Licensing act changes: Shifting responsibility

Apart from the consultation document on early morning restrictions and the late night levy, published in January, there hasn’t been another word about procedure for implementing some of the other proposed changes that are involved.

Nor have we seen any draft so far for the inevitable changes which must be made to the statutory Guidance which the Secretary of State issues. That particular document is of great importance to the trade and to local authorities, as it sets out the parameters for the operation of many of the measures that are now being changed.

One of the key amendments is the making of the actual licensing authority a ‘responsible authority’ itself, meaning that it can start an objection to an application even if no-one else is objecting, and it can also order a review of a licence without waiting for one of the other responsible authorities — or a member of the public — to bring a problem to their attention.
The matter will then be decided by colleagues on the same licensing authority, which is where the licensed trade and their advisers cry ‘foul’. However, the Home Office does not think this is unfair and points to the Gambling Act as a precedent for a similar situation. It says that it will clarify the position in the Guidance, so presumably we will know how it thinks it should be handled before very long.

What puzzles many is how the licensing authority will initiate this process, and under what circumstances. It would have to have specific evidence of a breach of the licensing objectives to bring a review, and in terms of new applications, it cannot just take a blanket approach to raising objections, unless the premises are located in a cumulative impact area, where it can make the presumption of refusal.

The majority of licence reviews are commenced by one or other of the lead responsible authorities — the police or environmental health.

If criminal activity or a breach of licensing laws or conditions has occurred, this is likely to be known to them first. What is of concern in the future is if a particular councillor gets a bee in his bonnet about a specific pub and then seeks to have the licence reviewed by his authority. He can persuade his colleagues to back him and the hapless licensee can do nothing about it except defend himself at the hearing.

Of course, the grounds for objection must be valid, so it is down to the licensing officer (a council employee) to tell the councillors that they cannot go ahead. Not all licensing officers may have the courage or scope of knowledge to take this position. As a result, we could see a number of extra hearings for existing premises as the review tally mounts.
Even more debatable is the role of local health authorities as responsible authorities, even though the promotion of health is not a licensing objective. The Home Office thinks they can intervene if disorder, drunkenness and violence fill up the A&E department of the local hospital on Saturday nights.

But in individual cases? They would have to show that the particular premises was responsible for an affect on public safety generally. Even my devious mind finds that a stretch. Single premises with that sort of record would have been hauled in by the police before now.

All I can say is: watch this space. We need to see the Guidance as soon as possible.