extra requirements are necessary. When there is a major club fire or other incident the public and media will ask why the special requirements of a particular premises weren't taken into account.

Fourth 'tick' point. The charges set out in Chapter 13 remove costs from the entertainment industry to the tune of £1.9 billion but give no extra resources to hard pressed local authorities and police who will have to have the late night staff to monitor and enforce these new licences. This is massively inequitable.

11. Second 'tick' point. This current enforcement failure will be exacerbated in the future by lack of resources.

13. The pressure for longer trading hours comes largely from business interests, the alcohol industry and the trade. This is nowhere acknowledged openly. Longer hours will favour larger concerns that can have rotas of duty managers rather than individual operators who will need sleep/time off.

Contrary to the claims of the White Paper about protecting the public, evidence to date from central London and elsewhere shows that 24 hour drinking is likely to increase rather than decrease a range of social problems. This is also borne out by recent research from the University of Durham as reported in the Independent on 17.7.00.

2. Summary of Proposals

14. The freedoms referred to are not balanced by effective responsibilities and controls or cross referenced to related legislation, most of which is already inadequate to deal with the adverse impacts and will become more so as this 'deregulation' measure places more burden on it. (e.g. The Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Noise Nuisance Act 1996, Highways and Street Trading legislation re obstruction, tables and chairs etc etc.)

15. We welcome the broad thrust of these simplifying and updating proposals, however:

Fifth 'tick' point. We urge that there are 'refresher courses' every five or ten years to ensure that licence holder's knowledge is up to date.

Sixth 'tick' point. The status of these operating conditions must be clarified and the circumstances in which they can be varied and at whose request. At present conditions are sometimes imposed as part of the process of granting a planning consent for the use of the land or premises. Would such conditions continue to be imposed by the local authority in exercise of its planning function? If they are, wouldn't an applicant for a premises licence be entitled to object to any restriction imposed as part of an operational plan attached to a premises licence on the grounds that it should have been considered at the time the use was considered?

What happens to all existing planning consents for A3/D2? Many of these permissions were unrestricted by conditions when they were granted both as to opening hours and other matters. If they automatically can qualify for a premises licence, will they regard any restrictive conditions made as part of the operational plan as fettering that unrestricted planning consent and thus seek compensation from the local authority?

Seventh 'tick' point. We totally oppose abolishing normally permitted hours and feel that this concept is well established and should be maintained, perhaps with the opening hour brought forward to 8.00am and the terminal hour extended by 30 minutes to 11.30pm with 30 minutes drinking up time so that most premises would be closed by midnight.

Those applying for a premises licence to operate after midnight should do so within the context of a local authority published licensing policy. This would set out the local circumstances and the L.A.'s policy and address issues of adverse impact and crime and disorder. To abandon permitted hours will also create, at least in urban centres, a 'leapfrogging' approach where premises apply for later and later hours to try and secure competitive advantage. These later hours will then be used to set 'precedents' for yet more late hours and will therefore have a dramatic impact on part of a local authority's area without them having any effective control because the White Paper proposes they can only look at applications on a premises by premises basis. To be able to control a minor proposed change to a shopfront but not resist late hours in one or more large premises is clearly a nonsense.

Eighth 'tick' point. As stated these tough new powers are a sham. If operated with the context of the White Paper as currently drafted, we recommend that the police should be able to close a premises for renewable periods of up to 7 days within which time the urgent review of the licence must be held. It should be borne in mind that as far as we have been able to establish the police in the West End and Charing Cross divisions have never invoked Section 81 of the Licensing Act 1964 in spite of their knowledge of constant abuse because they do not have the resources and up to now have not seen it as a priority. So the evidence is not very encouraging in believing the police will take a pro-active approach. There should be a duty either local authorities or the police or both to monitor, inspect and enforce the conditions of premises licences.

