March 2008

Legal News

March 2008

operational, Legal News, March 2008, COMMENTS

Alcohol Disorder Zones have attracted a fair amount of publicity in the licensing press and in one or two national newspapers. Nobody seems to want them and their launch date keeps slipping. Initially they were proposed for the end of December, then for the end of January, and now for the end of March.

A committee of MPs and Lords has labelled the regulations as being ‘defectively drafted’ and said ADZs generally amounted to an extremely bad piece of delayed legislation. In spite of all this, the Home Office seems determined to bring them in. The trouble is, once they are brought in, there is a danger that somebody somewhere in England or Wales will implement them.

An Alcohol Disorder Zone applies to an area where licensed premises are busiest and the risk of alcohol related crime and disorder is highest. An ADZ could apply from 8pm or later if that is when crime and disorder occurs. Additional police officers will be deployed within an ADZ and these officers would be paid for by a levy upon certain types of drinking establishments within the area.
What type of premises might be exempt? In the first instance, there will be a total exemption for premises where the principal use and the patronage tests are both passed. The idea is to exempt restaurants, hotels, theatres, sports clubs, bingo halls and casinos because, for example, the primary purpose of a restaurant or café is the sale and consumption of food and light refreshments, rather than the sale of alcohol. These venues would pass the principal use and almost certainly the patronage test as well.

But the government has not yet considered the strong argument that clubs could also pass these tests. The principal activity in nightclubs could well be dancing. Providing that the sale of alcohol doesn’t become the principal activity, then clubs could be exempt. This is the biggest problem with the scheme. It’s very difficult for the government to exempt those premises that it wants to exempt e.g. theatres and hotels etc., whilst targeting those it wants to target, for example bars and clubs. If you’re a member of Pubwatch, Clubwatch or participate in ‘Best Bar None’ or other similar schemes you may also achieve a discount, which could be up to 90%.

The off-trade raises the biggest problem. Any pure off-licence will be charged within an ADZ because people visiting those premises will almost certainly be purchasing alcohol, and that will be their principal reason to visit. But what happens if you go into the average supermarket? You may go in to purchase booze, but whilst you’re in there buy other non-alcoholic items. If the booze amounts to less than 50% of the amount purchased then the supermarket will almost certainly escape any charge at all for being in the Alcohol Disorder Zone. Given the prices at which some supermarkets are

selling alcohol, there is a real concern that a number of such premises will be totally exempt.

Another point of confusion arises when you consider the timing of Alcohol Disorder Zones. Some people may buy alcohol at 7pm, but if the ADZ doesn’t start until 8pm, then the shop won’t be counted. The fact that someone might get tanked up on the booze at home post 8pm, then come out into the streets gently reeling and potentially causing trouble in the Alcohol Disorder Zone, isn’t accounted for and the shop won’t pay a thing. It really is an extremely silly piece of legislation.

The fact that failure to pay may lead to the venue losing its licence to trade is irritating, since failure to pay the annual licensing fee does not have any similar consequence. There is still a chance that Parliament will throw out the regulations and I obviously hope that they will.

I have mentioned the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 before. This reform replaced the previous fire safety legislation. It also removed any conditions imposed by the licensing authority that were purely there because of fire safety. But the regulations governing what must appear on the plans were not amended by the Fire Safety Order. Whilst I am sure this was a mistake, they still apply. This means that you must show upon the plans, when applying for a new licence or a variation, the position of the fire safety equipment within your venue.

Ironically, an application for variation will be necessary if, in the future, the positionings change. The fire service may well decide not to comment upon your application. This would mean that technically a further application for variation will be necessary, as the equipment required by the fire officer won’t necessarily be in the same position as shown upon the plan attached to the licence. I have written to the government requesting that they rapidly amend this and I only hope that this produces a response. I should warn you that “rapidly” in the government’s case is normally measured in years rather than weeks!

Words: Jeremy Allen

From: March 2008 Issue

Subscribe to NIGHT magazine