Lucy Rogers is the Head of Community at looking for growth, the political movement to end decline and save Britain.
The British pub is the centre of British culture. It is the descendant of the tavern and the coffee house, the beating heart of the village, the birthplace of many lifelong relationships, and the comfort zone when loneliness threatens. For many, it is the ultimate physical embodiment of fun.
Westminster City Council appears to take a rather less fond and nostalgic view of our pubs. As has been discussed at length over the last 48 hours, their draft licensing policy includes a presumption to refuse all license applications for pubs, clubs and entertainment venues. In 56,000 words or less, they have decided – in the face of enormous concerns from the hospitality industry and campaign groups like ours – to demonise standing in a pub.
They will, however, generously approve licenses in categories under “genuinely exceptional” circumstances. The policy suggests a ‘genuinely exceptional circumstance’ would be if a venue removed all opportunities for “vertical drinking” (standing with a pint) and insisted on service by waiter only. Yet, the policy also says that this alone will not guarantee the granting of a license.
Councillor Tim Barnes vehemently denies that these sections of the policy amount to a ban, but he has clearly not considered the downstream implications of his policy. If this policy remains in place, then there will be no new venues that are recognisably pubs. The policy explicitly states there is a presumption to refuse new licenses.
Soho is becoming a legally and politically hostile environment where businesses are expected to be responsible for all manner of sins in the general ‘vicinity’ of their venue. The licensing for security doesn’t empower them to address disturbances anywhere outside the bar or pub, yet the venues are bearing the burden of criminality that extends well beyond this. The number of licensed venues in Soho is down, and the number of applications the council has received for new venues is also down.
The Council’s approach is underpinned by something called the “Cumulative Impact Zone”, which they claim indicates the concentration of venues in Soho that contributes to crime and public nuisance. The scoring system they use was heavily criticised in the lead up to its adoption earlier this year, with concerns that the crime figures include shoplifting, theft and other sundry crimes over which these venues have no control. The policy even goes on to say that licensing will not be their primary method of addressing the concerns around public nuisance, but – despite this – the Council have weaponised this score to refuse all new applications.
This does not just apply to new business ventures either, but also to all adjustments to existing licenses. The result is that the number of venues operating in Soho has fallen, with several high profile businesses closing their doors. Despite this, the Council’s blanket presumption remains. The Council would have you believe that they approve almost all licenses – 98.5 per cent in fact – but this figure fails to account for the number of applications not submitted due to the chilling effect of the council’s blanket refusal. Nor does it take into account the number of punitive conditions attached to those licenses that are granted.
The number of applications for new licenses is down significantly: Westminster Council released their own figures which show restaurant applications alone are down 43 per cent. In Soho, restaurants may not be able to serve alcohol to a guest who has not ordered food – so you can say goodbye to a pre-dinner cocktail at the bar; and if you plan to have someone join you after you have eaten, you’ll have to move to a different venue or it’ll be orange juice for the latecomer.
Laying all of this aside, over the course of the window where the number of venues operating in Soho has declined, the crime figures for the same window have actually increased. The Council’s own data confirms what venues and common sense have long insisted, that crime is not a direct result of a concentration of licensed premises. Of course gatherings of people in public places create opportunities for bad actors, and these should be dealt with swiftly and seriously by the police. The Council’s policy explicitly states that they understand antisocial behaviour is linked to ‘poorly run premises’, but they choose to apply blanket restrictions that cripple responsible operators and ambitious entrepreneurs.
The British public have stood in pubs for so long that it has become an archetypal feature of our social scene. To throw this tradition in the growing pile of fun things banned by government would be a catastrophic assault on British culture.
Councillor Tim Barnes’ assertion that I am ‘misreading’ the policy is insulting; whatever he says, the reality is that venues in Westminster feel the weight of these policies. Westminster City Council should scrap their draft policy completely and start from the beginning.
Let’s fight for fun, trust adults and let people stand.
