Local council chaos?

The recent actions of a number of local authorities across the country are causing concern within the pub trade. Michelle Perrett reports

Increased costs, politically-biased decisions and undue emphasis on residents' views are just some of the fears licensees have about local authorities taking control of licensing.

And while the government continues to reassure the pub industry that it has nothing to fear, the actions of some local authorities have only served to confirm its concerns. Last week, Middlesbrough Council revealed that it will be charging licensees up to £8,500 to fund local services such as street cleaning, rubbish collection and policing.

Licensees are furious about the move claiming they already pay taxes to cover these services. If the scheme is successful, however, it could be enforced nationwide.

In the same week, Camden Council announced that it will be launching a new more restrictive licensing policy which mirrors that of Westminster City Council. It will put a stop to late-night licences in the borough by introducing zoned areas with set terminal hours, as well as putting the onus on licensees to ensure adequate safety and public transport.

It follows Westminster City Council's decision to put a stop on all new late-night licences in its borough and restrict existing licences to 1am.

But licensees in Westminster haven't been happy with the restrictions. They have set up their own association so that they can challenge the council's decision.

Alexander Salussolia, chairman of the Westminster Licensees' Association, said: "We are concerned that we are seen as part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

"We believe that with the business rates our members pay, the existing services should be better. The council needs to do its fundamental duties in terms of street cleansing and policing."

Michael Nichols, chairman of Camden Inner London Licensees' Association, isn't happy about Camden's plan to mirror Westminster's policy because he thinks that each licence should be considered on its own merits.

Licensees fear councils would be able to lay down some quite Draconian conditions on premises licences if they took on licensing control and, although ministers have promised that there will be national guidelines, there has so far been no firm news on how wide-reaching these will be. It is also feared that local authorities will be able to levy additional charges - as Middlesbrough has already done - through planning laws not directly connected to the licensing system.

But the trade is continuing to fight its corner.

JD Wetherspoon chairman Tim Martin and Stuart Neame of Kent brewer Shepherd Neame, are fighting against the licensing proposals.

Although insiders indicate that it may be too late to oppose the plans, nearly two-thirds of licensees who responded to The Publican's Market Report 2002 aren't happy with the current proposals and don't want the bill to go ahead in its current form.

Stuart Neame is against the draft proposals because he believes the new licensing bill will mean increased costs and bureaucracy for licensees. He said: "Even if the licensing fee is set nationally, local councils have a lot of other ways of charging pubs."

And while the British Beer and Pub Association doesn't necessarily support plans to "kill the bill" it does believe fundamental changes need to be made before the bill is included in the Queen's Speech.

It, along with other key trade organisations, is currently in talks with the government about the finer details. The association is also concerned about what powers councils will have and has called for local authorities to recognise the contributions made by the pub trade to town centres.

Spokesman Mark Hastings said: "The trade has been willing to invest where other sectors haven't been, and it has been at the forefront of the economic regeneration of many city centres. It already pays large amounts of money for services."

But if insiders are to be believed, it is almost certain that licensing will move from magistrates to local authority control. If this happens, the trade can only hope that, at the same time, the government will bring in suitable checks to ensure that councils across the country work to the same guidelines.

What licensees think...​

The latest actions by local authorities have angered licensees who have had their say on thePublican.com.Comments posted last week include:

"Business rate charges are at best arbitrary and it has been said they are taxation without representation. But this move by Middlesbrough proves beyond any doubt that the last people in the world to have anything to do with licensing should be councils."Kevin O'Connor​

"Well surprise surprise, there are few bins in town centres any more, no public lavatories open and no public transport (taxis excluded) so what happens? People urinate on the pavement, litter gets thrown around and brawls happen as people get frustrated. Now with all that they have the audacity to charge me? For what, clearing my rubbish up?"Steven Noonan​

"Perhaps the resentment at these charges would not be so great if councils provided decent services. The UK's streets are the dirtiest in Europe."Jack Scherer​

"Why are pubs always the scapegoat? Councils already get a decent cut of what we earn, try taxing food outlets or cinemas, the wrappers from most of these can easily be identified, day or night."Colin Tyborczyk​

"This should be a warning to those who support the transfer of licensing to local authorities. This action shows that they will use any avenue or excuse to raise their income, even down to making businesses pay for the savings made by government departments. Because the police have shortages in manpower, due to cutbacks and budgets, we the businesses have to pay because they cannot meet their commitments."Ken Nason​

Take a look at those comments in full here.

Related articles:​

Pubs to be charged for council services (5 September 2002)

Camden Council's new licensing policy calls for zoning (5 September 2002)