http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1746998,00.html

This isn't a personal issue for me, but I know lots of people have their lives blighted by the general disorder and noise that accompanies public house closing times.

It seems that most applications from pubs, clubs and bars under the new licensing law have been to extend weekday opening by an hour and weekend opening by two or three.

All that pubs have to do to inform the public of their application is put a notice in the window or a miniscule advert in the local paper so most people will be unaware of their local pub's intentions.

Objections to these applications have to be lodged with the council by 4th. September and according to the Times article, if no objection is received the council have to grant the application.

I searched the SCC site but could find no listing of applications lodged with the council, nor could I find any information on how to lodge an objection to an application. It does look as if the council are determined to keep the public in the dark about the issue.

We wrote in to object to the extended opening hours of the pubs in Broomhill and have received paperwork back from the council telling us when the hearings are which included copies of all the other objections they had received (about 20 in all I'd say)

We wrote to

The Licensing Authority
Sheffield City Council
Licensing General Section
Surrey Street
Town Hall
Sheffield S1 2HH

I believe the letters had to be in by 15 August or around then but it may be worth checking whether it is too late or not.

From what I hear, I think we have little likelihood of succeeding as granting extensions will be a revenue earner for the Council and I guess that counts for more than worries about the change in the nature of a peaceful residential suburb.

Oh well....

HTH

isn't the whole point of the new licensing laws that magistrates will decide on them rather than councils? Well, maybe not the whole point, but part of the point.

And isn't part of the conditions for the license that they do not cause a nuisance or disturbance. The first time they do report it to the police, the 2nd time they do report it to the police and the licensing authority who should issue them an ulimatum... Or at least that's how I understood it.

Personally i'm quite pleased that the fox and duck in broomhill will be open later.

Originally posted by Cyclone
isn't the whole point of the new licensing laws that magistrates will decide on them rather than councils?

No. It is the other way round.
Old system = Magistrates Court for Licensing Hearings.
New System = Licensing Committee of Local Authority (Council)

Magistrates will hear appeals.

Originally posted by cgksheff
No. It is the other way round.
Old system = Magistrates Court for Licensing Hearings.
New System = Licensing Committee of Local Authority (Council)

Magistrates will hear appeals.

oh okay.

The main intention of the new regulatons was to facilitate staggered closing times and reduce binge drinking. Only a very few applications were made for a 24hr licence, instead the drinks industry has generally applied for later closing times which will just tip the drunks out onto the streets an hour or two later than happens now. By waiting until the last minute to make these applications the drinks industry obviously hope those who suffer most from the disturbance will not have sufficient time to lodge objections.

The upshot is that binge drinking is certain to increase, and the nuisance from pubs in residential areas will extend into the early hours of the morning.

Well done Nulabour, - another 'own goal' !! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Greybeard
I searched the SCC site but could find no listing of applications lodged with the council, nor could I find any information on how to lodge an objection to an application. It does look as if the council are determined to keep the public in the dark about the issue.

True, this might shed some light on why

http://www.sheffieldlibdems.org.uk/news/11.html

I was shocked to find out that premises only have to take out an advert and put a sign up.

Originally posted by Greybeard
The main intention of the new regulatons was to facilitate staggered closing times and reduce binge drinking. Only a very few applications were made for a 24hr licence, instead the drinks industry has generally applied for later closing times which will just tip the drunks out onto the streets an hour or two later than happens now. By waiting until the last minute to make these applications the drinks industry obviously hope those who suffer most from the disturbance will not have sufficient time to lodge objections.

The upshot is that binge drinking is certain to increase, and the nuisance from pubs in residential areas will extend into the early hours of the morning.

Well done Nulabour, - another 'own goal' !! :rolleyes:

they've applied at least 1/4 year in advance, how much notice do you need?
And since they haven't all applied for exactly the same extension it will mean staggered closing times, just not staggered all through the night.
Of course what will happen is not an increase in drunkenness, but a shift from being drunk in a club to being drunk in a pub, so no overall change at all.

goose - you were shocked, what were you expecting them to do? Put up a big flashing neon warning and use sky writing to announce it?

Originally posted by Cyclone
goose - you were shocked, what were you expecting them to do? Put up a big flashing neon warning and use sky writing to announce it?

No, but i think that a letter to all the residents in the area letting them know how to object if they wish would be a good idea.

When people realise that their local pubs and takeaways can stay open until 2am everynight there will be uproar.

Originally posted by goose
No, but i think that a letter to all the residents in the area letting them know how to object if they wish would be a good idea.

When people realise that their local pubs and takeaways can stay open until 2am everynight there will be uproar.

personally if takeaways stay open it's worth it.i dont drink but occasionally fancy a late meal.
we already "suffer" with people walking home after 12midnight, singing & stuff & most of these are 35+ couples not youths.

:rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: THis already causes serious problems here with 1 pub up the road, another down the road and kids hanging out on the corner having a party at all unreasonable times after 11pm.

And then try to phone up the police to make a complaint; they dont bloody answer the flaming phone. :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:

kids aren't generally allowed in pubs. If there's a problem with underage drinking then report it.

At least this way if the 'kids' are old enough they can hang out in the pub rather than on the street corner.

Originally posted by willman
personally if takeaways stay open it's worth it.i dont drink but occasionally fancy a late meal

I agree, i dont have a problem with them opening later. But takeaways open until the early hours can atrract people who have had a few and who cause a bit of noise and litter.

If you live across the road or next to one of these places and it could stay open until 2am every night instead of the usual midnight closing time for example, the least the Council could do was to send you a letter informing you.

Personally, I wouldn't move into a house near a pub if I thought I would be disturbed by people out enjoying themselves.

I recall there being similar concerns in 1982 when the licenced hours were extended on Friday and Saturday nights by half an hour, and then again in 1988 when 'all day drinking' came in. Most of the fears seemed to be unfounded (with most problems related to binge drinking seemingly having reared their ugly heads in the last five to ten years).

I believe a lot of the belly-aching concerning extended hours will likewise, prove to be futile.

If pubs want to open longer than the present hours, then they have to apply. Whilst doing so, I fully understand pubs putting in applications to open till 2 or 3 in the morning, even if the landlords concerned have it in mind that they only expect to open, say, till midnight in the week and maybe till one at the weekend. If you're applying, why not do it just the once and cover all possibilities?

Also, I believe the cost of owning and applying for a licence has seen a dramatic increase and I think I'm right in believing that the licence has to be renewed - at further cost (or in reality, another tax) annually. I know for sure that due to these fees and the messing around of filling in forms, many a B & B in York have decided to close their own residents only bars - too expensive and not worth the hassle. So choose your B & B carefully should you hope to have a drink with your meal or before you go out, or after you return.

Further, along with the increased cost in the licence, this government has seen fit to create another totally unnecessary burden (ie, tax) regarding public performance licences. You alone can sing in a pub; just don't sing with your mate unless the landlord has a ppl otherwise he could lose his licence. It's ridiculous.

This is why televisions and jukeboxes were turned off in many Sam Smiths pubs recently. It's all about further revenue. Anyway, that's slightly off topic I guess.

My belief is that at first, drink related noise, crime and so on will see a sudden rise when the new law comes in but that after a while the novelty value will wear off.

Personally, I'm adopting an attitude of 'wait and see'.

yeah, it's like those living in the city centre complaining about the noise.

Simple solution, don't live in a city centre.


I think (from personal experience), most problems come with a bulk load of people all being dumped on the streets at the same time. Thumbs up for extended opening in my opinion.

Originally posted by nick2
Personally, I wouldn't move into a house near a pub if I thought I would be disturbed by people out enjoying themselves.

That argument is too simplistic, this isnt the case at all.

I can sympathise with a resident who suddenly finds that the pub next door is extending their opening hours from 11.00pm to 2am. When they bought the house they couldnt know that Labour would bring this policy forward.

When the judges and police say that the new laws will lead to an increase in disturbances and violent crime, we have to listen.

staggered closing times will reduce violence vandalism noise etc.

because if you people watch at pub closing time (as I quite enjoy doing) its the big groups of people all in one place that cause the trouble

enough NIMBYing and just see how it'll work out.

Originally posted by willman
personally if takeaways stay open it's worth it.i dont drink but occasionally fancy a late meal.
we already "suffer" with people walking home after 12midnight, singing & stuff & most of these are 35+ couples not youths.

Well the disturbance will soon be after 1 am on weekdays and as late as 3 am at weekends.The takeaways are going to have to extend their hours if they want to catch the drunk trade.

I certainly wouldn't risk life and limb jostling with a crowd of drunken belligerent slapheads for an early breakfast, - but if you enjoy a little danger in your life good luck to you. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by goose
That argument is too simplistic, this isnt the case at all.

I can sympathise with a resident who suddenly finds that the pub next door is extending their opening hours from 11.00pm to 2am. When they bought the house they couldnt know that Labour would bring this policy forward.

When the judges and police say that the new laws will lead to an increase in disturbances and violent crime, we have to listen.

because the judges who all spoke out sounded like they were really 'in touch' with 'the street'. The only thing they had any experience of personally was having one brandy too many in the smoking room and being sick into a priceless ming vase.

The police haven't universally condemned the changes. It's actually going to make policing easier for them. No sudden peak of people at 11 and 2, a steady flow throughout the evening.

