Premises licence under review:
what to do before the hearing

The first days after receiving a review application often shape the result. A calm, organised response can show that the operator understands the concern and remains in control. Delay, missing records or a defensive reaction can make an already difficult case harder.

A review is not just a complaint.

Under the Licensing Act 2003, a responsible authority or any other person may apply for a review of a premises licence where the application relates to one or more of the four licensing objectives:

• the prevention of crime and disorder;
• public safety;
• the prevention of public nuisance; and
• the protection of children from harm.

The review may follow a single serious event, a pattern of incidents, complaints from residents, test-purchase failures or concerns raised by the police, trading standards, environmental health or another authority.

It is a regulatory process, not a finding of guilt. But the licensing sub-committee will be deciding whether action is appropriate to promote the licensing objectives. The licence holder needs to understand precisely what is alleged, what evidence supports it and what practical measures answer the concern.

What to do immediately.

Secure the full review application and every document served with it. Confirm the hearing date, the authority’s procedure and any deadline for written representations or evidence. Then assemble the current premises licence, plans and operating schedule so the existing obligations are clear.

Preserve the records that may matter, including:

• CCTV and incident reports;
• refusals and age-verification records;
• staff training and right-to-work documentation;
• door-supervisor logs and contracts;
• noise, dispersal and complaints records;
• maintenance, fire-safety and capacity records; and
• emails or meeting notes with responsible authorities.

Relevant CCTV can be overwritten quickly. Records should be preserved in their original form, with a clear note of who obtained them and when. Do not alter documents, reconstruct logs after the event or make casual admissions before the facts have been checked.

Read the case against the premises.

Break the review into individual allegations and map each one against the evidence and the licensing objective relied upon. A useful chronology should identify what is agreed, what is disputed, what is missing and what has changed since the event.

The important question is rarely whether the premises has ever had a problem. It is whether the management systems were suitable, whether they were followed, what caused any failure and whether the proposed response deals with that cause.

That analysis may reveal a documentation problem, a training gap, poor supervision, an isolated individual failure or a broader management issue. Each demands a different remedy.

Engage before the hearing.

Early, constructive engagement with the applicant and relevant responsible authorities can narrow the dispute. It may establish which facts are accepted, which concerns remain and whether improved procedures or carefully drafted conditions could resolve part of the case.

That does not mean agreeing to every suggestion. Conditions should be clear, enforceable, proportionate and practical for the premises. Vague wording or an operational promise that cannot be sustained can create the next compliance problem.

Where changes are needed, it is usually stronger to implement them and produce evidence before the hearing than to promise that they will happen afterwards. Depending on the case, that might include retraining staff, changing management responsibility, improving CCTV, revising age-verification procedures or adopting a more effective dispersal plan.

Prepare the response, not just the speech.

The committee should be given a coherent written case in a form that can be followed. This may include a chronology, response to each allegation, witness statements, relevant records, photographs, policies, training evidence and any proposed conditions or management plan.

The oral presentation should then concentrate on the real issues. It should explain:

• what happened and why;
• which allegations or facts are accepted or disputed;
• what evidence supports the licence holder’s position;
• what has already changed at the premises; and
• why the proposed outcome is sufficient and proportionate.

Owners, the designated premises supervisor and any key witnesses should understand the written case and be ready for questions. Inconsistency between the documents and oral evidence can undermine an otherwise credible response.

What the committee can do.

Having heard the review, the licensing authority may decide that no formal action is necessary or issue an informal warning. Where action is considered appropriate, it can:

• modify the licence conditions, including conditions affecting hours;
• exclude a licensable activity;
• remove the designated premises supervisor;
• suspend the licence for up to three months; or
• revoke the licence.

Statutory guidance emphasises an appropriate and proportionate response directed at the cause of the concern. The licence holder’s task is to give the committee a reliable evidential basis for choosing the least intrusive measure that will still promote the licensing objectives.

Where to start.

Begin with the review application, current licence, hearing date and a chronology of events. Preserve the evidence, identify the real management or compliance issue and decide what can credibly be corrected before the hearing.

An effective early review should provide:

• a risk assessment of the allegations and possible outcomes;
• a list of missing records and witnesses;
• a plan for engagement with the relevant authorities;
• practical remedial measures and proposed conditions where appropriate; and
• a timetable for the written evidence and hearing preparation.

A decision can be appealed to the magistrates’ court, normally within 21 days, but an appeal carries cost and litigation risk. It is not a substitute for preparing the strongest possible case at the review hearing.