FIRST-STAGE CONSULTATION
10. There were 108 responses to the first consultation.
Most respondents preferred the Government's recommended option,
but the ED points out that a significant (35%) minority—including
all residents associations—preferred the other options on
the basis that Option 1 could generate inconsistencies of practice.
Other concerns raised by consultees included the removal of the
right of residents and responsible authorities to object as part
of the application procedure, and the possibility of excessively
wide interpretations of what constitutes a minor variation.
11. On the other hand, consultees also mentioned
that the disproportionate expense of the current system in dealing
with insubstantial changes was causing short cuts to be taken.
Some physical alterations that should be the subject of approval
are not being reported at all. Furthermore, as observed in the
initial consultation document, a succession of small changes made
without approval might be minor in themselves, while cumulatively
having an impact on the licensing objectives.[10]
By contrast, the proposed guidance would expressly require licensing
officers to consider the effect of cumulative changes.[11]
In other current cases, changes are dealt with by means of informal
letter arrangements with local authorities or by incorrect use
of the low-cost procedure that applies when a premises licence
is lost.[12]
12. We believe that the extensive guidance should
largely be able to deal with inconsistencies in practice—particularly
as, unlike primary legislation, it can be updated regularly in
the light of practice and experience. The proposed guidance addresses
the issues of how to decide on applications for extensions of
licensing hours and for addition of new licensing activities,
which were two further matters that concerned consultees. We
recommend that the guidance be regularly reviewed to ensure that
licensing officers receive the appropriate steer, in order to
provide proper protection against misuse of the new procedure.
We asked specifically about the matter of sex encounter establishments
and we note that the Government intends to bring forward new legislation
dealing with that area.[13]
13. There is clearly a case for not involving every
responsible authority in every application and for leaving the
decision on whom to involve to licensing officers, provided that
licensing officers are properly equipped to make that decision.
In any event, as mentioned above, premises and club licences are
always subject to review under section 51 of the 2003 Act. The
significance of that is that there will remain a procedure by
which both responsible authorities and also local residents and
communities can challenge a licensing officer's decision on a
minor variation application notwithstanding removal of the right
to make representations at the application stage and the scrapping
of automatic referral to the responsible authorities. It is important,
however, that that right be exercisable effectively and promptly.
The Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services has
observed that review processes can be extremely lengthy taking
into account the possibilities of appeal.[14]
We therefore encourage the DCMS regularly to review the ease
of use and degree of public awareness of the section 51 procedure.
14. It was clear from consultation responses that
many of the principal concerns about the application of the proposal
to extension of licensing hours related to the possible risks
associated with extending opportunities for drinking. We therefore
welcome the exclusions in relation to alcohol made as a result
of the first-stage consultation.
15. The estimates for the savings that are anticipated
from introducing the revised procedure are set out at length in
the ED.[15] The figures
were the subject of a certain amount of criticism, for instance
on the basis that they do not properly take into account the extra
costs that would result from wrongly handled applications. On
the other hand, certain consultees pointed out that the costs
of applying under the current system might if anything have been
understated. On balance, we agree that there is strong evidence
that the current application procedure represents a burden as
defined in section 1 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform
Act 2006.
SECOND-STAGE CONSULTATION
16. There were 83 responses to the second-stage consultation.
Two residents association consultees objected to the second stage
having taken place in what they regarded as the "dead days"
of August. We agree that, in a matter such as the present one,
which was of potential concern to communities rather than exclusively
to businesses, that timing was regrettable. However, it appears
not to have had a substantial effect on the number or quality
of responses.
17. The second-stage consultation asked about the
appropriate timescale for dealing with applications. Ten days
was proposed, but as a result of the second consultation the time
period was extended to 15 days. We agree that this is more realistic,
while still being substantially faster than the 28 day period
that applies to full applications.
18. We note that the proposed application form does
not expressly set out the licensing objectives. We recommend
that the licensing objectives be set out in the application form
so that applicants are clear about what they are.
19. In light of the above, we believe that the
proposals have been the subject of adequate consultation and that
the proposals have taken proper account of the consultation. We
also believe that the draft Order meets most of the tests imposed
by the Act referred to in paragraph 8, although there is a small
matter of appropriate protection which we will now consider.
10 See paragraph 3.8 of the initial consultation document Back
11
Paragraph 8.42 of the draft guidance Back
12
See Annex 1, at the response to question 6 Back
13
See Annex 1, at the response to question 5 Back
14
This observation was made in response to the consultation on the
draft Legislative Reform (Supervision of Alcohol Sales in Church
and Village Halls &c.) Order 2009 Back
15
See ED paragraphs 17 to 20. Back
