4 Wins Leisure Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Licensing Committee For Blackpool Council & Ors

Whether premises are in the vicinity for licensing purposes is a question of fact and degree for the local licensing authority. The assessment depends principally on the physical and geographical relationship between the premises, informed by local knowledge. It is not determined by mechanical distance alone.

The statutory test is whether the person lives or carries on business in the vicinity. The likelihood that the person will be directly affected by disorder or disturbance may assist the assessment, but cannot replace that statutory test. The authority must have regard to Secretary of State guidance, while ensuring that the guidance does not alter the statutory language. A challenge based on the weight given to relevant factors is not ordinarily a question of law, and irrationality will be difficult to establish.

The claimant operated a nightclub in Blackpool and challenged a licensing panel’s preliminary decision concerning an application by the second defendant for a new premises licence. The claimant had made representations opposing the application. The panel accepted that the third defendant’s premises were in the vicinity, but concluded that the claimant’s premises were too far away and were not directly affected.

The claimant argued that the panel had acted irrationally and had failed to consider the size and proposed capacity of the new premises, the claimant’s own premises, and the cumulative impact policy affecting the town-centre saturation area. The central issue was the proper meaning and application of in the vicinity under the Licensing Act 2003.

1. Claim refused. The panel’s conclusion that the claimant’s premises were not in the vicinity of the proposed premises was a judgmental conclusion based on fact and degree. It was informed by local knowledge and was readily open to the panel.
2. The question was not determined by a mechanical measurement such as distance as the crow flies. Local circumstances could include separating features such as a river, major road or railway, or strong geographical linkages between premises which were relatively far apart.
3. The statutory definition of interested party in section 13(3) of the Licensing Act 2003 required the claimant to be a business in the vicinity of the application premises. The relevant question was not whether the claimant’s business interests might be affected, nor whether it was generally an interested party.
4. The panel had heard and considered the claimant’s representations. Its reasons did not need to mention every point advanced. The weight to be given to relevant factors was for the panel, and an argument that insufficient weight had been given to a factor did not raise a point of law.
5. The Secretary of State’s guidance issued under section 182 could assist the authority, including by directing attention to possible direct effects and local circumstances. It could not substitute a test based on likely disorder or disturbance for the statutory question whether premises were in the vicinity. Any judicial review challenge was therefore subject to conventional principles, and an irrationality challenge faced a high threshold.
6. The contrast with the Gambling Act 2005, which focused on likely effects on business interests, reinforced the conclusion that Parliament had deliberately adopted a different test in section 13(3) of the 2003 Act. The application was refused. The claimant was ordered to pay the first defendant’s costs, summarily assessed at £7,845. The application for a second set of costs for the second defendant was refused.

First-instance judicial review decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.