Pub landlords should not fear removal of 'vicinity' test from Licensing Act

22-Apr-2012 - Last updated on 12-Mar-2017 at 00:03 GMT

Related tags Licensing objectives License

Computer says no: an avalanche of objections from far and wide is unlikely, even if the vicinity test is removed

It’s ironic that in the Government’s so-called desire to empower local communities it is about to remove the ‘vicinity’ test, in theory allowing anyone around the country to object to a licence application. Fears have been voiced that this will open the floodgates to routine objections by single-interest groups, holding up otherwise perfectly reasonable applications and adding unnecessary cost to operators’ plans.

But if a pub in Devon makes an application to extend its hours, how real is the threat that a business or temperance society in Carlisle will make a valid objection? The Licensing Act has always permitted local competitors — and indeed local charities, churches and medical practices — to object to licence applications, provided the objection is about the likely effect of the grant of the application on one of the four licensing objectives and is neither frivolous nor vexatious.

But the examples of new pubs and clubs facing successful objections from existing operators are relatively few and far between. Why?
Firstly, those rival businesses that do object to applications often struggle to formulate an objection that doesn’t sound like so many sour grapes — unless they have an excellent reputation themselves the licensing authority is likely to view their objection with a level of cynicism; the so-called ‘trade objection’.

Secondly, anyone involved in the licensed trade will know how tough it is to run a pub these days, and there is often a certain camaraderie between licensees that militates against objecting to a competitor’s application out of sheer spite.

Not always, I hasten to acknowledge, but often — thankfully there still exists a sense of British fair play in the on-trade. But more than this, existing operators will watch a speculative application — perhaps for additional hours in a cumulative impact area, or, heaven forbid, a wholly new premises — with a keen eye on their own business prospects.

If your competitor’s application for a 1am licence is successful, and you run a similar operation, why shouldn’t yours be? Why not let him dip his toes in the licensing waters first, and see what level of opposition he receives from residents, the police, and the environmental health officer?

As licensing hearings are public you can even attend and gain valuable intelligence for your own application. You can, in fact, be fair and canny at the same time.

I don’t think the removal of the vicinity test is going to change this very much — if your local competition doesn’t object it is unlikely that more distant operators will. But, of course, national temperance societies, religious groups and other organisations have different agendas and may not want to play by the same rules as fellow licensees. What protection do you have against their objections?
Despite the Government’s advice that in borderline cases the benefit of the doubt should be given to the objector, licensing officers will continue to be able to reject objections if they are frivolous, vexatious, or not relevant to the licensing objectives. Note the word ‘licensing’ — this isn’t just about crime or noise nuisance generally, but the effect of licensable activities on levels of crime or noise. This is an important distinction.
I have seen a review of a licence kicked out because the ‘crime’ alleged was nothing to do with the licensable activity of selling alcohol — the licensee was just unlucky enough to have a husband and wife beat seven bells out of each other and choose his pub to do it in. Relevance to the licensing objectives is an important protection against blanket objections — it requires the objector to show some causal connection between the sale of alcohol or the provision of regulated entertainment at that premises and one of those licensing objectives.
If a temperance society from hundreds of miles away writes a letter stating that alcohol kills, wrecks lives, and ruins childhoods how is that relevant to your well-run, food-led family pub?

In all likelihood you’re doing the complete opposite. I can see such a letter being rejected by the licensing authority not only because it is irrelevant to your application, but also because it is vexatious — it is designed solely to cause you problems with your application.

In theory, the removal of the vicinity test could precipitate an avalanche of ‘computer says no’ objections from far and wide.
But licensing at its heart is about people, and local people at that. If you keep them on your side, you have little to fear from some faceless lobbying group.