No late licence complaints, says court
Local authorities are not able to accept late complaints from local residents on premises licences, a judgement in the Court of Appeal confirmed last week.
The binding ruling involved London's Albert Hall, which applied for a variation of its licence in May 2009, to allow boxing tournaments. Originally there were no residents' objections during the legal 28-day consultation period, meaning the licence could be granted without a hearing.
However, some local residents sought a judicial review on the granting of the licence complaining that Westminster City Council failed to properly notify them of the proposed changes.
In 2010, the residents won a High Court order to end licensing approval for the sport at the venue. The knock-on effect was that some local authorities began to allow
late complaints against premises licences, outside the 28-day period.
However, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton dismissed the complaints, saying that residents couldn't overturn the 28-day deadline.
Binding ruling
The Publican's Morning Advertiser legal editor Peter Coulson said: "Some local authorities have allowed late representations.
"But this ruling is confirmation from the highest level that they will not be able to do this. The judge reversed the decision of the High Court and said 'no' the licence should not be quashed.
"There have been some cases where councils have accepted late objections so this is important.
"The decision means that the idea of late representations being allowed has been finally rejected, and that residents must keep their eyes open for applications properly made in their own neighbourhood, and not rely on other people informing them about it. This is an important confirmation. It is a binding ruling."
End of debate
The British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA) said it had been concerned about the ruling in the case and the effect it could have had on the licensed trade.
A spokesman for the BBPA said: "The impact of a ruling against licensees on this issue would have been significant and damaging — we are therefore very pleased with the judgment.
"Optimistically, we hope this is the end of the debate over the issue of late objections and removes one more potential burden from publicans."