Eleventh 'tick' point. The issue of costs must be clarified so that potential resident objections, provided they are reasonable, are not muzzled by the fear of 'costs' being awarded against them. Otherwise to talk of empowerment is also a sham. An individual or amenity group presenting an objection already faces costs of time, money and stress in doing so and may be faced by an experienced barrister and other professionals such as acoustic engineers appearing on behalf of the applicant. This is already completely inequitable and the White Paper does nothing to improve the situation. The simplest solution would be to disbar legal representation at licensing hearings. At a stroke this would reduce many of the costs referred to in Section 13. The same point arises under S12 (dealt with below), where residents' rights of appeal to the Crown Court on points of law would clearly require legal representation. At present residents' groups tend to represent themselves

3. Modern Control for Venues Providing Public Leisure and Hospitality

16. The difficulty of categorisation should also be addressed by a review of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order to require consent for material changes of use within a use class because planning consent is the key as it runs with the land. Such a review must address the varying local impacts that different types of operation and different opening hours can have on a neighbourhood. (For example, the current tendency to very high noise levels cf Guardian 15.5.00 and New Scientist w/o 12.5.00.) Given that the Home Office do not want the licensing authority to rerun the planning decision then DETR should in future require that local authority UDP's contain specific sections setting out that authority's policies in respect of all types of A3 and D2 uses both individually and in areas where there is or might be a concentration of such uses. Such policies should specifically address the L.A.'s approach to the numbers of A3/D2 premises and their impact on (and displacement of) other uses, their environment, their amenity and other relevant impacts. Where policies have been set to deal with theses matters licensing authorities should be able to refuse applications for further consents on policy grounds alone without relying on having received objections. The recently revised policies of the City of Westminster and those of LB Ealing (and recommended by the London Planning Advisory Committee as a model) are examples of sensibly developed local policies.

19. We abhor the reference to avoiding 'unreasonable' nuisance referred to here and elsewhere in the White Paper as it implies that all neighbourhoods must expect to put up with at least a level of nuisance flowing from these changes. Why? The freedom to sell alcohol late at night is a less important goal than the need to retain a civil society. Part of that is a society free from unnecessary and avoidable nuisance. (For example, there is also no recognition of the way noise, particularly loud music is used as a way to attract custom. Its use should be acknowledged as integral to a number of premises operating in the night time economy and dealt with by suitable conditions in the operational plan.)

4. Modern Controls for Shops, Stores and Supermarkets

22. The statement that these various off licences of themselves do not give rise to disorder and public nuisance is disingenuous. The very nature of an 'off' licence is that alcohol is bought for consumption off the premises. To allow easy access to alcohol throughout a 24 hour period can only be likely to make some alcohol available to those who are drunk or acting in an anti-social manner than would previously have been the case. It cannot help to achieve the objectives of the Crime and Disorder Act, however, it will allow supermarkets to sell more alcohol.

23.-27. We welcome these better controls on under age drinking.

30.-31. As stated before this 24 hour power is completely inadequate and does not provide a realistic commercial disincentive against the profits that can be made in a single day from selling alcohol to, for example, a football crowd.

5. A New Personal Licence

40 First 'tick' point. The presumption in favour should also be subject to successfully completing a refresher course or the gaining of an accredited qualification within five years of renewal.

Fifth 'tick' point. There should be an additional bullet point 'controlling noise nuisance'.

Eighth 'tick' point. The minimum time that the licence would be revoked for should be specified to act as a deterrent. We recommend 3 years.

We recommend the insertion of a further 'tick' point, to be embodied in subsequent legislation. 'Where a personal licence holder will operate a premises licence operating outside permitted hours or serving premises with a capacity in excess of 250 persons s/he will be required to hold a qualification accredited by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority relating the running of such a premises which will take account of the potential adverse impacts such premises can cause.'

41. The costs of administering such a national database should be covered in the cost of obtaining personal licences.

42. We do not agree with this section. Those operating large and/or late night premises must recognise that they are likely to be those with the potential to cause most adverse local impact and should be properly trained to minimise those impacts. This should be by being required to hold a properly accredited qualification.

