Minor variations should not present major challenges

The long-awaited proposals for minor variations to premises licences were published last week by the Department for Culture Media & Sport (DCMS).

They want responses by the end of the month, with a view to bringing the changes into effect by this October.

The measure itself is to be welcomed. To my knowledge, a number of pubs have had to go through the whole rigmarole of a full licence variation, including advertising in the local paper and issuing copies of the application to all responsible authorities, just to move a door or correct a minor blip because they made a mistake on the original application.

Some licensing officers, keen to work with the trade on ensuring things run smoothly, have already initiated their own informal minor variation procedure. But others have played it by the book, even though they may have overstepped the mark initially by including conditions on converted licences that should not have been there in the first place.

There does, however, seem to be a slight touch of "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" in the commentary and conclusions to the new consultation. The variation sought must be extremely minor, not involve the sale of alcohol and there is no appeal if the licensing officer thinks you have overstepped the mark.

Where he sets the mark is, of course, entirely up to him, in the first instance. The way the system works, there will not be a requirement for the issues to go before the licensing committee, particularly as the proposal is for a 10-day response period following the making of the application. Licensing committees do not normally meet that quickly, so the probable route is a quick ring-round to relevant responsible authorities (unless, as in Westminster, they are sitting across the room from you) and a decision taken by officers, based on their own criteria.

Once again, Government has resisted any sanction against local authorities if they fail to meet the deadline set. It suggests the trade can refer the issue to the Local Government Ombudsman or the new Local Better Regulation Units — hardly instant justice. However, it has said that if the applicant has to re-apply as a result, no further fee will be charged, which I suppose is a modest form of monetary penalty on the council.

It is, of course, the revised Guidance that will have an influence on how local authorities approach this issue, and once again a number of debatable points arise from the wording. While the Guidance states that a number of small changes to premises layout will have no impact on the licensing objectives, it suggests that any increase in drinking capacity should be referred to full variation. But many changes are made to make customers more comfortable by giving extra space — once again the vexed question of consumption not being a licensable activity, but being included in all considerations, comes to the fore.

The Guidance suggests that changed circumstances and certain reappraisals of original conditions could lead to a minor variation to remove them — it singles out fire conditions, now void, but also mentions embedded conditions, imposed as a result of a rather bizarre approach to the old Licensing Act rules adopted by many authorities. Perhaps it is time to point out that we run under the 2003 Licensing Act instead!

The moral seems to be to sound out your local licensing officer in advance if you are contemplating an alteration, so that you do not waste £73 on an application that has no chance of success.