The SLTA’s acting chief executive Colin Wilkinson spoke about overprovision in the industry at the recent SLLP Big Licensing Conference in Glasgow
OVERPROVISION of licences is one of the SLTA’s long-term concerns and among the most controversial elements of the licensing system.
That was the message from Colin Wilkinson, the SLTA’s acting chief executive, when he addressed delegates earlier this month at the SLLP Big Licensing Conference in Glasgow.
“I think it is very important to state that, in respect of overprovision, the SLTA sympathises greatly with Scotland’s licensing boards because they have a very difficult, if not impossible, task when it comes to dealing with overprovision,” he said.
“Routinely, licensing boards’ decisions on overprovision cause great controversy, a storm of adverse criticism ensues and we eventually end up back at square one.”
Wilkinson pointed to the “courageous approach” to overprovision by West Dunbartonshire Council in 2010 which the SLTA considered comprehensive, fair and workable.
He explained: “West Dunbartonshire undertook a consultation on the issue, analysed data regarding the number, type and capacities of licensed premises in identified sub-localities within the general council area, regarded evidence of a correlation between the density of outlets and alcohol-related problems and its duty to promote the licensing objectives.
“It concluded that, of the 18 sub-localities identified within the council, there was overprovision in 15 areas of certain types of licensed premises – mainly vertical drinking establishments, nightclubs, local convenience stores and supermarkets.
“The West Dunbartonshire policy concluded with a ‘rebuttable presumption’ against the grant of any application for the types of premises identified in its analysis and the policy went on to state there may be ‘exceptional cases’ where an applicant could persuade the board that there is a case to grant.
“However, the board would seek robust and reliable evidence from the applicant. The SLTA thought this was a major step forward, but, as usual, it proved unsustainable thanks to board changes.”
In 2012, Wilkinson continued, the City of Edinburgh Licensing Board declared that Edinburgh had “reached saturation point” with regards the provision of off-sales, and changed its policy statement to the effect that new applications for off-sales licences would be refused.
“Within a matter of weeks two new off-sales premises licences were granted and following council elections, the board reversed its predecessor’s policies on overprovision.”
In 2013, he continued, the Edinburgh board categorised seven localities within its area as “areas of special concern” with regards to the number of licensed premises. However, unlike overprovision, the term “areas of special concern” was not defined in the legislation and after five months in force the licensing board had granted 11 new premises licences in these areas.
Wilkinson said: “Until something radical is done there will always be problems with licensing boards trying to use overprovision of licences as grounds for refusal.
“The vagueness of the current Act has not addressed the problem and the recent dabblings in the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015, allowing the whole board area to be considered as an area of overprovision, did not address the problem.
“Boards being allowed to take account of the licensing hours of licensed premises is no real improvement.
“The practicalities of using the entire jurisdiction of a licensing board in the assessment of overprovision will always be challengeable and the use of trading hours only generates confusion and gives ground to further challenges, particularly by the large operators.”
The SLTA’s stance is that grounds for refusal on overprovision in current legislation are not prescriptive enough. “Experience tells us that appeals, fear of costs related to challenges or electorate dissatisfaction, as well as council elections every five years go against robust, lasting overprovision policies,” said Wilkinson.
“We would also contend that a two-tier system exists due to the simple fact that independent entrepreneurs can’t, for various reasons take a board on – big players can.
“The act also effectively puts licensing board areas into competition with each other,” he continued. “It would be very controversial in terms of investment, jobs and commercial rates income if one board’s refusal allowed a neighbouring board the opportunity to then grant an application in its area.”
So what is the solution? “Make it as simple as possible and consistent throughout the country,” said Wilkinson. “The matter should be centrally controlled and not left to individual licensing boards.”