43. The power to request a hearing as to a potentially unsuitable licence holder should be given to any individual as well as the police and should include relevant local authority staff.

6. A New Premises Licence

45. A premises licence should include a requirement that the premises be operated in compliance with its lawful planning use together with any conditions that have been imposed and this must be appended to the operational plan. It should also positively specify which activities are to be licensed not just leave it for the applicant to opt out of activities not required. For example as presented this would include automatic cinema, theatre and sex licence rights for each premises licence granted in the land!

46. First 'tick' point. We have a number of concerns about this paragraph.

  1. The reference to opt outs should be deleted in the light of comment immediately above. The premises licence must be specific about opening hours (for opening hours after midnight see below), maximum numbers of people and the provision of entertainment to allow relevant fire and environmental health checks.
  2. The local authority must also form an opinion as to the suitability of the premises for the operational plan proposed not just in terms of fire and environmental health but also in terms of sound insulation, ability to provide for queuing within the premises etc. If the premises are not suitable for the proposed use the operational plan must be conditioned to reflect this.
  3. It must be the duty of the licence holder to inform the licensing authority of any variation of these basic elements with failure to do so rendering them liable to forfeit the licence.
  4. There should be provision for objections by any individual and the statutory authorities to the variation of these elements.
  5. It should also be clear that changes or breaches which have adverse external impacts will also trigger a review. (E.G. If a venue says it will provide 'background music' but this evolves over time to become very loud disco music with a heavy bass beat, this should trigger a review.)
  6. It must be the duty of the licensing authority to monitor, inspect and ensure that operating plans are kept to. Without it there will be a real reduction in resident empowerment if licensing authorities fail to act and residents are unable to demand a review. The lack of such a duty at present renders most conditions to liquor and entertainment licences meaningless as they are not enforced.

Second 'tick' point. Please delete 'unreasonable'.

Third 'tick' point. Occasional licences of up to 25 times a year could be the source of regular nuisance and should be limited to 12 such events.

Fourth 'tick' point. Please delete the word 'unreasonable'. It is not defined in this context and will provide a considerable burden to residents making objections in advance of a premises opening on the grounds of the severity of anticipated impacts which they can not prove but which they will have to suffer.

While the White Paper argues that licensing decisions should not be a re-run of the planning decision we argue that it should be able to take into account policy matters for those premises wishing to operate outside permitted hours as we have defined them (i.e. after midnight). The licensing authority should be under a duty to draw up and consult upon a late night licensing policy which will deal with crime and disorder, public safety, nuisance and the cumulative impact of a concentration of licensed premises in the area by controlling the numbers of late night premises licences as well as by imposing standard conditions to operational plans such as the imposition of noise controls. If New York can have a Noise Code (as do many US Cities) new legislation should not prevent such forms of good practice management. This is particularly important where, as part of planning policy, local authorities have created zoned areas such as Central Activities Zones which tend to funnel entertainment uses into one area. Often these areas are mixed use with substantial residential communities.

Fifth 'tick' point. If the Home Office proposes to create a presumption in favour of granting a licence and yet also insists that it is empowering residents then the timescales proposed are too short for this to have any practical reality. The period for notification and right to view the application should both be extended to 20 working days. It should also clarify how people are to be notified. Adverts in newspaper and notices on lampposts in the current system do not work. Notification must be by post as in the case of planning applications. At present neighbouring premises are informed by post about a planning application which may merely be for changes in some detail of the building but not about a licence application, the grant of which could have fundamental impact on their amenity.

Sixth 'tick' point. This 'presumption in favour' in the absence of objections should only extend to premises operating within the permitted hours that we have defined once planning permission has been obtained in accordance with the local authority's UDP licensing section.

Seventh 'tick' point. Please remove the word 'unreasonable'. There is no such thing as reasonable nuisance. It is either nuisance or it isn't. The burden of proof should be clarified to be merely the 'balance of probability' and with each side bearing its own costs.

