Interesting ...... fire safety is obviously to a poor standard so apply to review the licence to restrict the occupancy.
Nice idea but the Licencing Act doesn`t allow you to review a licence under these circumstances. The Licensing Act makes it quite clear that where other legislation exists i.e. Fire Safety Order 2005 then the enforcing authority must use their powers under that legislation.
The Evil Eye Lounge has been accused of the following failures:
1. The escape routes were obstructed
2. The escape routes did not lead, as directly as possible, to a place of safety
3. The escape routes and exits could not be used as quickly and as safely as possible
4. The number, distribution and/or size of escape routes and exits was inadequate
5. Fire exits and doors on escape routes could not be easily and immediately opened from the inside
6. Emergency doors did not open in the direction of escape
7. The escape routes were not provided with adequate signage
8. The escape routes were not adequately lit
9. The escape routes did not have adequate emergency lighting in case of failure of normal lighting
All of which can be dealt with under the Fire Safety Order.
From my experience the areas where our office have successfully reviewed a licence are:
Incorrect plans - Where we have given a Licensee the option of carrying out work to a licensed area or removing it from the licence. He has taken it out of use but not varied the licence. We were then forced to review the licence to ensure the area wasn’t used for licensable activities. This was Pre RRO.
Lack of Building Regulation approval or completion certificate – Not my legislation, but it is prudent to request the completion certificate first.
As already mentioned Fire Authorities must use Lancashire as an example of best practice. It can be a slow process but we must build a case then prosecute. There are no short cuts, gone are the days of hiding behind the Licensing Act as we did under the 1964 Act.
