Roger Colkett of Tollcross CC sits on the EACC Members' Board. He has many years experience of dealing with licensing issues raised at his community council. He is about to submit (as a member) a paper to the Edinburgh Licensing Forum making a series of recommendations which he feels would benefit both sides to the licence application review process; those parties making an objection and those parties making a representation. His paper will be marked as an EACC Discussion Paper. You can find the full paper (for download) on this site EACC Papers >> Appendix. Here is some of what he has to say on recommended improvements:

Clarity and Accessibility:

The process of responding should be much more user-friendly, particularly for first-time respondents.

1. Until a better online system is available, each response received by the Licensing Department should prompt a routine reply, attaching copies of the relevant operating and layout plans (in the case of major variations both current and proposed).

2. Layout plans are sometimes on very large sheets, details of which can be difficult to decipher from the provided copy. Respondents should be made aware that originals can be viewed at the City Chambers.  If possible, respondents, if they need to, should be able to view originals at a local council office.

Fairness:

3. Before they speak to their response, the Convener should ask each respondent if they wish to make any points in addition to those included in their submitted response. If so, the additional points would be noted separately and the applicant would be given the opportunity to ask for the application to be continued to a later meeting to give time for any amendment required.

4. Having had to speak first without prior knowledge of the applicant’s argument, the respondent should be asked after the applicant has spoken whether they wish to say anything more.

5. In support of respondents having to speak first, I’ve heard it argued that the convention is compatible with the presumption that applications should be granted unless there is an exceptional reason to refuse.  If so, in the interest of fairness and logical consistency, when an application relates to premises in an area of overprovision (in which case the presumption is reversed with the default being to refuse), the applicant should be required to speak before the respondent.  Moreover, if the requirement for the respondent not to deviate from the submitted response were to stand, the same requirement should apply to the applicant’s published application in an area of overprovision.

Recognition:

6. When respondents want to say something after the applicant has spoken, the Board and its convener (recognising that respondents are usually seeking to contribute to the process, not to frustrate it) should politely ask them to be brief, thank them for their contribution, take on board the points made and if what they have said fails to comply with the law or the Board’s policy, clarify how and why that is the case.

Convenience:

7. Of course, it’s difficult to anticipate how long the assessment of each application will take, and one doesn’t want the relevant application to be dealt with before the respondent is due to appear.  However, all applications for which responses have been submitted could be brought to the earliest possible point in the meeting and arranged in ascending order of complexity and/or likely controversy, ideally with allocated timeslots, so that unpaid volunteer respondents would have had as little of their time wasted as possible.

End/KR