A hearing should also be held for a premises wishing to operate outside permitted hours where there are objections to assess its impact on the locality. The licensing authority should have the right to refuse a application to open outside permitted hours on policy grounds alone if it conflicts with its published late night licensing policy without needing to rely on having received objections.

Eighth 'tick' point. The term the 'life of the business' should be clarified to make clear that a change of ownership, other than to subsidiary companies within a group would terminate the licence. In addition to that envisaged for the police, there should also be a right for the statutory authorities and any individual to apply to have the licence varied on reasonable grounds which also include those of nuisance.

Twelfth 'tick' point. There should be an exception to the ban on locally initiated reviews within twelve months if the licensing authority accepts that serious nuisance is being caused or there are serious threats or acts which create public order and crime and disorder concerns.

Thirteenth 'tick' point. This guidance should be published in draft form and consulted upon both widely and fairly.

49.- 51. This power is wholly inadequate and should be for a period up to 7 days and renewable thereafter for further periods of up to 7 days until such time as the licence has been reviewed. It is unduly burdensome on the police to keep making assessments every 24 hours.

In any event where is the base line of acceptability to be set? Are all existing premises which are currently licensed acceptable because the police do not have the resources to carry out their existing statutory duties and many rowdy premises remain open? If an Inspector issues a closure order will it be open to challenge because under the pre-existing system such behaviour had been tolerated?

54. We welcome this proposal.

57. The period of notice should be 10 working days in advance of the event and notified to the local authority as well as the police. Any individual in addition to the police should be able to raise an objection requesting a hearing which the licensing authority would agree to hold if it thought the objection was legitimate and material.

7. Conditions and Hours

61. We disagree with this paragraph as drafted. Existing liquor licensing law at least expects that, outside permitted hours, alcohol is an ancillary activity to late night entertainment or dining and that substantial meals and soft drinks should also be available at all times to moderate its effects. That is swept away; as are any policies to control concentration of such uses with their adverse impacts on the street. To be replaced with :- the naked reality of allowing as many late night premises as wish to serve or sell alcohol as a primary activity. Is that beneficial reform helping resist a 'yob' culture and building a more civil society or just caving in to powerful trade interests?. There is no recognition whatsoever in the White Paper of the existing harmful effects of creating concentrations of premises and the effects of large numbers of people on the street going to, drinking outside, moving between and leaving premises in such areas. The potential intensification of these problems as a result of the White Paper is not even acknowledged. Nor has it been researched by the Home Office in advance of publication of this White Paper.

There should be a duty on licensing authorities to consider and set opening hours as part of the premises licence. Standard permitted hours should be retained and defined as hours between 8.00am and 11.30pm with 30 minutes drinking up time. It should then be open for an applicant to apply for a premises licence to operate outside those permitted hours and the local authority would be given the discretion to grant or refuse such an extension within the context of its own locally published (and consulted upon) licensing policy. Such extensions might be for every day of the week or at different times on particular days. There would be a duty on the licensing authority in setting this late night licensing policy to take into account the possible risks to crime and disorder, public disorder, nuisance and the effect on the locality of the cumulative effect of granting premises licences extending permitted hours. New late night licences could be refused on these policy grounds.

There is no recognition that drinking on the pavement outside a pub at lunch time or in the evening or with a meal served at a table on a private external premises is quite acceptable while the concept of permitted hours remains. If permitted hours are scrapped, drinking on the pavement late at night will be a substantial cause of nuisance and disorder. Licensing authorities should be under a duty to consider this aspect of the operational plan and set suitable conditions. For example the proposed legislation should clarify the law to create an enforceable condition worded along the lines of "No intoxicating liquor to be sold inside the premises for consumption outside" perhaps modified by "except to patrons seated at any tables and chairs licensed by the local authority" and/or "except between the hours of….." It should also be recognised that while drinking outside one pub or bar may be quite acceptable because pavements are wide and there are no neighbours near, this is not so for every premises. Narrow pavements used by street drinkers can force legitimate pedestrians into the street, especially those with push chairs or a wheelchair. Pubs with street drinking crowds next to residential accommodation can make the lives of those residents hell. Again in those cases, the operational plan should be able to either prohibit it entirely or mark out those areas of the public highway where street drinking is acceptable. The breach of such conditions should be recorded against the personal and premises licence.

