One significant point that has been thrown up during our research into online applications has been the inconsistency of approach of local licensing authorities.
We were promised, if you remember, that the new licensing regime which was introduced just five years ago would iron out the inconsistencies which people complained of with the licensing justices: that licence applications would be dealt with in exactly the same way from Cumbria to Cornwall, that you could more or less put in the same application with similar conditions anywhere and it would be acceptable.
It ain't necessarily so…
In support of this original theory propounded by the Home Office and subsequently supported by the same people at the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS), they pointed to the statutory Guidance issued under the Licensing Act. This would, it was claimed, ensure similar approaches were taken to the variety of applications, because it would give the necessary guidance to licensing officers and their committees.
When it first arrived, that Guidance was fairly roundly condemned as being not fit for this purpose. It gave such ambiguous and indecisive suggestions that it was unclear what local authorities were to do. They had to take into account this and that consideration, and at the end of the day it was for the courts to decide. Given that the Guidance was said to have "persuasive authority", being a creature of statute, it was a crying shame that so much of it was couched in such indecisive language.
Practicalities
But it is mainly in the practicalities of administration that one comes up against problems. Local authorities do things their own way, and it often comes down to priorities and personalities. Several councils did not actually want licensing anyway, and they devoted little or no time or money to its servicing. This is why, in truth, there was such a terrible delay in issuing transitional premises licences in some areas — up to three years in rare cases. When the licences did arrive, they were often full of rambling quotes from the "old" law, thanks to a zany decision that you had to import all the 1964 Act provisions into all new licences. That legacy still remains, in most cases, unenforced.
But in trawling round the country, you still find the full spectrum of results. It has no regional pattern; nor do cities fare better than rural councils. Some of the largest cities have a licensing regime of strictness and control not at all provided by the Act.
One major north-east city has a requirement on its website that a personal licence holder must be present at all times to authorise the sales of alcohol — in spite of a DCMS direction to the contrary. Westminster Council (where else?) says a temporary event notice is an "application", should be accompanied by a police risk-assessment form (not a requirement) and speaks of a "failed application", in spite of the fact it is clearly the issuing of a notice which the council cannot refuse except on technical grounds. The police can object only if there are crime and disorder issues, which appear to affect only a handful of events.
These are only examples. There are hundreds more. Licensing practitioners know well that they have to take a different approach with different councils, depending on their track record. True, it was ever the case with chairmen of licensing justices, but that was what this new scheme was meant to remove!
I am convinced that where you have local democracy and local policy statements you will get inconsistency. The idea of a similar approach all over the country was always just a pipe dream.