LA03 - minor variations consultation cont.

Right, these are my knee-jerk, as-they-occur thoughts on the minor variations consultation, or “Legislative Reform Order, Proposal to Introduce a Simplified Process for Minor Variations to Premises Licences and Club Premises Certificates” as they call it.

Q1. Do you agree that the requirement for licence holders to apply for a variation to make small, low risk changes to their licences represents a burden as defined in section 1 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006?

Yes, without a doubt.

Q2. Do you agree with this broad definition of a ‘minor variation? If not, please explain why and give an alternative.

The definition given is “any change to a premises licence or club premises certificate which will not impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives.”

This is the tricky one. There are 3 options here but option 3 is rubbish and dealt with separately by Q4.

Option 1 - Leave it to licensing authorities to decide whether a variation is ‘minor’ within the broad parameters described above and having regard to general criteria and case studies provided in the Guidance.

Option 2 - Amend the Act to introduce a new minor variations process as above, but constrain licensing authority discretion by specifying on the face of the Act which variations should be included in and/or excluded from a minor variations process.

The first option would give flexibility and allow Licensing Authorities to exercise some common sense, which I’m sure they’d welcome, although differing approaches nationwide are undesirable. However, at worst all this will do is validate the position of the ‘pragmatists’ and lessen the chance of any come-back on the councils who are trying to be helpful. I can see the more cautious councils deciding time after time that variation applications should be submitted to the full process

I have to say I’m very wary of the second option. Bearing in mind the way the Act and the related forms were drafted (hint – look up cock-up in the dictionary) I just don’t trust them to come up with a decent, workable list of specific minor variations.

I can’t think of anything better at the moment so for now this question gets a ‘yes’ from me.

Q3. Do you agree that the risk to the promotion of the four licensing objectives from minor variations to licences does not justify the current level of control afforded by sections 34-36 and 84-86 of the Licensing Act 2003?

Yes, without a doubt.

Q4. Do you agree that Option 3 – No Change – should be rejected? If not, please give your reasons.

Yes. Doing nothing would be ridiculous. I’m certain even the person who drafted the Licensing Act would admit change is needed

So I think on balance I’m fine with what they’re suggesting – it’s an improvement on the current system at least. To be honest I’m more interested in the practicalities. How much will the fees be? What sort of minor variations would the Guidance mention? Have they employed someone smart enough to test out the form they draft?

I'm going to have a think about Q2 though. Would it be better to name a couple of specific minor variations and then have a flexible catch-all? What would you name specifically? I've tried to think of a few things but have got myself into a small tangle so maybe a broad definition would be better with clarification in the Guidance.

Hmm. Something to chew on there. Oh, and I promise the next post will have at least one photo with it.

Share This Post