Agenda item

Report of Director of Public Protection and Licensing

6.1       Mr Simpkin introduced the report.   At the previous Licensing Committee meeting in March 2015, Members had approved that there would be a trialling of new report formats for Licensing Sub-Committee meetings.  The formats would seek to eliminate unnecessary documentation whilst providing the relevant information within the main text of the report itself.  Four different report formats were produced for Sub-Committee meetings in May and June and these were included in the papers for the current meeting.  Mr Simpkin stated that he wished to amend the recommendation in the report.  He was requesting that Members of the Sub-Committee provide feedback on the different report formats and indicate if they have a preferred option so as to enable a final view to be taken by the Operational Director in consultation with the Chairman.  He also added that it had also been resolved at the meeting in Marchthat officers would develop a new guidance and rules document as part of the Rules of Procedure for Licensing Sub-Committee hearings and it was intended that this would be available at the next meeting in November 2015.

6.2       Members commented on the four report formats.  Councillor Harvey expressed the view that all four report formats were an improvement in terms of clarity over the existing report format.  She believed that the fourth example included in Appendix A4 of the report appeared to be the best of these.  Councillor Acton also expressed the view that the fourth example included the best aspects of the existing report format and was more comprehensive in terms of clarity than the other three examples.  Councillor Caplan added that the fourth example explained what was involved with the application and set out well the comments of those who had made representations. If the correct level of clarity was provided in the report, then there was less need for the applicants’ representatives to describe applications in detail at Sub-Committee meetings.     

6.3       Councillor Burbridge made the point that the reports needed to provide some explanation at the beginning as to what it was Members were required to determine.  This had on occasion not been clear, at least until much of the report had been read.  An emphasis was required on any changes that had taken place since the original application had been submitted.  Mr Simpkin stated that it would be possible to include a couple of paragraphs at the beginning of the reports to explain exactly what was being applied for and if there had been any changes since the original application.  There were often amendments to the application after the reports were published.  Councillor Mitchell stated that it was useful for the licensing officers to explain any amendments at the Sub-Committee hearings in the event of late information received after reports were published.  The Chairman commented that the case officers were very familiar with the applications that reached the Sub-Committee hearings and could provide this additional information.  There was scope for expanding their role.  Councillor Evans expressed the view that if a glossary of abbreviations was provided to those who submitted applications or made representations, it was unnecessary to duplicate the same terms in reports including ‘Licensing Sub-Committee’.

6.4       Councillor Talukder asked whether it was possible to limit the level of e-mails and documents which were received the day prior to Sub-Committee meetings.  Barry Panto, Senior Assistant Solicitor, replied that the Rules of Procedure had been amended by the Licensing Committee in 2014 so that parties involved with an application would be expected to provide any additional information received after the published report by midday on Monday prior to the Thursday Sub-Committee meeting.  It was also the case that information could not be presented at the hearing itself without the consent of other parties.  It was in the discretion of Members whether information was presented to the Sub-Committee at a late stage prior to a hearing.  The Licensing Act did not exclude the potential for information to be received in the twenty four hours or so leading up to a hearing.  On a number of occasions it did assist the Sub-Committee if late information was received where issues were resolved between the parties involved with the application.  It could be the case in these instances that the applicant’s legal representative would take longer to explain an application if there was a rule in place which prevented him or her from being able to submit a document which would have clarified the situation.  Members of the Sub-Committee always had the option to question why evidence was being presented at a late stage and if an adequate response was not given, they could decide that they would not have regard to it.

6.5       Councillor Harvey queried whether, if the deadline for information received after the report was noon on Monday, it was possible to have the information couriered to Members of the Sub-Committee before Wednesday evening.  She also requested larger and colour copies of plans for applications.  Mr Simpkin stated that there was the potential for including better plans in reports, potentially in A3 size and folded.  Councillor Mitchell made the point that there was an issue that if papers were sent straight after the Monday lunchtime deadline, the committee officer would then potentially have to send further updates by post on the evenings prior to the Thursday meeting.  With the current receipt of additional papers in the Members’ Despatch on the Wednesday evening, the papers were received by Members in one bundle.  Councillor Caplan added that the papers were forwarded by the committee officer electronically once he had received them and this was useful.

6.6       Following a suggestion by the Chairman and having received feedback from Members on the different report formats,it was agreed that the Licensing Service would produce a report in the style of option four (Appendix A4 of the report) with requested improvements.  The Chairman would discuss the revised report with the other Licensing Sub-Committee Chairmen prior to a final decision being made, in consultation with the Director of Public Protection and Licensing.

6.7       RESOLVED: (i) That having received feedback from Members on the different report formats,the Licensing Service be required to produce a report in the style of option four (Appendix A4 of the report) with requested improvements; and,

            (ii) That the Chairman discuss with the other Licensing Sub-Committee Chairmen the updated option four report prior to a final decision being made in consultation with the Director of Public Protection and Licensing.