Urban centres are mixed use and should remain so. They are more lively and other residents and business create a more self regulating and defensible space. Single use areas can quickly decay, especially if fashions or economics change and the entertainment industry moves on or declines. These mixed uses need active management. In no other European or US city that we are aware of is unrestricted use of the pavements and highway for food and drink use allowed late at night. For example, New York explicitly prevents it and in Paris use of tables an chairs is all that is allowed and that must be by waiter service only.

64. If peak densities in urban centres are between 2.00 and 3.00am is this consistent with maintaining residential populations (where people can actually get to sleep) in such centres and how does this equate with the Government's desire to produce and urban renaissance in our urban centres? How can this be reconciled with Figure 2 on page 14 which shows that the existing peak of public order incidents is at 3.00am? Presumably public order offences will occur later and later after these proposed changes with consequential extra costs to police resources and nuisance to local people.

65. It is unrealistic and burdensome to expect police or local residents to make out specific cases against each application in areas of concentration of premises where, in any case, the applicant will argue that one more licence will not make any difference and quote precedents from other approved late night operating plans. There is no recognition of the weakness of only looking at these issues on a premises by premises basis. In any event there are many other issues in relation to the congregation of large numbers of people on the street; those people that are now called Mass Volume Vertical Drinkers. There is public fouling of streets and pavements. There is the growth of illegal minicabs to provide late night transport, the attraction of anti-social elements operating on the fringes of a mass of stimulated and inebriated people, begging, drug dealing clipping, mugging and theft. These events take place on the street and are cumulative effects. The premises by premises approach in the White Paper is simply naïve and out of touch with current reality.

66. For premise wishing to operate after midnight the local authority should have the duty to draw up a licensing policy. See various sections above.

68. We would welcome this co-operative approach to setting conditions but it should include discussions with the local people and other business categories who will suffer the potential adverse impacts.

70. Please delete the word 'unreasonable' from the final sentence.

72. to 75. We oppose any general consent for shops ,supermarkets and off-licences and would ask that all applications after midnight are judged against the local authority's late night licensing policy.

73. The first sentence is risible.

74. It should also be open for any member of the public to lodge a reasonable complaint with the licensing authority which could lead the licensing authority to limit the opening hours of the premises licence even within the permitted hours we propose.

76. -81. We welcome these proposals.

82. As set out above we do not agree with these proposals.

83. First 'tick' point. The main operating conditions must specify the principal use, the opening hours and the maximum numbers of people permitted at any one time.

86. We believe that Sunday should be treated differently because it allows residents in urban centres one day's partial respite from noise and nuisance. Why Sunday as opposed to any other day? Because it is part of the recognised 2 day weekend and residents deserve some evening peace from those who come to urban centres just to party.

8. An effective system of sanctions and punishments

89. -90. We welcome this approach. However, we feel that the system should make a distinction between major and relatively minor breaches with these minor incidents being recorded and adding up at the rate of three minor breaches being equivalent to each of the stages set out in para 92. It is also not clear who will have the lead role and lead responsibility for inspecting premises and enforcing licences. It is essential that this should be made clear and any division of roles between police and local authority made explicit. The police are predominately focused on matters of crime and disorder and it would be better to recognise this and the other, primarily environmental impacts made the clear responsibility of the local authority.

91. It should be made clear that breaches count against a personal licence holder and also the premises licence holder and that after three offences within five years or a single serious incident both licences are potentially forfeit.

92. It is stated in the first 'tick' point that action would also be against the premises licence in the magistrates court but this is not then subsequently spelt out. Indeed para 94. specifically excludes the imposition of fines. We can not trace the nature of any action that is to be taken against holders of a premises licence in the courts. The matter should be made clear or deleted as empty words.

94. The licensing authority should rehear a case against a premises licence if material facts have changed since the last hearing.

