Residential objections
The recent decision by the Birmingham licensing authority that objections from local residents to the opening hours of a JD Wetherspoon pub were not 'relevant representations is a very interesting one.
The new Licensing Act defines an 'interested party as a person living in the vicinity of the premises in question. Of course, using a word like that is bound to provoke tremendous debate about what it actually means, especially among lawyers. After all, it is not a word in general use in pub conversations, is it?
The guidance notes from the DCMS (Department for Cul-ture, Media & Sport), while issuing its usual caution that it is ultimately for the courts to decide, tries to be helpful. In deciding whether the objections from local residents can be relevant representations, says the guidance, licensing authorities should consider whether the individual's residence is likely to be directly affected by disorder or disturbance 'occurring on those premises or immediately outside those premises.
That is quite a telling definition and it could have a considerable impact on other objections being made round the country, although of course the Birmingham decision is not binding on anyone and each licensing authority will come to its own conclusions.
If people live in a tower block two streets away from the applicant premises, they are going to be hard pressed to say that they are likely to be directly affected by those longer hours. Of course, there may be a more general disturbance which spreads in a wider area, but on the question of making representations, they could be said to be outside the relevant area.
The licensing authority has got to look at the location and immediate surroundings of the applicant's premises and decide whether, on balance, the objectors are close enough or affected enough. If there is a considerable number of other business premises nearby, they may decide that there is no immediate impact by virtue of the pub's activities.
It should be noted that the decision on whether to entertain the objections comes first. The licensing authority, or probably its sub-committee of three which is hearing the contested application, will have to decide whether, on the 'vicinity question, this is indeed a relevant representation. If it is not, then they cannot hear the points being made.
The problem comes in a secondary decision concerning residents' associations. They, too, are allowed to object on behalf of persons living in the area, but their coverage is likely to be wider than one street. Although it may be that one block of flats has its own association. If they cover a far wider area than the 'vicinity, will the sub-committee examine general observations about the district, or only those that are closer to a licensed premises?
This is why I am disturbed by reports that some police forces and even local authorities are sending letters to specific residents in an area concerning their right to object.
Apart from the fact that I do not think it is proper to canvass for representations (always assuming that this is what is actually happening), it may be that in encouraging certain residents to object, the canvassing may stir up any number of inappropriate or irrelevant letters to the licensing authority, which then has to use extra time and money to sort them out.
If someone is directly affected, well and good. But an objection in principle, based purely on newspaper hype and binge-drinking hysteria, should not form the basis of a licensing authority's decision on any premises, wherever they are located.
