DCMS stalls on TENs reform

By Peter Coulson

- Last updated on GMT

Related tags License Dcms

Coulson: unimpressed with TENs progress
Coulson: unimpressed with TENs progress
The Department for Culture Media & Sport looks like it could be failing the industry again on Temporary Event Notices, says Peter Coulson.

Back in January I wrote about the Department for Culture Media & Sport (DCMS) proposal to free up the temporary event notice (TEN) regime slightly, in order to deal with postponed events and unexpected changes, says Peter Coulson.

The rigid 10-working-day notice period had caused a number of problems for organisers, who had notified the licensing authority about a Saturday occasion, only for it to be postponed because of bad weather or other factors. But they could not run it the following Saturday, even though the police had no objection, because the licensing authority stuck rigidly to the notice period.

Very recently, a TEN for Birmingham City FC suffered the same fate when their match with Liverpool was rearranged at short notice. Birmingham Council, quite properly, refused to budge on the notice period, saying it was a statutory requirement. But the event itself had been notified to them and the police were quite happy. No-one would suffer if the date on the notice was changed to a week later.

It has to be remembered that a TEN is a notice, not an application (even though numerous authorities list it under "licences" on their websites). The only way in which a TEN can be refused is if it breaches the maximum numbers limitations or is an overlapping event, or if the police object on crime and disorder grounds, which is extremely rare. If neither of these apply, the local authority has no discretion and no power to hold a hearing. It must sign off the notice and return it to the operator.

But apparently there were 10, yes 10, objections to the DCMS proposal that the notice period should be shortened in certain circumstances, as long as the police signified that it was OK by them.

So in the case of a postponement, you could ring up the local police licensing officer, tell him what happened and he could send an authorisation to the council to allow the shorter notice.

Remember that there is no power for objection from neighbours or the responsible authorities. The Act provides only for this limited police objection, and the statistics show that this is quite rare. But TENs have not so far caused any problems and are a boon to the licensed trade where a special one-off event is concerned.

Objections

I confess I am staggered by the fact that the DCMS has bottled out on this occasion. Here was a much-needed reform, which on any analysis would not have created major administrative or social problems. Yet just 10 objections can cause Tinkerman Gerry so much hassle that he pulls the Order. It fair makes your blood boil!

One of the objections, presumably from a local authority although so far we do not have the List of Shame, was that this proposal would mean that "licensing authorities were not in charge of the process".

What's this? Licensing authorities are not in charge of the TENs procedure anyway. They follow a strict set of tests laid down in the Act and that is all.

They have to wait for police "consent" already, based on silence from the boys in blue in the first two days. Is there some sort of power struggle going on for control of licensing issues? Surely the DCMS did not take that seriously?

I have looked at all the objections and, quite honestly, have an answer to all of them. In the old days, you could turn up at the magistrates' court and get an extension (if you were a licensee) within 24 hours of giving notice to the police.

Yet now, you have to wait two weeks for the same permission. That is progress, is it? Give me strength!

Related topics Legislation

Property of the week

Follow us

Pub Trade Guides

View more