November 2007

Legal News

november 2007

operational, Legal News, November 2007, COMMENTS

OK. For once, let me be legal and technical. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 came into force on 1 October 2006. Essentially this Order replaced previous fire safety legislation. Any fire certificate issued under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 will have ceased to have effect. Perhaps more significantly any conditions imposed by the Licensing Authority that relate to any requirements or prohibitions that are or could be imposed by the Order automatically cease to have effect without the need to vary the licence. Clearly for the future this means that no new pure fire safety conditions should be imposed on licences.

What happens to conditions carried over from Public Entertainment Licences or imposed following an objection or observations from the Fire Authority? Well, if it can be clearly shown that the condition was only upon the previous licence because it was requested by the Fire Authority, solely because of fire risk, then it seems to me that it no longer applies.

This would be the case even if the Police or another authority would probably have actually requested such a condition if it wasn’t on the licence already. As long as no objection was raised you are probably alright. If you no longer have papers that show how the condition came to be imposed then you’d be taking a bit of a risk if you decided that the capacity condition no longer applied. However, you’d certainly have an argument. If you volunteered a capacity condition to avoid an objection then it seems to me that you’re caught as the condition still applies.

You will still need to calculate a capacity as part of your fire risk assessment. The Fire Authority can carry out inspections to make sure that you are complying with all their normal requirements. The absence of a capacity condition would be unlikely to affect your licence. You might also find that you get a greater capacity for your premises. In some areas fire authorities were particularly tough on capacity imposing unnecessary restrictions that were out of kilter with the rest of the fire safety industry. If you carry out a risk assessment and conclude that a higher capacity is possible, and could get evidence to back this up, then it seems to me that you’re in a better position under the new legislation.

What about other conditions that appeared on your licence solely because they were requested by the Fire Authority? One of the problems with dealing with Public Entertainment Licences was that in some areas fire authorities required annual inspection certificates whereas in others they could be bi-annual or longer. Once again, it seems to me that provided these conditions were only requested by the Fire Authority and relate to fire safety, then they no longer apply to your licence. There’s no need to make an application to vary it to remove them. If the Fire Authority inspect and take the view that certificates of inspection are still necessary or should be obtained more frequently what can you do?

Once again it would make sense to have an independent fire consultant to carry out the risk assessment. If they can justify their decision then I believe you would be alright. Complicated stuff but nonetheless important.

I read in the Sunday newspapers that a major supermarket chain had been banned from selling strong beer and cider at one of its stores in a clampdown on drunken violence. The order is believed to be one of the first of its kind in the country. The council imposed the ban following an application for extension of hours at a Sainsburys branch in Ealing. The police requested that no lagers, beers or ciders with above 5.5% alcohol should be sold at the branch.

The store lies within a “Controlled Drinking Zone” where officers have special powers to confiscate booze. This is one further example of conditions being imposed by licensing authorities that would never have happened under the old system. As it’s an attack on supermarkets then I suspect most of the readers of this column will be fairly happy. On the other hand, it is worth bearing in mind that it is a further example of licensing authorities imposing conditions which can have a significant effect upon trade. The off-trade is the one under attack in this example but there will be others.

I promised to return in a future article to the latest police campaign regarding polycarbonate glass. Many police forces reacted to an advertising campaign by the manufacturers back in the Spring. I understand that the manufacturers sent samples of the glass to various police forces with documents explaining how much better it was. The main problems seem to revolve around customer perception and cost.

The police were saying conditions should be added to any licence where a glassing occurred. Most forces do however appear to have backed off. I know of at least one test case where the local authority refused to impose such a condition as requested by the police. In many respects this gradual approach may be the best way forward. If licensees choose to use the new glasses, which gradually become more prevalent, then pressure will be placed on those that don’t but should.

Words: Jeremy Allen

From: November 2007 Issue

Subscribe to NIGHT magazine