Open All Hours – City Centre Communities Matter

There is continuing anger and alarm at the Government's proposals for licensing reform (see Alert, No.2, 2000). The likely adverse effects on the quality of life for city-centre residents and visitors were discussed at a conference held in London recently. In particular, concern was expressed at the injustice entrenched in the White Paper which virtually gives the entertainment industry a free hand whilst tying the hands of local residents.

In his introduction Matthew Bennett, the organiser of the conference and a Soho restaurateur, highlighted the problem:

"The recent growth in the leisure, food and drink industry in relation to the night time economy is clearly popular with some people, especially the young. However, many of those who live in the central core are finding that a number of adverse impacts, late night noise, litter, street fouling, drunkenness, drug dealing and crime and disorder have been unpleasant side effects."

The former Secretary of State for Health Frank Dobson, MP, whose Holborn and St Pancras constituency includes Soho, where there are more licensed premises than in all central Paris and Frankfurt combined, sent a message of support to the conference echoing Mr Bennett' comments: "It seems clear to me that late night opening of any but the most respectable and quiet premises encourages drug pushing and drug taking if only it leads to the presence of larger numbers of young people on the streets." He went on to say that he and Karen Buck, the MP for Regent's Park and North Kensington had had a meeting with Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, to call for what amounts to the opposite of the Government's own proposals – "tougher licensing laws to help make central London safer and more pleasant at night."

The two backbenchers pointed out that most "of the problems come from alcohol which contributes to 40 per cent of violent crime, 80 per cent of assaults, and 90 per cent of criminal damage." They told the Home Secretary that, whilst they welcomed the proposal to bring together under local councils the licensing of both alcohol and entertainment, they believed that this should be taken as an opportunity to crack down on loutish and dangerous behaviour. Jack Straw accepted the MPs' contention that the proposed powers of the police to close immediately for twenty four hours "any licensed premises from whence (sic) disorder spills out on to the streets" should be extended to cover serious nuisance as well.

Frank Dobson put forward the view that councils "as licensing authorities should be able to reject alcohol and entertainment applications on the grounds that a particular street or locality is 'saturated' with similar users. Councils could be expected to formulate licensing policies, as they had to do with planning policies, and then apply those policies to every licence application." Mr Dobson stated that the Home Secretary was sympathetic to this idea. If this means that it will find its way into law then it marks a significant departure from the proposals as set out in the licensing White Paper, where it is assumed that every individual application must be treated on its merit with a presupposition of a favourable reception irrespective of the number of other outlets in the relevant area. licensing policies.

The answer hangs on the interpretation of the word "sympathetic" which could simply mean, "I understand your concerns and even share some of them but have no intention of doing anything about them".

Rather than clear up this important issue, the video message sent to the conference by the Home Office minister with responsibility for licensing, Mike O'Brien, confuses it further. He says, "We envisage that, under the White Paper proposals, each local authority would develop an overall licensing policy for its area, providing a framework within which decisions on individual premises could be assessed." The licensing authority would then consider any application taking into account the views of interested parties – including local residents, although, according to the White Paper, the burden of proof of potential nuisance or disorder would lie with the objector. Mr O'Brien goes on to outline a number of considerations which should "help the licensing authority to develop a local policy framework, within which individual licensing decisions can be made: a framework which fits with its planning and other responsibilities, and which takes account of the wishes and needs of business, local residents, visitors, the police and other interested parties"

Mr O'Brien thinks "that this approach should give residents' associations and civic and amenity groups some reassurance that local authorities will frame licensing policies which look after their interests". If such a policy were comparable to planning policies, the fears of many of those with misgivings about the proposed licensing changes might be allayed, but the minister goes on to indicate that the system as laid out in the White Paper remains in his mind: "I do, however, need to make the point that these policies also need to have some flexibility, and that licensing authorities will need to consider all licence applications on their individual merits. The policies should be an aid to consideration, not a substitute for consideration." In other words, there will be no such thing as a licensing "policy", in the strict sense of the word as used in local government, merely a set of guidelines, and any suspicion that the same criteria are being applied to all applications will be grounds for a presumably successful appeal. Local government officers and elected members will be anxious to see this issue clarified.

Glen Suarez spoke for Soho residents: "We who live in this environment have had to put up with levels of noise and disturbance, crime and disorder that are extreme. A large majority of people have problems sleeping at night because of noise resulting directly and indirectly from licensed premises. There has been a significant increase in crime, disorder and loutish behaviour particularly after 1.30am. There has been a significant increase in the amount of waste and rubbish in the streets including a significant increase in the numbers of people urinating, defecating and vomiting in the streets. As entertainment premises have increased their numbers and their hours of operation, rental values have risen and many operators running traditional restaurant formats are being forced to compete turning their restaurants into bars, extending hours and increasing the problems we are experiencing.

Let me illustrate what this means in practice: my family now uses ear plugs at night and on most mornings I have to mop the pools of urine that collect in my hall because people use my front door as a urinal. Three weeks ago, my six year old niece picked up a used syringe in the area below my front basement. In the last twelve months there have been six stabbing and knifings outside my house between 1.30 and 4.00am by drunken louts fighting. And I live in the West End in what is considered to be the heart of London.

I see licensing controls as part of a wider set of powers for the public authorities to deal with this kind of situation. I do not see licensing as operating in isolation but it is central to controlling the way in which licensees operate and the environment in which we live."

Mr Suarez felt that the White Paper proposals were not likely to be helpful. "I do not like the fact that the White Paper is proposing that there should be a burden on objectors who wish to oppose a licence. That is unjust in areas where there are known to be problems such as in the city centres. It will create as unequal contest between applicants and objectors. I believe that this proposal should be abandoned and that licensing authorities should be allowed to have policies that determine whether there should be a presumption in favour or against applications depending on local conditions. Nor do I like the notification procedures proposed or the way in which appeals are likely to be done. In my view not enough emphasis has been given to the importance of crime and disorder as licensing issues and the effect that a concentration of licensed premises can have on an area. These are critical issues."

Although local authorities in London have taken the lead in attacking the licensing proposals, the rest of the country is equally concerned. Speaking at the same conference, Roger Mortimer from Bristol had this to say: "From 1997 the [Bristol] Police have been objecting to additional on-licensed floor space, as have residents. Licensing Justices have accepted the arguments and refused further on-licenses.

To the noise problems must be added obstruction of entrances, litter, vomit and urine on streets and in gardens and doorways. There is also vandalism to cars and property - and of course aggressive and obstructive behaviour on pavements, with periodic brawling and fighting.

Dislike and indeed fear of all this means that many residents – including some younger ones and students - are reluctant to go out into the environment that now prevails...

The problems may start with drinking inside licensed premises but the consequences are mostly heard, seen, and felt outside in the public realm. Authorities do attempt, with limited effect, to control noise breakout from premises but the real problem is on the streets where it is impossible to pin blame on individual licensees.

Against this background we view the White Paper with considerable alarm. Some rationalization of licensing may be needed. However the welcome given to it by the drinks industry is surely because they expect to sell more drinks."

It is clear that, when the Government moves to translate its licensing proposals into law, it will meet with considerable opposition. The perception that they are fatally flawed in favour of the licensing trade to the detriment of the interest of local residents is an issue which ministers will not be able to duck.