Contrary to your comment (Oxford Mail, February 10), Oxford has never expressed a desire to become a 24-hour city.
Like any council, we have to consider applications for extensions to licences, just as we must decide planning applications.
The Government is liberalising certain licensing laws, while clamping down on promotions which encourage excessive drinking. But we are not promoting later opening, contrary to what you suggest.
When the licensing panel decides applications, it must provide reasons for refusing later opening. If these reasons are inadequate, the applicant may appeal, and will win -- with the council (or rather the long-suffering council taxpayer) paying both sides' legal fees, running into tens of thousands of pounds.
This is why we are sometimes unable to turn down city centre applications on grounds of crime prevention, as residents would like.
In the absence of police objections, such decisions will inevitably be overturned, residents will feel no benefit, and the taxpayer will foot the bill.
Under licensing laws, councillors are duty bound to balance the needs of residents with the benefits that a vibrant night-time economy brings to the city.
ED TURNER (Councillor)
Chairman, Licensing Committee
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article