Tracey Khanna looks at the Government's proposal to relax permitted licensing hours as part of its reform of liquor licensing laws, and contends that the plans raise some serious noise issues.

National concerns about commuting long distances to work, traffic congestion and environmental emissions from vehicles, coupled with the cost and unreliability of public transport have encouraged increasing numbers of people to choose to live centrally where possible. As long as this trend for "city living" continues there will be inevitable conflict between residents, who reasonably expect peace and quiet "after hours", and those who use an area primarily for work, entertainment and leisure purposes. This conflict will only worsen as society comes to expect, indeed demand, 24-hour trading. The Government's plans to modernise the licensing laws of England and Wales, as outlined in the white paper Time For Reform published in April, raise a number of issues regarding noise pollution and public nuisance that have a direct bearing on environmental health.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS
The proposals put forward by the Government would end the 400-year-old tradition of magistrates licensing public houses, giving councils the responsibility for licensing both premises and individuals under a two-tier system. In theory, this should be an ideal opportunity for local authorities to take greater control of public nuisances - specifically noise and rowdy public behaviour following "chucking-out time" in pubs, bars and nightclubs across the country.

Some of the key changes being proposed by the white paper can be briefly outlined as follows:

• a single integrated scheme for licensing premises which sell alcohol, provide entertainment or refreshment at night;
• a new system of personal licences which allow holders to sell or serve alcohol for consumption on or off any premises possessing a premises licence;
• premises licences to incorporate operating conditions (for example opening hours, noise, fire exits and capacity) limited to crime and disorder, public safety and nuisance factors and set locally on the basis of the balance of operator's requirements, resident views and police and fire authority assessments;
• to minimise public disorder from fixed closing times by operating flexible opening hours, with the potential for 24-hour opening, seven days a week, subject to the consideration of the impact on local residents; and
• personal and premises licences to be issued by local authorities, not magistrates as is currently the case.

EXTENDED HOURS
According to the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, a modern licensing law "should allow people to enjoy their leisure as they wish, provided that this does not disturb others".1 The plans will allow local authorities to be free to consider opening hours as part of the general licensing conditions attached to premises. The current, standard "permitted hours" would be removed, leaving applicants open to propose opening and closing times in an operating plan when seeking a premises licence. Under their new powers, local authorities would be able to impose "operating conditions" to a premises licence (which would typically cover operating hours, safety, fire exits, capacity and noise control) in order to restrict disorder and prevent undue public nuisance.

The white paper states that "these changes should help ensure that people leave venues gradually over a longer period, and so reduce pre-closing binge drinking and public order problems arising from large numbers of people arriving on the streets simultaneously". However, for those residents in close proximity to licensed premises this provides little assurance, and the obvious anxiety is that extended opening hours will indeed increase all-night noise.

In Leeds, the City Council actively promotes and encourages a 24-hour city. Its ongoing policy to increase the number of residents living in the city centre can be viewed as a great success in terms of the city's regeneration. However, this success has not come without criticism from some sectors of the community. Graham Wilson, assistant chief EHO (environmental protection), insists that there has been a marked increase in complaints regarding noise nuisance from many city centre locations in Leeds over the past few years. He is quick to point out that there are two distinct types of noise nuisance related to this issue - noise from buildings (which EHOs can enforce some control over) and noise from people going to and from the premises (which is less easy to control). It is highly likely that there will be an increase in complaints in the future. This, he believes, is an inevitable consequence of council policy.

Westminster City Council is all too familiar with these problems. In central London residential accommodation is found in a wide variety of locations - much of which is over ground floor commercial premises. In June this year, Westminster Council agreed on four measures aimed at protecting residents from increased noise and disturbance from entertainment venues:

• earlier closing time for new establishments - which means the introduction of tough new licensing rules to stop West End establishments opening beyond 1.00 am;
• the adoption of a penalty point scheme - under the new risk assessment scheme establishments that continually break rules will earn penalty points;
• noise control - noise levels on entertainment premises will be monitored via the penalty point system. One of the new conditions is that "no sound emanating from the establishment should be audible in any adjoining or adjacent properties"; and
• plans for a special licensing task force.

In response to the Home Office white paper, a number of London boroughs have publicly united in opposition to the "24-hour society" proposals. Westminster, Camden, Islington and Hammersmith and Fulham are urging the Home Office to make some critical amendments. Councillor Angela Hooper, chairman of Westminster City Council's Planning and Licensing Committee, sees the potential for premises opening 24-hours as severely detrimental to the quality of life for many residents. Councillor Hooper also raises the issue of extra council enforcement, which will inevitably require increased funding. There are concerns that councils will not be able to recoup the high cost of effective enforcement and increased administration due to the low licence fee levels being suggested by the Home Office.

The spectre of round-the-clock licensing appears to be of grave concern to many councils, with the main worries being an explosion in alcohol-fuelled crime and violence, an increase in disorderly conduct and an increase in the disquiet felt by local residents as noise nuisance becomes an even greater issue.

At the end of the day, noise is a tricky issue. Difficult to control and regulate, yet implicated as a major contributory factor in anxiety, stress, sleeplessness, heart disease, strokes and ulcers. While the relevant authorities can try their best to protect local residents from the threat of excessive noise nuisance, public expectation regarding acceptable noise levels is often seen as too high. One person's tolerance level may be much higher, or lower, than another's, and it is widely accepted that decibel levels do not necessarily equate with nuisance. As one EHO proclaimed - inner-city residents should undertake substantial research into potential causes of noise nuisance before buying a home and be more realistic about the areas into which they move.

References
1 Home Office, 2000. Time For Reform: Proposals for the Modernisation of Our Licensing Laws (White Paper) CM4696.

The white paper can be viewed on the Home Office web site at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ccpd/liclaw.htm