Originally posted by Carl_Malibu
staggered closing times will reduce violence vandalism noise etc.

because if you people watch at pub closing time (as I quite enjoy doing) its the big groups of people all in one place that cause the trouble

enough NIMBYing and just see how it'll work out.

Doubt there will be any staggered closing times, competing pubs/bars aren't going to voluntarily close an hour before the competition and lose all that lovely profit from the last hour's drinking.

BTW I'm not 'NIMBYing', - our nearest pub is mles away. ;)

My concern here is that the general public have not been given a fair chance to object to pub hours extensions that could cause them considerable misery in the future.

Originally posted by Greybeard
Doubt there will be any staggered closing times, competing pubs/bars aren't going to voluntarily close an hour before the competition and lose all that lovely profit from the last hour's drinking.

My concern here is that the general public have not been given a fair chance to object to pub hours extensions that could cause them considerable misery in the future.

Here, here.

This is the crux of the argument and so far i havent seen any posts which persuade me that any of these concerns have been addressed.

Originally posted by Greybeard
Doubt there will be any staggered closing times, competing pubs/bars aren't going to voluntarily close an hour before the competition and lose all that lovely profit from the last hour's drinking.

BTW I'm not 'NIMBYing', - our nearest pub is mles away. ;)

My concern here is that the general public have not been given a fair chance to object to pub hours extensions that could cause them considerable misery in the future.

You could say that the general public have not been given the chance to drink responsibly before people start complaining about problems with the new licensing hours.

A solicitor acting for a brewery has summed up the situation quite well - "The whole law is crazy."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1750867,00.html

It was a good result -

Common Sense 1 - Bacchus, Blair & Co. 0 :P

Originally posted by Greybeard
A solicitor acting for a brewery has summed up the situation quite well - "The whole law is crazy."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1750867,00.html

It was a good result -

Common Sense 1 - Bacchus, Blair & Co. 0 :P

interesting story, but I don't see how she reaches that conclusion.
Seems like a satisfactory resolution for the people involved in that case anyway.

I am a pub landlady and to be honest I am sick of all the flak we get from everybody with regards to these new laws. It was not us who asked for longer opening hours but the governments bright idea. Most people in this trade work bloody hard and the idea of working even longer hours I can tell you is not what most of us wants. It is hard to make a decnt living in this trade as it is ,what with all the hidden extras that will be brought in due to these changes. I know several landlords that are thinking of throwing in the towel beacuse they simply cannot afford to carry on. Will it make it better when all the pubs are shut down and there is no where to go for a pint. Most licencees are resposible people who like nothing better than to make their regulars happy so they can enjoy there pint in peace,Its about time we got a little credit! Sorry to go on but it makes me so angry

There is another disturbing aspect of the new Licensing Act which comes into force next month. From this Torygraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UJP0XTW1UBAHLQFIQMGSM5OAVCBQ WJVC?xml=/news/2005/10/05/nlicen05.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/05/ixnewstop.html)
report it seems only the police will be able to object to 24 hour rave parties.

Local residents will not be allowed to have their objections taken into account by the council licensing authority when considering applications.

A Department for Culture, Media and Sport consultation paper says the new system is "intended to strike a balance between the rights of residents living close to premises where permitted temporary activities may take place and the desire to put in place a liberal and light touch regime".

It adds: "Only the police may object to the giving of a temporary event notice and then only on grounds relating to the prevention of crime and disorder.

"It is then for the licensing authority to decide whether or not the objection given by the police should be upheld.

"No objection may be given on grounds relating to the other three licensing objectives - the prevention of public nuisance [for example, noise], public safety and the protection of children."

The paper notes that "where a temporary event notice is given for the purpose of authorising sales of alcohol, the authorisation can cover such sales for 24 hours a day and a possible duration of four days".

The consultation over the new rules ends today but few are happy with what the Government is proposing.

Local government leaders say the laws will exclude the public from any say in whether temporary events should be allowed.


Another Nulabour nail in the coffin of local government, and of course it's very presumptuous of us to believe the prevention of public nuisance, public safety and the protection of children is a matter for our locally elected councillors; - wtf do they know ?? :rant:

Its the posties I feel sorry for! Our village hall wanted the full entertainment licence package and had to send 3 copies of the form off to 9 different authorities! :hihi:

Originally posted by Greybeard
There is another disturbing aspect of the new Licensing Act which comes into force next month. From this Torygraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UJP0XTW1UBAHLQFIQMGSM5OAVCBQ WJVC?xml=/news/2005/10/05/nlicen05.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/05/ixnewstop.html)
report it seems only the police will be able to object to 24 hour rave parties.

Local residents will not be allowed to have their objections taken into account by the council licensing authority when considering applications.



