Albert Court Residents Association & Ors, R (on the application of) v Corporation of the Hall of Arts & Sciences

Under the Licensing Act 2003, a licensing authority must grant an application to vary a premises licence where no valid relevant representations are made within the statutory period. The authority cannot use its general duties under section 4 to admit late representations or create an alternative route for them to be considered.

However, where an authority has adopted and published a practice of notifying residents in the immediate vicinity, that practice must be carried out properly. An exercise which obviously fails to notify a substantial nearby residential building, because a computerised process produces a sufficient number of other addresses, may be irrational and unlawful.

The claimants, residents and companies connected with Albert Court, sought judicial review of Westminster City Council’s decision to vary the premises licence for the Royal Albert Hall. The variation authorised boxing and wrestling, extended opening hours and extended the period for late-night refreshments.

The Council refused to consider representations made after the statutory deadline and granted the variation. The claimants argued that late representations remained capable of consideration and that the Council’s failure to notify Albert Court under its published notification practice frustrated a legitimate expectation and rendered the decision unlawful.

1. Late representations. The claim succeeded on the notification issue. Under sections 18(2) and 35(2) of the Licensing Act 2003, where there are no relevant representations made within the prescribed period, the authority must grant the application. The statutory scheme is deliberately mandatory. Section 4 does not enlarge functions otherwise circumscribed by the Act, and section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 does not assist where another enactment governs the matter.
2. The authority therefore had no residual discretion to consider late representations, reject them, impose conditions on that basis, or pass them to another responsible authority as a means of bringing them into the statutory process. The statutory cut-off was not inconsistent with the Act’s objectives, particularly given the statutory review procedure under section 51.
3. Notification practice. Although notifying residents was not a statutory requirement, the Council had adopted and published a practice of trying to notify businesses and residents in the immediate vicinity. Having adopted that practice in the context of its licensing functions and statutory guidance, the Council had to carry it out properly. Some omissions were inevitable, but the exercise could not obviously fail to include an entire substantial residential building plainly within the immediate vicinity.
4. The Council allowed its database to determine the notification area by reference to the number of addresses produced, rather than the location of affected residents. A brief examination of the plan would have shown that Albert Court was excluded despite its proximity to the Hall. The process was so bad as to be irrational and unlawful. The Council’s decision was quashed, together with the variation to the premises licence.