Agenda item

To consider the attached report.

The Chairman noted that this report had been discussed at last night’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting.

Alison Mitchell, the Assistant Director (Legal) introduced the report noting that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had asked for details on the costing.

Councillor Smith, the Chairman of the Task and Finish Panel, noted that it had opened up other avenues of exploration, such as the roles of the Licensing Officer which had not been flagged up enough. There was an implied duty on officers to mediate between applicants and objectors; this did not come through strongly enough at last nights meeting. This work would have a large impact on resources.

Councillor Morgan  noted that they had a long debate at the Overview and Scrutiny meeting. The report would now cost the Council over £60,000 in the first year. He noted that some elderly people would not want to travel in the evenings, solicitors would also charge extra for turning out in the evenings. It would help if some of the premises applications could be looked at during the day.

The Senior Democratic Services Officer, Simon Hill informed the meeting that three committees had a right to speak to the Task and Finish report before it went to full Council. They were the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, the Cabinet to consider the budgetary implications and the Licensing Committee.

Councillor Wixley had several concerns about who would be consulted, would Town and Parish Councillors be consulted now; the cost and security of officers staying for late night meetings (should they be given a taxi home); if a meeting was to continue the next day – would it be held in the evening or during the day? He had his doubts about this report.

Councillor Morgan added that member travelling costs had not been taken into consideration.

The Senior Licensing Officer, Kim Tuckey, noted that she had to arrange a number extra meetings over the last few months and to do this she was dependant on the consultation period. This report raises the possibility of five extra meetings per month. As officers they would have to do a lot of background work on each case.

Councillor Boyce thought that the few members that had started this process regarded licensing as the same as planning, which it was not. It was more constrained in what it could do. If an application was refused on uncertain grounds then it would be appealed. This was also adding a lot more meetings for officers and members.

The Chairman noted that the democratic benefit was to enable working councillors to attend meetings as well as objectors who could not attend daytime meetings. But, most objectors were elderly and would not want to come out in the evenings. There was lot of work to be done on the consultations and any new staff would not be up to speed for some time. Ms Tuckey agreed, saying that it was not just the law on nightclubs they needed to know about, but the Acts for all the other various applications. An officer would need to have about six months training to be competent in the basics.

Councillor Wixley asked if members for evening meetings should be trained in the evenings; and could they attend the full Licensing Committee that meets during the day. Also, what happens if a member of a Panel that has to be continued from the previous evening could not attend the next day’s meeting?

Councillor Smith also noted that case law was prejudicial against ward members considering applications that involved their own wards.

Councillor Morgan proposed that the Licensing Committee did not accept the recommendations in the report as they were not appropriate and the costs were too prohibitive. This was seconded and agreed unanimously by the Committee.

RESOLVED:

That the Licensing Committee did not accept the recommendations of the Review of Licensing Services Task and Finish Panel on the grounds that they were inappropriate and the costs were prohibitive.