Q: I have been reading with some concern about the closing of so many pubs over the last few years, and wonder if there is anything that Local Authorities can do to redress the balance?
A: You would like to think that bearing in mind pubs have been closing more so in some areas and there are a number of vacant units in towns and cities, that the answer would be an unequivocal “yes”.
However, the situation is more complicated.
I do not believe in my experience that many local authorities have truly grasped the importance and relevance of the hospitality industry to the late night economy, the daytime economy and its social and wellbeing benefits.
This is coupled with a licensing system in many parts of central London that specifically in the licensing policy identifies areas where new businesses are not welcome - “Cumulative Impact or Saturation Zones”.
There is therefore a distinct disconnect between elements of some local authorities whose job is to encourage business to the area for economic and employment benefits and the licensing policy.
I have been involved in several licensing applications recently where we have unashamedly submitted information and statistics about pub closures in that particular local authority area.
One of these specifically included information about a site that had historically traded as a pub for more than 200 years and, due to economic forces under a previous operator, had closed.
While the local authority was prepared to grant this it did impose some unhelpful conditions on trading.
It is frustrating that rather than accept there are almost certainly less pubs now than when the policy came into force that the local authority is reluctant to trust a proven operator with a less restrictive operation, and to maximise the potential of its business.
Too often licensing officers in Saturation Zone areas, occasionally the environmental health and local residents are, in my view, far too conservative in relation to new pub businesses.
There is a lot of evidence to show well run pubs contribute to the local economy and can even push prices up (I was interested to hear on the news that living next to a pub is the most significant factor in choosing a property for people), but there is still something of an uphill struggle.
I accept late night bars with entertainment and nightclubs do not always bring these benefits, and can indeed cause considerable disturbance if they are not operated to a high standard but a well-run pub rarely does.
As we have gone through COVID and various economic crises and pressures, including those following the recent budget, it would be, frankly, refreshing to see a local authority perhaps put into its policy that it strongly supports a well-run pub and appreciates the investment and the benefits it could bring to its area.
I cannot recall seeing this although some policies do have general comments about new business benefits.
The legal position is not helped by the fact that the licensing objectives, which the local authority is under a duty to promote, are all about the prevention of things or the promotion of the prevention of things rather than actually creating anything good.
As I have made the point several times, the only quiet pub is a closed pub.
Pubs also face restrictions on areas of business that non-licensed operators do not, for example time of deliveries, refuse collection, and potential noise of people outside leaving or entering.
But the greater the number of restrictions, the harder it is to operate, particularly when there is pressure on pricing and employment of staff.
I would therefore wish to answer the question more positively, but I live in hope that soon there will be a change towards the realisation and the acceptance of the significance of pubs to areas of this country.
- James Anderson is a partner at Poppleston Allen
