Countless column inches have been penned in recent months on the possible effects of the new licensing laws on crime and disorder. Concerns have also rightly been raised of the likely shortfall between councils’ fee income and their new costs. Yet more scrutiny is needed as to whether the new regime represents a good deal for local councillors and local democracy.

Under the new regulations, unless an objection is made to a licence application, it will be automatically approved without amendment. Yet the list of ‘interested parties’ who are allowed to object is very narrow. Unlike in planning, local ward councillors may not make an objection to any application in their own right. They can only object if they live in the vicinity. Yet in such a circumstance, it is likely that this would count as a prejudicial interest, so preventing them from attending any licensing hearing so as not to ‘improperly influence a decision’.

It is questionable whether the new laws will really allow councils to control the saturation of pubs and clubs. New ‘cumulative impact’ policies are only likely to be truly effective in regulating new licences, rather than late license extensions. The DCMS guidance states that councils cannot set policies to fix terminal hours or seek to stagger closing times. Yet one of the supposed objectives of the new laws is to reduce the disorder that can result from drinkers hitting the streets at the same terminal hour.

Most worrying of all is the suggestion that local ward councillors should not sit and consider applications from their own ward, because of possible ‘bias’ against pubs and clubs. The LACORS guidance explicitly discourages ward members from considering such applications, due to the possible ‘appearance of bias’ and case law deriving from the Human Rights Act. Although the licensing laws and regulations are quiet on this matter, this was certainly the intention of the Government, who warned Parliament during the Licensing Bill that ward councillors might be ‘subordinate’ to their local residents.

Yet the planning regime, also a quasi-judicial process, fundamentally relies on the input of ward members in the consideration of planning applications - including those for premises which might sell alcohol. If this test on the appearance of bias does not apply to planning, in the absence of any statutory basis, why should it apply to licensing? If this precedent is established for one quasi-judicial function of local government, it is only a matter of time before it is extended to the other – to planning.

The ODPM recently championed the role of backbench councillors in providing ‘vibrant local leadership’. Yet these are hollow words given the combination of the Cabinet system, backbenchers’ likely marginalisation in licensing and planning, and the Government’s hints of a ‘modernisation’ agenda involving fewer, paid, full-time councillors in a unitary structure. Rather than issuing last orders to the town centre yob, the new licensing regime could represent another minute on the clock before ‘time’ is called on backbench councillors.

Cllr Sheridan Westlake