Letting the people have their say....

by Niall McCann

For most bar owners and restaurateurs the process of either applying for or varying a premises licence is at best a chore and at worst a minefield. I am often asked why it is that notices of applications not only have to be displayed on site, but also in a local paper. ‘Stakeholders’ (I apologise for using such a horrific word) such as local residents, the police and environmental health have to be consulted I explain, much to the client’s chagrin. What is even more annoying is when local residents object to applications, not because they are avid readers of the local press or because they have been snooping around the premises, but because the local council has actually informed them of the application by post!

Whilst this is not a legal requirement of the Licensing Act 2003 it is becoming a policy adopted by ever more councils. There has recently been a landmark case concerning an application to amend an error on the licence for the Royal Albert Hall to formally permit boxing and late night refreshment (the sale of hot food and/or hot beverages between 11.00 p.m. and 5.00 a.m.). Everyone knows that the Royal Albert Hall has been carrying out these activities for years and, on paper, it should have been a straightforward application. So what happened? Westminster Council sent out standard letters informing local residents of the application, but inextricably missed out a large block of flats. Cue out of time objections from that block of flats (128 of them!) which were rejected by the Council.

The application was subsequently granted. The local residents judicially reviewed the decision (how much money is there in SW7!?) and it was held that because there was a ‘reasonable expectation’ that letters would be sent to local residents all the time the Council’s procedural error was sufficient to be unlawful and the decision to vary the licence was quashed. Whilst interesting for nerdy licensing lawyers, to the lay person the whole case probably comes across as an expensive and time consuming farce, with the ultimate loser being the poor operator who will now have to make another application to rectify what was nothing more than a procedural mistake. Unfortunately I doubt that this will be the last case of its kind….