96. The minimum and maximum period of revocation of a premises licence should be spelt out to act as a deterrent and to prevent the use of procedural changes of ownership to circumvent the impact of revocation. It is no incentive to good operational procedures by holders of premises licences if it is possible for a disorderly premises to be merely sold on at existing use value if a particular licence is lost knowing that a new company with a new operating plan and premises licence can take over immediately. For the holder of a premises licence whose business is not doing too well there may even be an incentive the way the White Paper is currently drafted to try every trick in the book to drum up more business if it will not adversely effect the premises sale price if they fail. Premises licence holders will take their responsibilities seriously if there are potentially serious financial penalties which flow from the loss of a licence. We recommend a minimum period of revocation of three years. This would substantially deter rogue operators as the loss of a licence would reduce the market value of their premises. During a period of revocation it should be possible to use the premises for any other use not requiring a premises licence and which is consistent with a lawfully held planning use.

98. Any such guidance should be published in draft and consulted upon fairly within the community, the trade and the statutory authorities.

We support the concept of a Licensing Inspectorate being established to hear appeals against the actions of a licensing authority. This Inspectorate would operate in the same way as the Planning Inspectorate and would have regard to the sections of the UDP relating to licensing which we propose as well as to operational matters and sanctions. We feel that this would be more equitable than the proposals for hearings before the Crown Court, on the grounds that these matters are administrative and not judicial. The procedures in relation to planning appeals are well established and we feel that it would not be difficult to set up a parallel structure. After all what are the logical reasons for these matters being dealt with by the Magistracy? As far as we know the reasons are purely historical and if the White Paper truly intends to modernise and create better regulations, it should grasp the nettle and set up a proper administrative procedure which is then dealt with by administrative law even if that might result in eventual transfer of responsibilities to the DETR. There should be the right of appeal from the Inspectorate to the High Court as there is at present with planning matters.

9. Non-profit making registered clubs

102. Why is the reference to disorderly behaviour in surrounding streets referred to only in relation to non profit making clubs and not referred to elsewhere in relation to the supply of alcohol for profit where it would logically equally apply?

107. Why is it that in this section there is a reference to 'minimising' public nuisance where elsewhere the references are to preventing 'unreasonable' nuisance? Why don't neighbours of other licensed premises benefit from this emphasis on minimising public nuisance?

Applications should not only be advertised but notified to neighbours by post.

109. Again any guidance should be published in draft and consulted upon.

10.Excluding the undesirable

112. The first sentence excludes premises licence holders. Why? They should be included.

112. - 114 These new and existing powers are 'gesture powers' but impractical. How will any personal licence holder of 'specified premises' identify an individual who has been banned and check his identity? What powers would the licensee have to do so? They will not deter the majority of anti-social drinkers and are only likely to be effective in banning an individual from one premises where upon s/he will immediately go to another premises.

Circulating lists of banned individuals to personal licence holders together with photographs would make the law slightly less ineffectual. Even then this would only be likely to work in smaller towns and rural areas.

11. An accountable Licensing Authority

117. - 125. We welcome these proposals but are worried that at least in the early years, when the transition will mean a host of personal and premises licences having to be granted, the local councillors in a metropolitan area such as the City of Westminster will be overwhelmed by the sheer number of hearings required and a substantial backlog will build up or there will be a large degree of delegation of decisions to officers which will defeat the transparency argument. To remedy this we suggest that perhaps for a limited period properly experienced licensing justices could be co-opted to sit on licensing authority committees with councillors, but not to take the chair. This would also allow a hand over of experience from magistrates to councillors.

In addition we would recommend that the clerks to the licensing justices and their staff are facilitated to make a transfer to work for local authorities and that new qualifications accredited by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority provide the basis for a new profession for local authority and ex court staff to service licensing authorities so that their work is based on an agreed standard and fits in with national guidance.

