Bridgerow Ltd, R (on the application of) v Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council

A local authority must exercise a licensing function through the decision-maker specified in its published constitution. A committee cannot assume a function sub-delegated to a smaller panel. A decision taken by the wrong persons is unlawful where the composition could have affected the result.

On renewal of an annually granted licence, the authority may take a fresh look and is not bound by the previous decision. It must nevertheless give due weight to that decision and provide intelligible reasons for reaching a different conclusion. The reasons need not follow a formula or contain exhaustive detail if they clearly disclose the balancing exercise and the principal reasons for the outcome.

Bridgerow operated a sexual entertainment venue in Chester. The Council had adopted the relevant provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, as amended, and had previously granted Bridgerow a licence.

When the licence was due for renewal, the Licensing Committee refused the application. Twelve councillors took part, although the Council’s constitution provided that renewal applications were to be determined by a politically proportionate panel of three members.

Bridgerow challenged the refusal on constitutional, reasons, consistency, policy and human-rights grounds. The central issues were whether the decision had been taken by the proper decision-maker and whether the reasons adequately explained the departure from the earlier grant.

1. Constitutional error. The Council’s constitution stated that the Licensing Committee comprised 15 members, but required renewal applications for sexual entertainment venue licences to be determined by a panel comprising three members drawn from the Committee on a politically proportionate basis. “Comprise” meant consist of, not merely satisfy a quorum. The separate quorum provisions reinforced that construction.
2. The constitutional arrangements formed part of the statutory scheme for the transparent and reliable delegation of local-authority functions under sections 29 and 37 of the Local Government Act 2000. The full Licensing Committee could not arrogate to itself a power delegated by the constitution to the three-member panel.
3. The irregularity was not de minimis. The twelve councillors were evenly divided and were not politically proportionate. A properly constituted panel might have reached a different result. The decision was therefore taken by persons who had no power to take it and had to be quashed.
4. Reasons and previous decision. If the decision had been properly constituted, the court would have rejected the reasons challenge. A renewal decision-maker may reconsider the matter and is not bound by the earlier grant. It must give due weight to the earlier decision, but the appropriate weight depends on the circumstances.
5. The 2013 reasons intelligibly identified the relevant change in assessment: the locality was viewed as containing a significant and increasing residential presence, and the historic rows were considered to give it special significance. The committee also balanced the previous licence against the character of the locality and proximity to residential areas. No formulaic statement was required, and the court should avoid minute textual analysis where the overall reasoning is clear.

The refusal dated 17 September 2013 was quashed for serious procedural irregularity. The other pleaded grounds were not upheld.