Agenda item

Report of the Director of Policy, Performance and Communications

3.1      The Committee received the 2016 Annual Report of the Licensing Advice Project which is provided by Citizens Advice Westminster and funded by the Council.  Richard Brown, a solicitor who specialises in licensing law, offers advice to local residents and businesses and is available to represent them at Licensing Sub-Committee hearings.  He was in attendance at the Licensing Committee meeting and answered a number of questions from Members on the service provided, including the following:          

·           Councillor Caplan asked what was changing and evolving in Mr Brown’s role and what could be done differently by the Licensing Sub-Committee?  Mr Brown referred to seeing what recommendations the House of Lords Licensing Act 2003 Select Committee would make to the Home Office.  He had given evidence before the Committee in October 2016.  He also made the point that he had never attended a Sub-Committee meeting where he had felt that residents had not had a fair hearing.  He had found that residents tended to be happier after the hearing had taken place, when they had been given the opportunity to speak or had observed proceedings, than they were before the hearing began.

·           The Chairman stated that one area she believed could be improved and was the reason it had been included as an item on the Licensing Committee agenda was communicating the Council’s licensing work.  She asked Mr Brown whether more could be done to promote the Licensing Advice Project service.  Mr Brown replied that he would encourage any councillors, when approached by residents, to mention the Project.  He added that there were a number of councillors who do that.  Officers did inform residents of the service provided.  He added that it would be difficult if every resident who objected to an application required his help.  Mr Brown explained that most residents requested assistance rather than having everything done for them in opposing an application.

·           Mr Brown clarified that by far the majority of his cases were on behalf of residents but he was available to help any ‘interested parties’ including businesses who objected to an application.

·           Councillor Hyams asked whether other authorities had considered providing a similar service to the Licensing Advice Project.  Mr Brown replied that he was the only one providing such a service in the country.  Other authorities had expressed an interest, including when he had attended Institute of Licensing events.  He added that a recommendation had been made by the Institute of Alcohol Studies this year that the advice service model would be beneficial to residents.  It was one of the aims of the legislation in moving licensing decisions from magistrates’ courts to local authorities that it would give residents more of a say.   

3.2       Councillor Floru stated that he had observed that it was often difficult for the applicants who had smaller businesses and did not employ a legal representative at Licensing Sub-Committee meetings.  Annette Acik, Head of Licensing, responded that the Licensing Service had discussed making the application process as simple as possible whilst being subject to the requirements of the legislation.  The discussions within the Licensing Service had included whether some form of mediation service could be provided, fulfilling both a regulatory role and a supportive role.  This would need to be examined with the Chairman of the Licensing Committee.  Councillor Gassanly suggested a parallel licensing advice project which would help applicants.

3.3       The Committee thanked Mr Brown for the all the work he had done which had helped to promote the licensing objectives.

3.4       RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the Activity Report produced by the Westminster Citizen Advice Bureau Licensing Project.