Coast's clear for pub alterations

While all the hullabaloo over transition takes place elsewhere, the justices are still regularly holding their own licensing sessions, where they patiently listen to transfer applications and the like. Life goes on, even when you are the captain of a sinking ship­

But one interesting point arose at a sessions I attended recently. The Licensing Act 1964 still operates in most respects to control what licensees can and cannot do. So an application was heard for consent to alterations to existing licensed premises under section 20 of the 1964 Act.

During the course of questioning, it became fairly clear that the alteration would not be finished before the current due date of the second appointed day. Was that relevant to the application, asked the chairman of the bench?

Not really. Consent to alterations, as such, is not carried over into the new law, but the requirement to ask for prior consent is still on the statute book. There is no actual requirement for the justices to "check" the finished work, so the fact that they may no longer exist when the final nail is hammered home is irrelevant.

The task for the applicant, of course, is to ensure that both the old and new regimes are properly followed. It transpired that an application for a premises licence had not yet been lodged, so I assume that the beautiful (and expensive) plans that the young barrister produced will serve for the local licensing authority (who were represented in court anyway). It would be foolish to duplicate, although the great swathes of colour will no longer be required.

This is a clean break situation for most people. The plans that you are going to put in with your premises licence conversion application are simply the plans of the premises as they are now. Forget about the past, even if consent has not been properly obtained. No-one is going to check.

However, the new regime involves any number of responsible authorities who may chip in about the structure of the premises, if they are altered after the second appointed day. What is not made entirely clear is whether a small alteration to the bar will require a full-scale variation application costing hundreds of pounds, advertising and the like, as opposed to the modest fee of £16 which it now costs for the justices' consent.

They didn't put that in the White Paper, did they?