Agenda and minutes

(Assistant to the Chief Executive)  To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

The Panel noted there were no substitute members.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). To declare interests in any items on the agenda.

In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview & Scrutiny members are asked pay particular attention to paragraph 11 of the Code in addition to the more familiar requirements.

This requires the declaration of a personal and prejudicial interest in any matter before an OS Committee which relates to a decision of or action by another Committee or Sub Committee of the Council, a Joint Committee or Joint Sub Committee in which the Council is involved and of which the Councillor is also a member.

Paragraph 11 does not refer to Cabinet decisions or attendance at an OS meeting purely for the purpose of answering questions or providing information on such a matter.

No declarations of interest were made.

To agree the notes of the last meeting held on 24 January 2013.

The notes of the previous meeting held on 24 January 2013 were agreed.

To consider comments from Management Board.

The meeting considered the late report from Management Board commenting on the draft final report of the Panel. The Management Board wanted the Panel to treat their report as further comments/evidence to aid their review. The Panel noted that:

• There was a likelihood that following the enhanced consultation proposed that there was the likely hood that there would be a reply to each application which would bring it to a Sub-committee meeting and a possibility of having 41 extra review meetings;
• Each representation had to be checked for validity by officers and if need be to mediate between objectors and the applicant;
• If the amount of work envisaged materialised, then there would be a need for extra staff in Licensing and in Democratic Services;
• It could be said that the impartiality of the Licensing Committee may be compromised by the use of more local committee arrangements.

Councillor Hart commented that contrary to what Management Board said, the current system did not work satisfactorily hence the request for this Task and Finish Panel.

Councillor Stallan questioned the statement that the Licensing Sub-committee may not be considered as impartial, as local councillors sat on local planning committees.  He was told that planning had more leeway than Licensing and that may open the Council up to more of a chance to an appeal, as lawyers may say that we have reduced out impartiality by selecting local members to decide on applications.

The Panel took the Managements Board’s comments into consideration when discussing the final draft report.

To consider the draft final report for this Task and Finish Panel.

On consideration of their final draft report the Panel noted the new costing that was now included in the report.

Concerns were expressed about employing extra staff before the new system had time to bed down and the amount of extra work was known, but noted that without employing the extra staff they may not have enough time to read all the representations or to mediate between objectors and applicants. Democratic Services were consulted and were of the view that additional work at this level could not be handled with their present staff levels.  It was noted that licensing staff were currently stretched especially the enforcement section.

Councillor Waller as the relevant Portfolio Holder expressed concerns about local members dealing with local applications objectively; that Licensing was different from Planning as planning had about 16 members on a sub-committee while Licensing only had three members; also he was unsure about dividing the district into North and South areas.

Councillor Pond commented that members from adjacent wards could sit on an application. She also considered that members from rural wards did not fully appreciate the problems in urban areas. Councillor Watson argued that there were nine wards from which to choose members from and therefore it cannot be said that they were not impartial.

Councillor Philip commented that the Panel had to decide on four things the consultation area, the make up of the Sub-committees, having evening meetings and Taxi Licensing delegation. The Chairman asked if the Panel could agree on increasing the consultation area. The Panel agreed that this was a good practice and should be implemented.

AGREED: That the notification radius should be set at 150 metres.

Councillor Philip said that the need to decide if a North-South split of the Committee was of use could be deferred to when the arrangements were reviewed in twelve months time.

AGREED: That the Committee not be split into North/South areas at present.

Councillor Philip proposed that the composition of the committee remain as is, with 15 members without being split into North and South areas. However, the Appointments Panel be made aware of the Panel’s thoughts on having a split of membership between urban and rural areas and make appropriate appointments with this consideration in mind. Councillor Stallan agreed and asked if the Panel could also agree to add evening meetings to the proposal. This was agreed.

AGREED:

1)         That the composition of the Licensing Committee remain at 15 members, and that the Appointments Panel be made aware of the need to have a rural/urban split in the membership; and

2)         That evening meetings be established for the new municipal year, to be held one per month, starting at 6.30pm (with a 3pm early start for exceptional meetings), to consider all licences other than taxi licences.

It was also noted that officers would have to consult on the proposals of this Panel with all relevant interested parties. This would be a district wide consultation including the Town and Parish Councils; it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.