Partnership is still the key

Andy Woods looks at a couple of recent cases and reminds both the trade and the responsible authorities that the partnership approach remains the key ingredient for promoting the Licensing Objectives under the Licensing Act 2003.

In April 2012 the Home Office issued Amended Guidance under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 which made a number of changes to the initial Guidance issued when the Licensing Act came into force in November 2005.

The significant changes under the Guidance include health authorities becoming responsible authorities, the test to be applied changing from what is ‘necessary’, to what is ‘appropriate’ and licensing authorities themselves becoming responsible authorities. My colleague, Paddy Whur, is currently involved in a case in which a health authority has made a representation and I am sure that this will be referred to in forthcoming weeks. We will all no doubt look out for developments in respect of the Late Night Levy and EMROs.

Despite the various changes to the Guidance, the key word of ‘partnership’ which was the buzz word for the new Licensing Act remains an important principle in the new Guidance. Paragraph 11.11 states: "it is important to recognise that the promotion of the Licensing Objectives relies heavily on a partnership between licensed holders, authorised persons, responsible authorities and other persons in pursuit of common aims".

This sentence is equally important when making an application, as it is for responsible authorities considering whether or not to review any premises licence. Paragraph 11.11 continues "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". Good examples of the need for the partnership approach to be maintained both in terms of achieving an outcome satisfactory to all parties but also in terms of promoting the Licensing Objectives.

I have made two applications in the last two months for an extension of hours in areas which have been defined by the local authority as "cumulative impact zones" in which there is a presumption against the extension of any Licence. In both cases the responsible authorities were engaged at a very early stage by the premises licence holder and several meetings were held to discuss the nature of the application, the concerns of the responsible authorities and promoting the Licensing Objectives. In each case an agreement was reached with the responsible authorities which resulted in additional conditions being suggested by the premises licence holder to alleviate the concerns of the responsible authorities even in a cumulative impact zone.

I will not name the areas in which these applications were made, but I have to say that the approach of the responsible authorities was to be commended in that the application put forward proposed a style of operation which should be welcome in any local authority area. Just because there is a cumulative impact zone in place should not mean that new applications to extend licences should automatically be viewed as inappropriate, because ultimately all parties want to see good Operators trading good premises which provide excellent facilities for customers and which also provide the responsible authorities with fewer difficulties. In both cases the applications were granted by the local authorities who were clearly pleased to see a particular style of operation developing in their area.

The other recent case I have been involved in related to a potential review application being brought against premises. In this case there had not been any early warning given by the responsible authority to the premises licence holder about concerns and the decision taken to review the premises licence was brought without consultation or discussion. Although several requests for meetings did not achieve immediate results, I am pleased to say that eventually the responsible authority and the premises licence holder were able to discuss in detail potential concerns about the premises in question. An agreement was reached so as to alleviate the need for review proceedings to be issued.

I will look at this case in greater detail in later articles, but both this case and the other cases highlight the importance of partnership and the need for discussion between responsible authorities and premises licence holders. If a clear indication is given by the responsible authority as to problems relating to particular premises, then the premises licence holder has the opportunity to respond to those concerns or in some cases to challenge the concerns expressed. It does not benefit the Licensing Act or the objectives for any party not to engage in partnership and despite the changes set out in the amended Guidance the partnership remains the key ingredient to the Licensing Act 2003.

Andy Woods is a partner at Woods Whur. He can be contacted on 0113 234 3055 or by This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..