Lucy Rogers is the Head of Community at looking for growth, the political movement to end decline and save Britain.
The British pub is the centre of British culture. It is the descendant of the tavern and the coffee house, the beating heart of the village, the birthplace of many lifelong relationships, and the comfort zone when loneliness threatens. For many, it is the ultimate physical embodiment of fun.
Westminster City Council appears to take a rather less fond and nostalgic view of our pubs. As has been discussed at length over the last 48 hours, their draft licensing policy includes a presumption to refuse all license applications for pubs, clubs and entertainment venues. In 56,000 words or less, they have decided – in the face of enormous concerns from the hospitality industry and campaign groups like ours – to demonise standing in a pub.
They will, however, generously approve licenses in categories under “genuinely exceptional” circumstances. The policy suggests a ‘genuinely exceptional circumstance’ would be if a venue removed all opportunities for “vertical drinking” (standing with a pint) and insisted on service by waiter only. Yet, the policy also says that this alone will not guarantee the granting of a license.
Councillor Tim Barnes vehemently denies that these sections of the policy amount to a ban, but he has clearly not considered the downstream implications of his policy. If this policy remains in place, then there will be no new venues that are recognisably pubs. The policy explicitly states there is a presumption to refuse new licenses.
Soho is becoming a legally and politically hostile environment where businesses are expected to be responsible for all manner of sins in the general ‘vicinity’ of their venue. The licensing for security doesn’t empower them to address disturbances anywhere outside the bar or pub, yet the venues are bearing the burden of criminality that extends well beyond this. The number of licensed venues in Soho is down, and the number of applications the council has received for new venues is also down.
The Council’s approach is underpinned by something called the “Cumulative Impact Zone”, which they claim indicates the concentration of venues in Soho that contributes to crime and public nuisance. The scoring system they use was heavily criticised in the lead up to its adoption earlier this year, with concerns that the crime figures include shoplifting, theft and other sundry crimes over which these venues have no control. The policy even goes on to say that licensing will not be their primary method of addressing the concerns around public nuisance, but – despite this – the Council have weaponised this score to refuse all new applications.
This does not just apply to new business ventures either, but also to all adjustments to existing licenses. The result is that the number of venues operating in Soho has fallen, with several high profile businesses closing their doors. Despite this, the Council’s blanket presumption remains. The Council would have you believe that they approve almost all licenses – 98.5 per cent in fact – but this figure fails to account for the number of applications not submitted due to the chilling effect of the council’s blanket refusal. Nor does it take into account the number of punitive conditions attached to those licenses that are granted.
The number of applications for new licenses is down significantly: Westminster Council released their own figures which show restaurant applications alone are down 43 per cent. In Soho, restaurants may not be able to serve alcohol to a guest who has not ordered food – so you can say goodbye to a pre-dinner cocktail at the bar; and if you plan to have someone join you after you have eaten, you’ll have to move to a different venue or it’ll be orange juice for the latecomer.
Laying all of this aside, over the course of the window where the number of venues operating in Soho has declined, the crime figures for the same window have actually increased. The Council’s own data confirms what venues and common sense have long insisted, that crime is not a direct result of a concentration of licensed premises. Of course gatherings of people in public places create opportunities for bad actors, and these should be dealt with swiftly and seriously by the police. The Council’s policy explicitly states that they understand antisocial behaviour is linked to ‘poorly run premises’, but they choose to apply blanket restrictions that cripple responsible operators and ambitious entrepreneurs.
The British public have stood in pubs for so long that it has become an archetypal feature of our social scene. To throw this tradition in the growing pile of fun things banned by government would be a catastrophic assault on British culture.
Councillor Tim Barnes’ assertion that I am ‘misreading’ the policy is insulting; whatever he says, the reality is that venues in Westminster feel the weight of these policies. Westminster City Council should scrap their draft policy completely and start from the beginning.
Let’s fight for fun, trust adults and let people stand.