Skip to main content

Agenda item

SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES TO THE PROPOSED REVISIONS OF THE COUNCILS STATEMENT OF LICENSING POLICY

Report and appendices are attached.

Minutes:

5.              SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES TO THE PROPOSED REVISIONS OF THE COUNCIL’S STATEMENT OF LICENSING POLICY

 

5.1          Mr Kerry Simpkin, Head of Licensing, Place and Investment addressed the Licensing Committee and informed them that the Licensing Authority began its statutory consultation on its proposed revisions to the Statement of Licensing Policy on the 12th October 2020.  He advised the Licensing Committee that the consultation ran for a period of 5 weeks ending on the 15th November.  Mr Simpkin informed the Licensing Committee that the Licensing Authority received 166 responses to date from a range of different stakeholders. He added that the report provided a summary of those responses. 

 

5.2          Mr Simpkin advised the Licensing Committee that the Licensing Act 2003 (the Act) required that each Licensing Authority must for every five-year period determine its policy with respect to the exercise of its licensing functions and publish a statement of that policy before the beginning of the period.  Before the Licensing Authority can determine its policy for a five-year period it must consult those specified within the Act.  Mr Simpkin advised the Licensing Committee that the current Statement of Licensing Policy (SLP) five-year term will end on the 6th January 2021.  He informed the Licensing Committee that the Licensing Authority has undertaken a review of the policy and proposed a number of revisions.  He added that some of these revisions were as a result of the findings of the Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA), which provided evidence to support the inclusion of an amended cumulative impact policy within the SLP.

 

5.3          Mr Simpkin told the Licensing Committee that in light of the findings from the CIA and the potential impact of COVID-19 the Licensing Authority had taken a pragmatic approach in considering the CIA findings and the proposed revisions to the SLP.  He advised the Licensing Committee that as a direct result of the ongoing uncertainty, impact on licensed premises and the reduction in visitor numbers, the Licensing Authority had decided that expanding the current West End Cumulative Impact Area and implementing further restrictions on other premises uses within that area would not be appropriate. He added that due to the current COVID-19 impact and restrictions on the hospitality sector the Licensing Authority did not believe that the approach would be at odds with its duty to promote the licensing objectives.

 

5.4          Mr Simpkin advised the Licensing Committee that the next steps would be for the Cabinet Member for Public Protection and Licensing to agree the final revisions to the Statement of Licensing Policy and refer it to Full Council on the 9th December requesting that it be formally adopted.  He added that the report provided an opportunity for the Licensing Committee to provide their final views on the proposals in light of the consultation responses.  Mr Simpkin advised the Licensing Committee that it was recommended to provide their views on the summary of the consultation responses relating to the proposed revisions of the Statement of Licensing Policy, and, having had regard to the responses to the consultation, provide a steer on whether any of the proposed revisions should be amended.

 

5.5          Mr Kaner from the Covert Garden Residents Association (CGRA) addressed the Licensing Committee and he advised that there was a general theme from businesses that they would like to see a further relaxation of the CIA policy.  However, residents who live in the CIA zone suffer from a level of impact which was at times far higher than the borough average and were concerned that any relaxation of the CIA or the wording of the CIA policy would make the situation worse.  It was also clear that, despite the presumption to refuse applications to certain types of premises, the number of licences in the cumulative impact zone had increased and so had the negative impacts.

 

5.6          Mr Kaner advised the Licensing Committee that an observational study would have shown an even higher level of issues than those reported.  He said that residents had given up reporting public nuisance issues, especially for noise in the street, because nothing happens as a result.  This meant that this type of nuisance was not going to be visible in the council’s analysis.  It was his view that as the CIA policy is focused on the presumption to refuse certain types of premises, it meant that applicants just applied successfully for a different type of licence, such as the restaurants in the CIA. Mr Kaner felt that many applicants are granted a licence because restaurants are not normally associated with crime and disorder, but they do generate public nuisance, especially as people leave or arrive, and this is particularly the case when there are lots of them grouped together.

 

5.7          Mr Kaner advised the Licensing Committee that he had seen a significant increase in the number of MC66 restaurants in the CIA and an increase in the level of issues on the street; he felt that this was not a coincidence.  He advised the Licensing Committee that applicants for all types of premises should work harder and put greater focus on mitigating the impacts of the granting of a licence.  Mr Kaner informed the Licensing Committee that Covent Garden Resident Association asked that officers review the wording of the cumulative impact policy so it makes absolutely clear that, within the CIA, the presumption to refuse is not dependent on the type of operation but on whether or not it will add to cumulative impact.

 

5.8          The chairman thanked Mr Kaner for his submission and welcomed questions from the Licensing Committee members.  Councillor Burbridge thanked Mr Kaner and stated that she agreed with the points that he raised.  Responding to Mr Kaner, Mr Simpkin advised the Licensing Committee that the in the next review there was scope to review and consider this representation and balance it alongside other responses received.

 

5.9          RESOLVED: Unanimously (13 Votes). That the changes to Statement of Licensing Policy be approved.

 

Supporting documents: