Revised s. 182 guidance

Andy Woods looks at the revised guidance issued by the Home Office under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and in particular in relation to cumulative impact policies.

Further guidance has been issued by the Home Office under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 with the forward by the Minister of State Norman Baker MP. This reiterates the Government’s commitment to tackling the misuse of alcohol and stresses the importance of working together and reminds the reader of the new powers introduced by the Government for police and licensing authorities to close down problem premises. The guidance also refers to the new Mandatory Licensing Conditions.

The guidance confirms at paragraph 1.6 that if any licensing applications are made prior to the coming into force of the revised guidance then such applications must be processed in accordance with the guidance in force at the time when the application was made and it stresses that the revised guidance does not apply retrospectively. The guidance is described as a “key medium for promoting best practice” and stresses that “the police remain key enforcers of licensing law”. The guidance also reminds us at paragraph 1.9 that the guidance is binding on all licensing authorities who must “have regard to” the guidance but it reiterates that as long as licensing authorities have properly understood the guidance they may depart from it if they have good reason to do so and can provide full reasons.

The coming into force of three new statutory instruments requires revision to the guidance and the following revisions have been made: Chapter 7 relating to TEN forms which now require the user to state whether the premises proposed are to be used to provide relevant entertainment; Chapter 10 in connection with the changes to the Mandatory Conditions; and Chapter 16 to clarify aspects of the process by which licensing authorities introduce an Early Morning Restriction Order.

There are further minor revisions relating to the following; the use of health data; a reference to the Portman Group’s retailer alert bulletins which licensing authorities should consider as a condition if there is specific evidence of irresponsible naming or packaging or promotion of alcoholic drinks; a suggestion that licensing authorities may wish to consider whether conditions are appropriate to prevent the sale of new psycho active substances; clarification that it is offence to store counterfeit alcohol on licensed premises; clarification that cumulative impact policies can apply to any licensable activity including the sale of alcohol on and off the premises; and the powers available to licensing authorities to consider the staggering and zoning of closing times.

The latter point is dealt with in chapter 13 which also deals with cumulative impact policies. There are as ever a few interesting points in chapter 13. There is an acknowledgment that the problems generally occur as a result of large numbers of drinkers being concentrated in one area and that queuing in itself may lead to conflict disorder or anti-social behaviour. At paragraph 13.22 the guidance states that “variable licensing hours may facilitate the more gradual dispersal of customers from premises”. This raises an interesting question when considering that many large towns and cities will have cumulative impact policies that would argue that existing closing hours should not be changed. This does beg the question however as to whether it would be sensible and promoting the licensing objectives to change closing hours even in cumulative impact areas if the changing of those hours will facilitate a more gradual dispersal of customers from premises and from an area.

Paragraph 13.29 confirms that the affect of a special cumulative impact policy is to create a rebuttable presumption that applications which are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused or subject to certain limitations unless it can be demonstrated in the operating schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact.

Perhaps the most interesting section of the new guidance is paragraph 13.40 in which the Home Office states as follows: “the licensing authority may also wish to consider the use of alternative measures such as fixed closing times, staggered closing times and zoning within its area, providing such mechanisms are justified on the basis of the licensing objectives and are only presumptive….,”. If staggered closing times and zoning within an area are appropriate then how does this sit with a cumulative impact policy. A cumulative impact policy which is strenuously applied at all times will not allow for any new measures to be introduced such as staggered closing times and zoning and indeed it could be argued that a cumulative impact policy in which all or the majority of premises close at the same time does not promote the licensing objectives. The guidance is keen to stress of course that all licensing committees must have regard to the guidance and their policies but that each case should be decided on its individual merits. Finally there is a table setting out “recommended delegation of functions at page 123 of the guidance which local authorities may find helpful.

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

Further guidance has been issued by the Home Office under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 with the forward by the Minister of State Norman Baker MP. This reiterates the Government’s commitment to tackling the misuse of alcohol and stresses the importance of working together and reminds the reader of the new powers introduced by the Government for police and licensing authorities to close down problem premises. The guidance also refers to the new Mandatory Licensing Conditions.

The guidance confirms at paragraph 1.6 that if any licensing applications are made prior to the coming into force of the revised guidance then such applications must be processed in accordance with the guidance in force at the time when the application was made and it stresses that the revised guidance does not apply retrospectively. The guidance is described as a “key medium for promoting best practice” and stresses that “the police remain key enforcers of licensing law”. The guidance also reminds us at paragraph 1.9 that the guidance is binding on all licensing authorities who must “have regard to” the guidance but it reiterates that as long as licensing authorities have properly understood the guidance they may depart from it if they have good reason to do so and can provide full reasons.

The coming into force of three new statutory instruments requires revision to the guidance and the following revisions have been made: Chapter 7 relating to TEN forms which now require the user to state whether the premises proposed are to be used to provide relevant entertainment; Chapter 10 in connection with the changes to the Mandatory Conditions; and Chapter 16 to clarify aspects of the process by which licensing authorities introduce an Early Morning Restriction Order.

There are further minor revisions relating to the following; the use of health data; a reference to the Portman Group’s retailer alert bulletins which licensing authorities should consider as a condition if there is specific evidence of irresponsible naming or packaging or promotion of alcoholic drinks; a suggestion that licensing authorities may wish to consider whether conditions are appropriate to prevent the sale of new psycho active substances; clarification that it is offence to store counterfeit alcohol on licensed premises; clarification that cumulative impact policies can apply to any licensable activity including the sale of alcohol on and off the premises; and the powers available to licensing authorities to consider the staggering and zoning of closing times.

The latter point is dealt with in chapter 13 which also deals with cumulative impact policies. There are as ever a few interesting points in chapter 13. There is an acknowledgment that the problems generally occur as a result of large numbers of drinkers being concentrated in one area and that queuing in itself may lead to conflict disorder or anti-social behaviour. At paragraph 13.22 the guidance states that “variable licensing hours may facilitate the more gradual dispersal of customers from premises”. This raises an interesting question when considering that many large towns and cities will have cumulative impact policies that would argue that existing closing hours should not be changed. This does beg the question however as to whether it would be sensible and promoting the licensing objectives to change closing hours even in cumulative impact areas if the changing of those hours will facilitate a more gradual dispersal of customers from premises and from an area.

Paragraph 13.29 confirms that the affect of a special cumulative impact policy is to create a rebuttable presumption that applications which are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused or subject to certain limitations unless it can be demonstrated in the operating schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact.

Perhaps the most interesting section of the new guidance is paragraph 13.40 in which the Home Office states as follows: “the licensing authority may also wish to consider the use of alternative measures such as fixed closing times, staggered closing times and zoning within its area, providing such mechanisms are justified on the basis of the licensing objectives and are only presumptive….,”. If staggered closing times and zoning within an area are appropriate then how does this sit with a cumulative impact policy. A cumulative impact policy which is strenuously applied at all times will not allow for any new measures to be introduced such as staggered closing times and zoning and indeed it could be argued that a cumulative impact policy in which all or the majority of premises close at the same time does not promote the licensing objectives. The guidance is keen to stress of course that all licensing committees must have regard to the guidance and their policies but that each case should be decided on its individual merits. Finally there is a table setting out “recommended delegation of functions at page 123 of the guidance which local authorities may find helpful.

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