« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
THE LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL: AN ANALYSIS OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
SIX: COMMUNITIES
Objections and Representations
17. Should we widen the range of people who are in a position to object legitimately to a premises licence application by allowing anyone with a real and material interest to forward objections or representations for consideration by the Licensing Board?
6.1 Widening the range of legitimate objectors was supported in more than two thirds of comments. Most who rejected the proposal did so on the basis that 'real and material interest' would be difficult, even impossible, to define, but it could not always be ascertained whether they disagreed with the broadening of the range of legitimate objectors, per se, or because of the inclusion of that phrase. A small number who partially agreed noted that 'real and material interest' was too wide.
6.2 It should be noted that many in support or partial support of the idea, thought that the use of 'real and material interest' echoed the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. Conversely, one of those who agreed in part and three who rejected the proposal all suggested that the notion of 'neighbourhood' in the same Act would be preferable to 'real and material interest', clearly not considering that the two terms denote the same concept.
18. Should immediate neighbours, community councils, the Chief Constable, fire authority and relevant departments of the local authority be entitled to receive written notice of an application from the Licensing Board?
6.3 Almost three quarters of those who commented on this explicitly concurred with the proposal. Of the sixteen clear rejecters of this idea, seven were boards and two were councils, while the others came from a range of consultee types. It is important to note that many of the supplementary comments from supporters were materially making the same or similar points as those made in comments from those who disagreed or agreed only partially - the raw figures are, therefore, somewhat misleading, the comments more interesting.
6.4 There were a few primary concerns that recurred:
- the administrative and cost burden this would impose on boards;
- how 'immediate neighbour' could be practicably defined and, therefore, whom should be contacted (for example, would it be the owner or tenant);
- community councils (seen as not always truly representative of a community) should not necessarily have a statutory right to be notified;
- and by which means would these groups have to be informed.
There were few specific comments about the inclusion of the police, fire services and local authority, other than to confirm that this was accepted.
6.5 Proposals to scrap press adverts were regretted in many additional comments as these were thought to be an effective way to publicise an application while the display of an A3 poster on the premises was thought sufficient notification to adjacent neighbours. A couple of consultees regarded notification of neighbours as a task for the applicant. One suggestion of how to minimise the burden on boards and clerks was to create a web-accessible register of applications that could be checked by fire services, the police, local authorities and community councils.
19. Is a radius of 4 metres sufficient to define those neighbours entitled to receive written notice or should this be wider?
6.6 Two thirds of all consultees commented on this. Three quarters of those who provided a response did not consider that 4 metres would be sufficient to encompass all (including those in adjacent properties) who could potentially be affected by noise and other environmental impacts of licensed premises. Opponents included most licensing boards, all but one of the alcohol/drug action teams who responded and a range of other respondent types. Almost half of those who agreed with the limit were trade representatives. No one category dominated those who accepted or rejected the proposal.
6.7 Local factors such as street layout, pedestrian travel routes, transport, expected noise, and the rural or urban character of the area were cited as needing consideration. About one tenth of those who commented thought 100m more appropriate and a few suggested 25m. A ninety metre radius was suggested by one on the basis that this would be consistent with planning applications. It was pointed out that the radius could be varied by premises type- more people would be affected by a new 'super pub' than a new corner shop off-sales. A couple of respondents raised the practical question of the physical point on the premises from which the radius for notification would be measured.
« Previous | Contents | Next »