Memorandum by The Association of Licensed
Multiple Retailers (ALMR) (RL 11)
The Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers
(ALMR) is the trade body of the licensed retail sector—principally
pub, bar, club and restaurant operators. Currently, just under
100 companies are in membership, between them operating over 30,000
outlets—around half the UK pub and bar estate. Members include
major pub companies such as Punch and Enterprise—whose pubs
are operated as individual small businesses—national chains
of managed operators such as Yates's, Regent Inns and Laurel and
the retail estate of regional brewers. However, the bulk of our
membership is derived from small independent companies operating
50 outlets or less under their own branding.
You will understand the short timeframe available
for this consultation has limited the extent to which we are able
to fully survey our members. Therefore this response is limited
in depth and scope. However, I submit a brief synopsis of the
information we currently have available and my organisation would
be more than happy to appear before the Committee in future in
order to expand on the key points contained within our submission.
My organisation has been involved closely with
Government in the drafting and subsequent implementation of the
2003 Act. We have made extensive efforts to ensure that the pub
sector was prepared fully for the introduction of the Act and
in fact 100% of ALMR members submitted licence applications before
6 August deadline. However, there were a range of failings in
the introduction of the Act. I highlight the main areas of concern
below in addition to a number of suggested reforms to ease the
flow of future applications through the licensing process.
— the short timescale between regulations
being published and commencement of the transition period led,
in our opinion, to a lack of clear understanding of the application
of law by some licensing authorities and their legal officers;
— we believe that not all authorities
have appreciated the quasi-judicial nature of their new functions.
As such they are applying locally developed policies which are
out of step with national guidelines;
— the absence of a slip rule, which
would otherwise allow local authorities to correct minor errors
in applications rather than the wholesale rejection of applications
thus incurring additional costs in time and money for applicants
and local authorities;
— over regulation on the floorplans
required to be submitted to licensing authorities was a cause
of contention nationwide. Many applicants which had plans available
found these rejected for being of the wrong scale. This led to
massive costs in having new plans drawn up and, as the deadline
of 6 August approached, left many concerned that applications
thus rejected would not be resubmitted in time. This issue hit
small operators disproportionately;
— making the date on which annual fees
are due one year on from the granting of an application, thus
reducing the incentive for early applications and generally leading
to the majority of applications falling near to 6 August deadline;
— limited clear national guidelines
on the scope of advertising required by all applicants in the
local press. A number of organisations have found that adverts
deemed suitable by one local authority are not deemed so by a
neighbouring one. In some cases this has lead to additional expense
as adverts already drafted and submitted to the local press are
rejected by the relevant licensing authority. We have also found
that in some areas the capacity of the local press to carry adverts
is exceeded by demand from local licensees. In these cases applicants
are unable to meet their statutory duty to advertise through no
fault of their own.
We note that some local authorities have chosen
to raise the issue of applications with all residents within a
local radius of applications for variations of an existing licence.
Whilst we welcome this effort to include residents by local authorities
but suggest that in such cases licensees and licensing authorities
might come to an arrangement over the necessity of taking out
adverts in the local press.
— anecdotal evidence that some local
authorities are initiating objections from responsible authorities
in the absence of residential objections in order to force a full
hearing before a licensing committee;
— lack of guidance on completing application
forms lead to a number of various means by which forms might be
completed and as such caused confusion. Authorities interpreted
applications in different ways and therefore chains operating
across local authority boundaries often found no standard company
format might be adopted. The complexity, length and requirement
to submit forms to eight separate authorities was, in our opinion,
partially responsible for a number of smaller operators delaying;
— asking for variation and conversion
as a dual system overburdened all parties, who were trying to
second-guess others in the industry and therefore felt pressure
to apply. Conversions could have had six months to go through
and then variations could have been applied for thereafter;
— licensing authorities should adopt
a mediation function in advance of hearing future applications
and objections before a full licensing committee. In addition
to preserving local harmony such a policy will enable licensing
authorities to minimise the cost burden on the local community.
In fact residents' reps were generally not sent through to applicants
until a Notice of Hearing was sent. This only gave 10 days to
try to contact residents & have an opportunity to negotiate;
and
— the review of the Act must include
a review of the manner in which disparate authorities are interpreting
the Section 182 Guidance.
|