Another Nulabour nail in the coffin of local government, and of course it's very presumptuous of us to believe the prevention of public nuisance, public safety and the protection of children is a matter for our locally elected councillors; - wtf do they know ?? :rant:

Does seem a little bit odd and not quite in line with the rest of the legislation.

I'm still looking forward to the later opening times of most pubs though.

Interesting comment from Risingsun.
I was wondering who would be manning the bars from now on. There is a law against people working longer hours and overtime is included in this.
How are the pubs going to staff these hours?

Originally posted by Floe
Interesting comment from Risingsun.
I was wondering who would be manning the bars from now on. There is a law against people working longer hours and overtime is included in this.
How are the pubs going to staff these hours?

It shouldn't be difficult, hire a few more people, spread the shifts out so that no one is working too much.

Oh - and for most places it's only an hour or two extra every day.

Originally posted by goose
Here, here.

This is the crux of the argument and so far i havent seen any posts which persuade me that any of these concerns have been addressed.

The general public has been given exactly the same opportunity to complain as they always have.

The system of notification wherby a landlord places the application in their window has been in operation for years.

Oh and BTW, if you're all so worked up about it, why didn't you read up on what you could do to complain before it was too late? This proposal has been on the table for two years (at least!).

Bet the Magement are populer:heyhey:

I can only speak from my own pub but like it has been mentioned that most pubs will open only a coulpe hours more for us for example we are only opening until 12.30 at the weekends, the trouble is of course that it is easy to say get more staff or increase their hours but you have to have the money to pay them and i think customers will just come out later in the evening so I dont think there will be an increase in trade. I am only speaking about local pubs on local estates.

Originally posted by risingsun
I can only speak from my own pub but like it has been mentioned that most pubs will open only a coulpe hours more for us for example we are only opening until 12.30 at the weekends, the trouble is of course that it is easy to say get more staff or increase their hours but you have to have the money to pay them and i think customers will just come out later in the evening so I dont think there will be an increase in trade. I am only speaking about local pubs on local estates.

no one is forcing you to open later.
But I think you're right, people will come out later, so simply have a few of your staff start later.

It will be great for me, as at the moment on Thurs I train until 22:00, which gives 1 hr to get showered, changed and to the pub, generally leaving me with about 20 mins to have a drink with the club. If the pub was open later we could stop that mad dash and take our time a little.

yehh longer dinking times a bonus for us poor gits who finish work a hour before closeing time .

Let's give it a go and see if we can look after ourselves responsibly. Lets face it, the pubs that are well run with a decent clientele are going to be grand, they'll slightly alter staff rosters to accommodate the new laws (if they want the extra business in the first place - many suburban pubs will find the whole thing pointless), the locals will do tbe same thing they always have done, and maybe some licence holders will make a bit more cash. The pubs that dont give a toss, who employ mardy bouncers and kick everyone out by 11.15 sharp without a good word - will continue to do the same until 1 or 2am, and they will continue to be an irritant to locals. If we all took a bit of personal responsiblity aand behaved decently towards our fellow city dwellers there'd be no worries.
So don't have a go at the council, this is the first positive move from them that I can remember. Some are trying to offer the people the same nightlifestyle that they can get in more cosmopolitan cites such as Manc or Leeds. Maybe in time our streets will be as safe as those in other countries where the culture of "late" drinking doesn't mean getting leathered until the pubs close, but means having food and drink when you feel like it (if the market is there).
The bottom line is I've felt safer walking the streets early in the morning in nearly every other country I've visited (and there's been many). The streets need to be reclaimed 24 hours a day for everybody, and it shouldn't take cctv cameras to do so - Why do we not let our kids out in the streets at night? Why are the roads "dangerous"? They dont have to be, so lets try and grow up a bit and learn from our neighbours.
Also, on a more selfish note, it means I can go to a pre-club bar on a Friday night until 1.30am, then pop down to a club in town and have a few more drinks - I beleive there's a 6am licence in town now. And that's nothing short of BRILLIANT!!!

Part of the new laws does give police new powers to tackle pubs that cause problems, that may help with that kind of worry.

Also the coucil are expected to take into account the pubs location before granting extra hours.

However I still believe the new rules with hours is common sense and brilliant for the ordinary drinker. At the moment there is nowhere you can go for a relaxed drink after 11pm - all the late bars are clubby type venues where generally you are stood up in a packed out room with loud music and crap beer.

Under the new rules both traditional pubs and the smart bars will also be available as well as the clubby/towny bars until about 12/1am where demand/suitability permits.

Also of course it's not mandatory to open longer hours - some pubs have simply applied to carry on as they are, and some of those (mainly suburban pubs) that have applied for extra hours don't intend to take advantage of the extra hours all the time - just perhaps when there is a function or special event.