Memorandum by Andrew Fisher, Group Manager—Licensing,
Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (RL 13)
Please find below a brief summary of some of
the issues which have arisen during the course of our work to
implement the Licensing Act 2003 in Bolton.
The comments are those of officers involved
in the management of the licensing function in the town.
PERSONAL LICENCES
No date of birth is required on the form making
vetting by the police impossible.
The identity of the person who endorses the
photograph of an applicant is unknown, they could not be identified
if needed and there is no declaration as to it being a true likeness.
PREMISES LICENCES
It has been difficult to include the name of
the DPS on licences because of the timescales built into the processes
(two months for premises but three for personal licences).
The home address of the DPS is sometimes not
given on the premises licence application.
This has meant that, where the DPS has not been
specified because the person who will fulfil that role has not
yet been issued with a personal licence, the Child Protection
Unit is unaware of who will be in day to day control (also see
"vetting" comment above).
This Council took issue with the lack of detail
in advertisements which stated that the application was for longer
hours without stating the proposed opening hours. LACORS and our
lawyers advised that we could not insist on the opening hours
being included. This seemed to completely frustrate the objective
of advertising. We understand that revised guidance has now been
issued.
We have received an application from a market
stall. The Act obliges us to charge a fee for the which relates
to the whole of the market complex.
Operating Schedules—we have found that
very little detail has been included by applicants.
Transferring embedded restrictions has made
the process very time consuming. We have adopted a wholesale transfer
approach with and added a "where applicable" proviso.
Building Control officers have expressed concern
that the lack of programmed inspection by their officers will
lead to reduced public safety.
Applicants do not need to have an interest in
the property. We have had more than one application for the same
property and have been threatened with an injunction to prevent
a premises licence being issued.
The (predictable) last minute rush has put licensing
authorities and all the responsible authorities under immense
pressure and has most certainly meant that some applications have
not been considered as carefully as they should have been.
The timescales with respect to hearings have
been difficult to adhere to during the "peak" period
for hearings, particularly where an error has occurred.
The very late release of forms and regulations
created difficulties for licensing authorities and delayed the
implementation of, and training on, essential software systems
and delayed the issuing of application packs.
Trading standards were added to the list of
responsible authorities.
Licensing policy statements were required to
be published before the regulations were published.
The published guidance from the DCMS was significantly
different from the draft guidance and the changes were not highlighted.
There was no clear guidance for responsible
authorities to assist them in making informed judgements.
The size and prominence (or rather the lack
of it) has been the subject of repeated criticism from the public.
BOTH
Was it necessary to require all existing pubs
and their landlords to make application to convert their existing
permission when it was all but automatic?
CLUBS
It has often been difficult to verify what type
of entertainment permissions clubs could "convert" where
they did not hold a public entertainment licence.
| 
