Agenda item

ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT

Minutes:

10.1     In response to the Chairman consulting Members on potential matters for discussion at the Licensing Committee, Councillor Acton had requested that shisha and delivery vehicles were raised as topics.

 

10.2     Members of the Committee received a briefing note on shisha premises prior to the meeting.  The briefing note had referred to Westminster’s shisha strategy presenting licensing as a way forward to ensure effective management of certain shisha premises where the issues of public safety and nuisance could not be adequately managed through the various pieces of legislation currently applied.  The briefing note also drew the Committee’s attention to the House of Lords Licensing Act 2003 Select Committee examining whether health should be included as a fifth licensing objective which could potentially have an impact on the Council’s approach to shisha premises based on the impact of smoking shisha on health.

 

10.3     Councillor Acton stated that Westminster’s Shisha Symposium had been very successful.  It had been agreed there that the Council would work with other local authorities, including Brent and Birmingham.  One aspect discussed was to lobby Central Government to introduce licensing powers in relation to shisha premises.  She asked whether the Committee considered this to be appropriate.   

 

10.4     The majority of Members of the Committee agreed with this approach.  Councillor Caplan stated that his answer would be yes but that lobbying for a change in licensing legislation required careful consideration in terms of choosing the appropriate legislative route.  He was doubtful that any changes would be made under the current licensing regime.  Councillor Acton in response to Councillor Caplan’s points commented that the Department of Health had been represented at the Symposium and had suggested using devolution powers rather than lobbying Central Government so this way forward was being looked at.

 

10.5     Councillor Gassanly made the point that whilst there were issues at certain shisha premises, he believed it was important that the Council did not cross a line in terms of lecturing to people about the personal choices in their lives.  He expressed the view that the Council’s only focus in this area should be on reducing the impact of public nuisance.

 

10.6     Councillors Burbridge and Hyams expressed concerns regarding the health impact of shisha.  Councillor Hyams added that the key aspect was to get the health message across.  Shisha was not opposed on cultural grounds.

 

10.7     Councillor Acton also requested that at every Licensing Sub-Committee meeting where an applicant sought to deliver off-sales, hot food or hot drink, Members of the Sub-Committee ask the applicant to consider providing the deliveries via electric vehicles, bicycle or on foot.  She believed it would be of value to have something in writing which officers were able to show to applicants that this is the requirement in Westminster.  Mr Simpkin informed those present that there had been a meeting some months ago between Councillor Acton, Councillor Aiken (Chairman of Licensing Committee at that time) and licensing officers regarding nuisance to residents from delivery companies.  There was a plan to come up with some policy options and have a consultation exercise on these later this year. There were some limits to what could be done.  It was not possible to enforce that the delivery companies use the modes of transport proposed.

 

10.8     Councillor Scarborough made the point that requiring the applicants to use their best endeavours to persuade the delivery companies to use the proposed modes of transport was not good enough (applicants had advised the Sub-Committee that employees of the delivery companies that were either being used by them or would be used by them were third parties and they could not be held responsible for the modes of transport used by the third parties).  Councillor Caplan commented that it would be ideal if all the delivery companies used the proposed modes of transport.  However, there were many companies who had not made applications who could deliver via any mode of transport that they wished.