Licensing Law: Bog standards
Towards the end of last year I reported that an increasing number of Environmental Health Officers were asking applicants for new premises licences or variations to existing ones to agree an occupancy figure based on the number of toilets at the premises.
This trend has continued (especially in Westminster), with some applications proceeding to a licensing sub-committee hearing solely on the issue of toilet provision and the application of British Standard 6465 (BS 6465), which recommends minimum numbers of toilets. In the previous article I argued that occupancy conditions are generally unnecessary in order to uphold the licensing objectives. I will now explain why I think they are also unworkable and anti-competitive.
Conditions should only be placed on premises licences where they can be enforced. Some premises can adhere to strict occupancy levels. For example, a restaurant usually has a specific number of covers, and late-night venues generally have door supervisors who can 'click' patrons in and out. But what happens if a traditional, wet-led pub has an artificially low restriction on numbers? Are barstaff expected to ask customers to leave even though there are seats available and, in the view of a reasonable person, the premises is not full? To enforce such a condition would leave regulars furious and new customers baffled. Also, if you eject patrons once they are already in the premises the occupancy condition has already been breached.
Regardless of what business you are in, it is important to have a level playing field. Before a recent hearing of an application in respect of which Environmental Health was seeking a restrictive occupancy figure, I asked my client to conduct a survey of nearby licensed premises and compare the number of seats with the toilet provision. Despite the fact that the premises in question could either have many more people in them than the number of seats, or had no specified capacity limit, out of six premises surveyed, only one complied with BS 6465, and none had a disabled toilet. How are new ventures to survive if they have to operate with one arm tied behind their back?
While most people will recognise that adequate toilet provision is essential in order to prevent public nuisance being caused by people urinating in the streets, the rigid application of BS 6465 is, in my view, deeply flawed. It fails to take into account the style of the premises, and the way in which it is managed.
It is a classic example of a 'policy' being adopted with the best intentions at heart but without the foresight to predict the practical consequences. We wait to see for how long such 'policies' will remain, before a commonsense approach prevails and every application is, as intended, judged on its merits.
