'Pubs aren't a problem'

Westminster City Council's Audrey Lewis talks to Lorna Harrison about its approach to balancing licensing with the needs of local residents.

Branded as heavy-handed and controversial, Westminster City Council has had its fair share of bad press over recent years. It has been criticised for being a party-pooper and licensees have accused the council of using its powers to the extreme by restricting trading hours and stopping new licences to placate its residents.

Its reputation has worried licensees all over the country who fear they could be subjected to similar regimes when licensing control switches from magistrates to local authorities next year.

Yet Councillor Audrey Lewis (pictured)​, cabinet member for licensing, quite sincerely couldn't understand what all the fuss was about.

"The assumption that we don't like pubs is strange," she said. "I am a pub user, I like pubs and am on first name terms with the licensees where I live in Marylebone. I don't think the council would have any qualms about saying that it is pro-entertainment. We just need to get a balance. By and large we have been pretty liberal with our licence applications. For many years we didn't turn down a single licence and then we saw the cumulative effect and had to tighten up in stress areas which had reached saturation point. This resulted in some people with an expectation suddenly being taken aback and effectively being cut off in their prime.

"In reality we receive little criticism about the policy other than from the odd applicant. As far as I know pubs are not a problem for the council and pubs don't seem to have a problem with us."

Why then has the council, from an editorial point of view, provided some sensational stories? Its main battle with licensees stems from a policy to tighten up on granting new licences and restricting the terminal hour to 1am.

Not so long ago, it hit the headlines nationally for banning "rhythmic swaying", claiming unless a pub held a public entertainment licence, customers had to remain virtually static.

"This was a technicality before my time," said Audrey who took over her position in May 2002. "I've heard nothing about it since. We are not anti-pub but we are concerned about the relatively small number of licensed premises which impinge on the community. We are concerned about people roaming the streets off their heads."

Audrey explained that the problem in Westminster is not one that is mirrored across the country and cannot be solved through staggered closing.

"We have had staggered closing for many years. A large number of premises open until 3am and we recently granted a 5am licence in Charing Cross. Our problem can start at 8pm, 9pm or 10pm. People get tanked up after work without eating, possibly having skipped lunch, and it's this drinking on an empty stomach that causes problems. I believe pubs could provide more opportunity for people to eat and drink at the same time."

Audrey explained how her local pub, notorious for loud music and a string of complaints, turned the business around after installing a kitchen and bringing on board a decent chef. But the pub industry's strengths lie in its diversity and surely Westminster wouldn't want to do away with vertical drinking altogether?

"No, but we do want to do away with the vast drink-selling factories," she said, adding the council is working more closely with police to gather intelligence and clamp down on problem pubs.

It's clear from the interview that Westminster has a huge task on its hands, balancing the needs of residents with businesses, drinkers and tourists. In many ways you can sympathise with its almighty task of cleaning up the streets and it would be fair to say that if the drunks stopped causing a nuisance, then pubs would have an easier ride.

"Everyone says why don't you just get rid of the bad operators?" said Audrey. "It is, however, difficult to identify bad practices. It's not our policy to immediately take away licences or threaten revocation, we would rather get them to change their ways. In the recent Brewster Sessions we objected to just 14 licences out of 450 and as far as I'm aware none of them were lost following negotiations."

So how does Westminster feel about taking over the enormous responsibility for licensing when the new act becomes law next year? Audrey admitted that the reforms provide an uncertain future for the council which estimates the new administrative burden will cost £2.5m, money that the government has made assurances won't come from the trade or the tax payer.

"I think central government originally made a promise to the industry in good faith but completely misinterpreted the cost of administration," she said. "We have many practical problems and will have to get through 3,500 licences in the six months transitional period. If there is a variation we would need a hearing and if everyone comes to us at the same time we estimate that we would have to have about 10 hearings an hour, five days a week. We have been lobbying consistently on this point."

So, taking everything into account, should licensees have anything to fear when Westminster takes full control next year?

"No, the problem is not with good people, it's the rogue operators," Audrey stressed. "Good operators who aren't a nuisance to their neighbours will have nothing to fear. Our message to bad operators is we will be refining our intelligence and will take a hard line."

Westminster myths dispelled?​

• in 2002 Westminster's late-night and dancing capacity stood at 179,035 compared with 57,141 in 1992 - a rise of 300 per cent over 10 years
• between 1992 and 2002, the number of PEL premises open after midnight doubled to 370
• in the West End alone the number rose from 71 to 186
• in the past year only 43 out of 872 public entertainment/night café licence applications were refused.

Westminster is the UK's largest licensing authority with:

• 375 liquor licences per square mile
• nearly 300 drunken offences per square mile per year
• fewer than 0.5 police officers per licensed premises
• cleansing and refuse costs topping £11m a year.

Alex Salussolia, chairman of Westminster Licensees' Association, responds to Audrey Lewis​

Westminster Council certainly has had a bad press from the trade in the past, and justifiably so in certain instances. Councillor Lewis is probably right when she says that pubs don't have a problem with the council because the vast majority of them will have no dealings with it at present. But the late-night trade does have concerns.

Not so long ago the public messages from the council did give the impression, rightly or wrongly, that it was against the trade and we were blamed for all the ills on the streets. It is also fair to say that Westminster did have a bad reputation for its administration of PELs because of long delays in processing renewals, high costs, standard conditions and onerous application requirements. Many of our members were badly bruised by their dealings with the council.

I am pleased to say that things are changing and we very much welcome the more positive and balanced approach Cllr Lewis has brought. We may not see eye to eye on every issue but at least there is now a relationship and a willingness to work with the trade.

We are as keen as Westminster to focus on those operating illegally or irresponsibly. Local authorities should be working with us to manage licensing sensibly. Opening late at night in a mature and dynamic market such as the West End demands certain operating standards and should impose certain obligations on the retailers concerned. We want to work with the council to develop those standards and