Minor variations could go

Readers of this paper will know me as a mild-mannered chap, along the lines of Clark Kent, not given to histrionics or violent outbursts. But even I am threatening to burst one or two blood vessels as I contemplate the near-death of one of the only positive moves on the new-fangled licensing system to come out of the Department for Culture, Media & Sport — minor variations.

I have just received a plea to "do something" from a trio of licensees who have all the necessary permissions for music, singing and dancing, but cannot put on a pantomime at the pub because the local licensing department says it is a play!

They do not have the necessary theatre permission.

They need a full variation of the licence. A pub in the south of England received planning permission to create a single-storey extension to the bar/restaurant area(approximately 24 additional covers), alter the ladies' WC, provide a disabled WC, make minor alterations to the kitchen and store, provide a staff WC and make minor external landscaping changes.

They have made no changes to any parts of the operation that would require a change in the operating schedule, neither are there any additional steps required to promote the four licensing objectives.

And guess what? In addition to the planning process, they are now required to put in a complete variation application, with copies to eight authorities (one of whom has already given them permission, with no objections!), advertising and a notice on the premises (a second one — a planning notice has presumably already been there). They now risk representations being made on any other issue that takes the fancy of their neighbours, even though they are not changing any part of the way they are running the pub.

But what is minor to you is not by any means minor to the House of Lords and the House of Commons. They are concerned that people might slip through something important. As a result, the minor variations procedure is currently languishing and may never see the light of day.

I am hopping mad. This was a good change in the law. In the old days (23 November 2005), all that was needed was a trip to the justices with a set of "before and after" plans, a cheque for £16 and a willingness to explain the changes to the bench. The personal contact usually meant that questions were settled on the spot, sometimes in as little as 10 minutes, and the permission was granted there and then.

Not any more. If just one representation is made, there has to be a (delayed) hearing in front of the licensing committee in addition to all the preliminary expense. And because there is absolutely nowhere on the form to explain to all the interested parties what is actually happening, there could be misunderstandings about the application.

This is a major development of the premises. But I have been told by licensing practitioners about minor adjustments to kitchen equipment locations and serving hatches that have resulted in an insistence by the licensing department of a full-scale

variation application.

A strict interpretation of the Act leads them to say that the required plan of the premises forms part of the operating schedule, so any change in layout is a variation. But the whole object of the variation provisions was to prevent one type of premises from changing into another without the safeguard of an opportunity for representations.

But now, improvements to the physical condition of the property, which would have undergone the careful and knowledgeable scrutiny of the bench, have to be trailed out

for possible objection by the public, to suit a political agenda. So this initiative may well fail and the licensed trade lose another battle.