Licensing@aol.com ...
Hotel drinking dilemma
Q The local council is taking the view that hotel residents and guests cannot continue to drink alcohol as they do under the Licensing Act 1964. Is this not an embedded condition on conversion or should the hotel have made mention on the application for 24 hours to gain this?
A All this talk of embedded conditions has led many people astray! The intention of the transitional provisions was, effectively, 'you have what you hold' and so the two-part application was devised in order to allow this to be done.
Put simply, when you get to the end of Part A of the form, the council must grant the straight conversion before moving on to consider any variation of the licence under the new Act. If the Part A application is valid, the council is obliged to grant the terms and conditions which the applicant has at the present time.
The right of residents in a hotel to purchase and consume alcohol at any time - and the right of the licence holder to sell to them - is contained in the Licensing Act 1964. That right, which is not expressed as a condition on the licence but passes by virtue of the existing provisions, is inherent in the converted licence. It is not a variation, and does not need to be applied for afresh.
It would have been prudent for all hotels and other residential premises to express this right on page 5 of the conversion form, in the limitations section, for the avoidance of doubt, but it was not legally necessary. My view is that this right is carried over, as do many others, so the new premises licence reflects what the old one covers now.
DPS in licensing limbo
QWe have been told that our licensing authority will not issue the premises licence until the person named as the designated premises supervisor (DPS) has received his personal licence and they have details and a number. I did not think this was a requirement of the form. Can they do this?
AI think it is very unfair, given the choice that many councils made to process premises licences first and leave the personal licence until the very end. I also cannot see any legal basis for this decision.
The requirement on the application is for the applicant to give the details of the person who they wish to have named as the DPS.
It should be noted that the application asks you to give the personal licence number 'if known', which clearly indicates that there may be circumstances in which the application may be made before the DPS has actually received his or her personal licence.
The actual legal requirement is for the DPS to be in possession of a personal licence from the second appointed day and thereafter. There is no legal requirement for such a licence to be held in advance of that time, but clearly no sales of alcohol may take place at the relevant premises if the licence has not been granted by 24 November.
However, failure to issue the licence without the number could be prejudicial to the holder of the premises licence, who may be in a position immediately to apply under the emergency interim provisions to keep the premises open.
That is perfectly permissible under the new law, but the applicant clearly needs the premises licence to be issued in order to take this step.
I do hope authorities reconsider this stance during the next week and at least allow premises licence holders the chance to continue to open for business.
