Taylor v Manchester City Council TCG Bars Ltd

An application to vary a premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003 cannot formally be amended after submission where this would undermine statutory advertisement and representation rights. An applicant may, however, withdraw parts of the application or offer revised conditions. The licensing authority must consider those wishes when deciding the original application.

Where relevant representations have triggered the decision-making process, the authority may reject the whole or part of the variation and modify licence conditions, provided its response remains within the existing licence and the variation sought. A lawful use already permitted by the licence does not require a further variation merely because its intensity changes. Re-advertisement is not generally required, unless fairness demands it or the proposed outcome would extend the licence’s scope.

TCG Bars applied under section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003 to vary the premises licence for Via, a Manchester bar. The application proposed extended hours, internal alterations, separate ground-floor and basement venues, and a new public entrance to the basement from Richmond Street.

After the representation period expired, TCG Bars withdrew the proposed extended hours and Richmond Street entrance. It indicated that the basement would instead be accessed through an existing doorway on Canal Street. The Licensing Sub-Committee granted the remaining variation and imposed a queue-management condition.

On appeal by case stated, the Manchester and Salford Magistrates’ Court held that the Council had acted lawfully. The issue before the Administrative Court was whether the Council could determine the application under section 35 despite the revised access arrangements not having been re-advertised.

Appeal dismissed. The court answered the question stated by the Deputy District Judge in the affirmative.

1. An application to vary a premises licence cannot formally be amended once made where amendment would defeat or undermine the statutory provisions governing advertisement and representations. The statutory scheme contains no general power of amendment.
2. That does not prevent an applicant, after relevant representations have been made, from stating that part of the application is abandoned or that particular licence conditions are acceptable. Such statements are not formal amendments. The authority must take them into account when deciding the original application.
3. The licensing authority’s powers are confined by the statutory scheme. Its inquiry is limited to the subject matter of the variation and the likely effect on the licensing objectives. Its available responses are to reject the application in whole or in part or to modify licence conditions. It cannot extend the scope of the existing licence beyond the variation sought.
4. Because licensing is an administrative and evaluative function, the authority has a wide discretion to balance competing public-interest considerations. It may liaise with the applicant and those who made relevant representations and may impose conditions where necessary to promote the licensing objectives. Fresh advertisement is exceptional where the proposed arrangements remain within the existing licence and original variation application.
5. The existing licence imposed no restriction preventing public access through the Canal Street V2 doorway. The marking of internal doors as “FD” did not make that route an escape route only. The lawful scope of the licence depended on its terms, not on the extent to which the doorway had previously been used.
6. The proposed separation of the premises and increased intensity of lawful use of the V2 doorway did not itself require a variation. The Council was entitled to reject the withdrawn hours extension and Richmond Street works, impose a queue-management condition, and grant the remaining internal-layout variation. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights did not require re-advertisement.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — The appeal by case stated from the Manchester and Salford Magistrates’ Court was dismissed. The court held that the Council had lawfully proceeded under section 35 of the Licensing Act 2003.
2. Manchester and Salford Magistrates’ Court — The Deputy District Judge held that the Council had acted lawfully in granting the variation.
3. Licensing Sub-Committee of Manchester City Council — The variation was granted with additional queue-management and Richmond Street fire-exit conditions.