Clause 72 - Determination of application
Licensing Bill [Lords]
4:30 pm
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
Thank you, Mr. Gale. Clearly, the delirious pleasure of having almost a whole day to spend before considering the Bill has caught up with me. These two amendments invite the Government to
express their view on the guidance that Ministers intend to provide about the nature of the hearings and to say how prescriptive they will be about them. The first amendment is about whether the word ''hearing'' is to be taken literally, or whether it could include what is meant when we say that a planning inspector ''hears'' an inquiry that is undertaken by an exchange of written representations.
When planning inspectors hold local inquiries, they do not necessarily assemble all the witnesses for and against a specific planning application in a room and hear the case for and against. They have the opportunity to undertake the inquiry by means of written representation. That method has several benefits and disbenefits. Among the benefits is the fact that the inquiry can be conducted at a distance. For example, it would not be necessary for a planning inspector to travel to a distant part of the country. Similarly, if the amendment were accepted, or if the Government intended to make such arrangements in their guidance, it would not be necessary for a licensing committee to travel to a distant part of a local authority area.
Many local authorities cover relatively small areas, and it is not difficult for people to travel from one end of them to the other. Other areas are larger, however. My local authority area is by no means the largest in the country, but it is still 26 miles from Totland to Bembridge, and a councillor who represented Totland would have to travel to the centre of the island.
Under amendment No. 353, when
''the authority, the applicant and each person who has made representations''
so agreed, the hearing could take place by means of an ''exchange of written representations''. The Government have accepted the general formula when there is agreement that, for example, nothing further needs to be done to an application before it is approved. They have accepted that the agreement of the authority, the applicant and each person who has made representations is sufficient reason for a hearing not to take place.
I propose that there be a halfway house. A full hearing would perhaps assemble many members of a licensing committee or the sub-committee of a licensing authority, some officers, many representatives of those making representations, and, of course, the applicant. It might also bring together lawyers and miscellaneous other people who draw their incomes from the promotion of, or opposition to, such proposals. The amendment would allow a written exchange instead of a meeting. That would often mean that lawyers did not have a long and costly journey before they could take part.
With amendment No. 353, I am seeking the Government's view on whether a hearing—in the more literal sense of the word—should automatically be held where the local authority deems appropriate. That may be in a town or county hall or at a council office, perhaps some distance from many of those making representations. Under the amendment, if a person who had made representations gave notice of special circumstances that made it more convenient for
them for the hearing to be conducted elsewhere, the local authority would be required to
''take reasonable steps to accommodate those special circumstances.''
Many local authorities do not have one literal centre where all local hearings take place, but others do. In some local authorities, the council offices are spread around the area, although all the meetings are held in one place. That is the case in my constituency. The amendment begins:
''Where a person who has made representations has given notice that, for reasons of special circumstances''—
and I set out some examples of such circumstances, one of which might be language difficulties. Different languages might be used in parts of the local authority area. Disability, too, might make it difficult for some to gain access not just to the premises but to the very town in which the local authority usually held its meetings. In such cases it might be appropriate, for the hearing to be held more locally; that would be more for the convenience of those making representations than for that of the local authority.
Some people might find it difficult to get time off work to attend, and those with responsibilities as carers might not be able to attend a meeting that took place during the working day. It might be appropriate for them to ask the local authority to arrange for the meeting to take place outside normal working hours, if possible. The reverse might be the case in an area where there are many elderly people who prefer not to go out after dark, perhaps because of the very problems—congestion in the streets, noise, and the threat, perceived or real, of violence—that the Bill is designed to overcome.
Does the Minister intend his guidance on the conduct of the hearings to allow a hearing to take place by means of written representation, and would he require the local authority to take steps to accommodate those in special circumstances? If he can give those assurances, we may be able to cut this debate short.