AAA White Paper The political economy of informal events, 2030 | Page 109

109
in knowledge, education and standards around licensing, not only
regarding police licensing officers but [also] around the licensing
committee members’. In the same vein, about police training, the
Select Committee itself concluded:
‘A single day of non-compulsory national training per year, given to a
limited number of attenders, on a national basis is clearly insufficient for
a complex and nuanced area of policing, while an accreditation scheme
is welcome but is unlikely to achieve its objectives unless the underlying
programme of training on offer is improved and extended. The task of
delivering this training should fall to the [Hendon] College of Policing, not
to local forces.’
Around police and local authority officers, there’s plenty of
room for debate on what would be the best way to improve skills.
For the police it could well include national accreditation. For
environmental health officers and the like, an NVQ in licensing
might be wise. And yes, the informal events sector needs to
develop its own standard of training around licensing.
With better training, all sides in the event licensing process
may come to understand each other more, and to agree fewer
but better conditions on each licence. A genuine and concerted
initiative among professionals here will also help residents.
Residents are now often expert in making formal representation
against events; but many are not so expert, when assessing any
event’s likely impact, in balancing up all the factors around it –
something which is, as we have seen, required by the law.
Fifth and last: everyone around events licensing needs to work
together, in partnership, for a reform of the 2003 Act and a much
more coherent and consistent system of licences – one that clearly
takes account of informal events, their benefits, and the need to
help them through faster, smoother licensing processes.
In this light, the Act needs an overhaul for three reasons:
1. Across local authorities, inconsistencies in and widely
differing interpretations of licensing exist, and can lead to lengthy
and challenging licensing processes. Even just between different
parts of London, there are big differences in the licensing process.
In one borough, it’s possible for an event organiser to submit, to the
licensing authorities, a simple drawing of a red boundary around
a site. But in another London borough, the same organiser can
be required to issue full site plans, complete with details of each
Temporary Demountable Structure (TDS) – and to do this a fair few
months in advance of an event, which is something anyone would find
difficult.
Interpretations of licensing vary enormously from place to place.
It is possible for an event organiser to put together two very similar
events, with very similar attendances, and find that one is subject to
just 20 licence conditions, while the other has no fewer than 150.
2. The conditions attached to licences aren’t always clear. Lack
of clarity on license conditions leads to disputes. The example of noise
illustrates this.