Bristol Council, R (on the application of) v Bristol Magistrates' Court

An operating schedule accompanying a premises-licence application need only state the steps which the applicant proposes to take to promote the licensing objectives. It need not specify every step which the licensing authority considers desirable, nor must it be drafted as a set of enforceable licence conditions. The licensing authority has a power, not an automatic duty, to impose conditions consistent with the schedule. Conditions must be necessary and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives, and need not duplicate duties adequately secured by other legislation. A magistrates’ court may therefore reject additional conditions where existing statutory duties are sufficient. However, a costs decision may be quashed where the court relies on an erroneous understanding of a licensing authority’s power to review licence conditions.

Bristol City Council, the licensing authority, granted Somerfield Stores Ltd a premises licence subject to conditions concerning noise, obstructions, floor safety and accumulations of rubbish. On Somerfield’s statutory appeal, Bristol Magistrates’ Court removed five conditions, holding that the matters were adequately addressed by other legislation. It awarded Somerfield 65 per cent of its costs.

The Council sought judicial review of the merits decision and the costs order. The central issues were whether the operating schedule was invalid or required the disputed conditions to be imposed, whether the magistrates had lawfully assessed the necessity of additional conditions, and whether their costs decision was properly reasoned.

1. Validity of the application. The application complied with Licensing Act 2003, section 17. An operating schedule must contain a statement of the steps which the applicant proposes to take. It need not address every matter which the licensing authority thinks should be addressed. General or opaque wording may justify a more specific condition, but does not itself invalidate the application.
2. Effect of the operating schedule. The schedule is not automatically incorporated into the premises licence. Section 18(2) confers a power to impose conditions consistent with it; it does not require conditions reproducing its contents. The enforceability requirement applies to the licence and its conditions, not to the schedule as such.
3. Necessity of additional conditions. Conditions imposed after relevant representations must be necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives. There is no obligation to impose conditions merely to give effect to the schedule where other legislation adequately secures the objectives. The magistrates were entitled to conclude that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and health and safety legislation sufficiently addressed the five matters. Their general statement that specific reasons relating to the premises might always be required went too far, but was unnecessary to their decision.
4. Costs. The magistrates’ substantive decision was upheld. Their costs order was quashed. The reasons suggested that they had treated a licensing review hearing as an opportunity for the Council to reconsider the disputed conditions, although the authority could not initiate such a review and the conditions had not been raised or reviewed there. That was an irrelevant consideration and a misdirection in law.
5. The Council succeeded only on costs. Somerfield was awarded 75 per cent of its costs of the judicial-review proceedings.

The claim was a judicial review of decisions made by Bristol Magistrates’ Court on Somerfield’s statutory appeal against the licensing authority’s decision. Permission for judicial review was granted by Mr Neil Garnham QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge.