One year on from the amended guidance

licensing portrait1Andy Woods questions whether we are forgetting that the Licensing Act 2003 relies heavily on partnership.

In April 2012 the Home Office issued amended guidance under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and a number of changes were made to the guidance which had previously been issued. One of the points which did not change was the recognition by the Home Office that the promotion of the Licensing Objectives relies heavily on a partnership and it is interesting to look back over the last 12 months at recent developments. 

It seems to be clear that more review applications are being brought against licensed premises then previously. It is also very clear that in certain areas, reviews are brought frequently, whereas in other areas, it is rare to see a review application being brought before the licensing committee. I can think of two areas in which review applications will be considered on almost a weekly basis and other areas where this is not the case.

It would be wrong of me to debate individual cases in this article or to pass comment as to the rights and wrongs of each review application. I do feel, however, that we are all forgetting paragraph 11.1 of the amended guidance which stresses the fact that the promotion of the Licensing Objectives relies heavily on a partnership between licence holders, authorised persons, responsible authorities and other persons in pursuit of common aims.

It goes on to say: “Where authorised persons and responsible authorities have concerns about problems identified at premises, it is good practice for them to give licence holders early warning of their concerns and the need for improvement and where possible they should advise the licence or certificate holder of the steps they need to take to address those concerns.”

I do not think this is happening in some areas. I think decisions are being taken to take licensed premises to review without a proper partnership approach and without giving licence holders early warning of any concerns. If there is a spike in violence at premises then the premises licence holder should be given the opportunity to address that spike and if there is an increase in phone thefts at licensed premises, then similarly a premises licence holder should be given the opportunity to address those issues.

I have known cases for review being brought on the back of one failed test purchase, which seems to me to be completely against the partnership approach, but in trying to present a balanced article I have also known cases for review not being brought when the premises licence holder has had numerous opportunities to put matters right.

What we need to avoid is the “us and them” situation. Responsible authorities, licensing authorities and premises licence holders are all in it together. Everyone must seek to promote the Licensing Objectives but everybody should seek to do it in partnership and the best result is a reduction in crime and disorder without any review applications being brought at all.

Andy Woods is a partner at Woods Whur. He can be contacted on 0113 234 3055.