126. We recommend that there is the widest possible consultation on these procedural rules.

12. Fair procedures and appeals

127. -130. We welcome these proposals as they mean that residents will not have to face the prospect as at present of the case being heard 'de novo' in the Magistrates/Crown Courts with the consequent burden on them of having to put their case again from scratch. We also welcome the new right of appeal by all parties but feel that it will be a useless right for residents if the matter of representation to put a point of law and the awarding of costs is not equitable. It is essential in the case of local residents (and amenity societies which represent them) that if they have reasonable and legitimate concerns about points of law they should not be put off from making an appeal on the grounds of cost, either in bringing an appeal or in fear of substantial costs being awarded against them.

128. To avoid this we believe that there is no really sustained case for treating appeals on these matters judicially rather than administratively. This would not prejudice any party's right to seek judicial review. There would be greater financial and representational equity if appeals were dealt with by a Licensing Inspectorate. Please see comments under para 98 for the setting up of a Licensing Inspectorate similar to the Planning Inspectorate. In any event, given that over time magistrates experienced in licensing matters will disappear their ability to take Crown Court hearings will become less relevant. It would be better if most appeals as to sanctions, the application of the late night licensing policies we propose and breaches of premises licence operating plans should go to a new Licensing Inspectorate operating in the same way as the Planning Inspectorate. Only detailed points of law would then go to the Crown Court.

13. Costs and Resources

131. We agree that fees need to rise and as in the case of temporary licences the fees should cover the justifiable costs of all the relevant statutory authorities (including the police) of administration, inspection and enforcement.

132. -140. We are disturbed at the general thrust of the argument which is all about how much the saving will be to the trade and not seeking to counterbalance that with assessing the costs of a properly resourced administration, inspection and enforcement service. The current system despite its costs to business does not provide these three things at present and there are no calculations as to how the fees proposed are made up and what sort of service this will provide. Good law is law which will be implemented and enforced. That is not the least critiscm of the inadequacies of the present entertainment and liquor licensing system. Yet again in this section the White Paper seems to be biased in favour of the trade and not even handed.

Appendix 4

2(iii) This risk assessment makes it quite clear that where there are concentrations of licensed premises such as clubs and discos operating until 2.00 or 3.00am there are similar crime peaks to those at 11-12pm for pubs. Therefore there is no evidence that extending hours will reduce crime peaks but merely push it back further into the night when it is more expensive for the police to tackle and when it is most corrosive for local residents and other businesses.

4(i) We do not accept the benefits are as listed to residents and the local community and the risks are vastly understated.

(ii) These are irrelevant because the law won't be changed back if they don't occur. Many of them are contentious and unsupported statements.

5. These compliance costs are based on so many unsupported assumptions and estimates that it is pointless to comment. However we note that there is no such attempt to calculate and specify the administration, inspection and enforcement costs to licensing authorities and see this as clear evidence of a biased approach. In spite of the White Paper asserting that residents will have more rights, this is not borne out by the proposals, nor are their time and costs taken into account or those placed on society at large to develop an infrastructure (e.g. public transport, public lavatories, services to counter increased alcoholism, crime costs, victim support) to service this extra freedom to sell and consume more alcohol late at night.

6. This section makes clear that residents and amenity groups making objections in the Crown Court which they lose would be liable to heavy costs . Again there is no attempt to create equity before the law.

Appendices 5 & 7 We note that in neither diagram is loss of a premises licence envisaged. All the real sanctions fall on the individual personal licence holder not the larger companies that employ them. Thus potentially continuing the current major flaw in the 1964 Act whereby revocations can in effect be side stepped by major multiple operators.

Appendix 6 These are risible and add nothing to the case advanced by the White Paper but rather illustrate how out of touch its approach is. E.g. . Scenario 1 If any licensee has not had a 'Friday night away from the premises in years' he lives in the world of Harry Potter.

mb27.7.00


 

 
Google

[ Home | About | Advice | Cartoons | Contact | Gallery | Handbook | Links | News | Newsletters | Sponsors ]

Web site developed by Liam Delahunty of Mega Products Ltd.