Response by the Haringey Federation of Residents' Associations to Haringey Council's Statement of Licensing Policy (2008)

This from the HFRA (Haringey Federation of Residents' Associations):

29th February 2008.


To the London Borough of Haringey Licensing Committee


The following statement has been agreed by the Federation. We note that there was little or no formal response from community groups to the original consultation. As these issues are ongoing we trust you will want to take note of, acknowledge and consider these views emanating from the community.


1. Has the Council’s Licensing Policy (2005) delivered on its stated aims?

The 4 strategic aims of the policy were to (1) prevent crime and disorder (2) promote public safety (3) prevent public nuisance and (4) protect children. From the perspective of residents and their associations none of these objectives have been achieved. On the contrary we are experiencing more crime at night than during the day, as Councillor Canver acknowledged when announcing the installation of CCTV cameras [“Police intelligence tells us that most street crime occurs in the evenings and late at night” Haringey People Dec 2007]. The crime is often associated with alcohol: fights and serious injuries are a feature of late night drinking and the Safer Neighbourhoods teams are having to adjust shift patterns so as to be able to deter or quell anti-social behaviour at midnight and after. As for the protection of children, under-age drinking is going on all round the clock and 24 hour stores are subject to undisciplined behaviour, abuse, spitting and violence by drunken youngsters shoplifting and trying to buy drink and cigarettes. This may not be the pattern of behaviour throughout the Borough but cuttings (enclosed) from the Muswell Hill Journal for 28 February 2008 support the conclusion that these are current problems in what is generally regarded as a quiet and crime-free part of town and that they are aggravated by late night licensing.

2. Consultation with residents and their Associations

The Statement of Licensing Policy continues to state that the Council has had regard to the needs and wishes of the communities it serves and that it will work with local businesses and people to improve community safety and will consult with the community on licensing issues. None of this has happened in any meaningful way. If the Council were serious about consulting with the community they would hold a one day Conference as with the Greener Haringey strategy. Instead they are doing another paper consultation on a draft to which they are already committed. The Federation, in its response to the 2004 Statement of Licensing Policy, warned of the dangers of an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour unless applicants for licences were encouraged to take various steps the most important of which was to seek the views of local residents on the proposed application and to respond to their suggestions for keeping noise under control and preventing crime and disorder. None of these ideas were adopted and the warnings proved to be well-founded. There will continue to be major problems with alcohol-related crime and misconduct after midnight unless the Council makes a real effort to find out the needs and wishes of the community.

3. The Licensing process

The failure to consult with the community about licensing issues would matter less if the licensing procedures gave a fair hearing to persons who wished to object. But our members found that the procedures were extremely restrictive. Objectors were only allowed to speak if they had lodged written or emailed objections within the specified time limit, months before the hearing. Those who were allowed to speak were told that they had to produce “evidence”; but it could not be evidence of recent events, it had to be evidence referred to in the original written objection. Written submissions were misfiled and short time limits were set on speeches. The voice of the community was hardly heard and almost all the late night applications were allowed in full, leaving those who had taken the trouble to come and speak in the public interest feeling understandably aggrieved.

4. The Operating Schedule

The purpose of the Operating Schedule is to elicit “the steps which the applicant proposes to take to promote each of the licensing objectives”. The Council should insist on something more than generalised statements of good intention: the applicant should be required to do a site-specific risk assessment of crime, disorder, danger and nuisance inside and outside the premises in consultation with those most likely to be affected ie local residents.

5. Public access to information

We suggested, in response to the previous draft Strategy Statement that the Council should keep an electronic record of licences and licensing applications to which the public should have access. The arrangements under the old Act required a trip to the Planning Department where one was allowed to inspect and take notes from (but not to photocopy) a manually kept file. Surely we can do better than that in the 21st century? A resident who is concerned about late night drinking at a particular hostelry ought to be provided with instant access to the terms and conditions of the licence.

6. Enforcement

The public cannot assist in the enforcement of licensing terms and conditions unless they know what they are (see above). The police do a reasonable job in visiting licensed establishments and responding to 999 calls. But when it comes to violent incidents in the early hours of the morning charges are seldom made, even in serious cases, because it is all over by the time the police arrive and victims are reluctant to be involved as prosecution witnesses. And so it will continue until the Council makes a reality of its commitment to consult with the community on licensing issues.



Peter Thompson
HFRA Delegate

Dave Morris
HFRA Secretary