Agenda item

Report of the Operational Director, Premises Management.

3.1      Clare Hayes, Acting Assistant Service Manager, introduced the report.  With the introduction of the new Public Protection and Licensing operating model from 1 April as part of the Council’s drive for significant transformation to achieve its goals for reducing its expenditure, there is a focus on removing inefficiencies within its processes.  She stated that this influenced the approach to licensing applications from beginning to end, not just those applications which ultimately were considered at Licensing Sub-Committee meetings.  It was proposed that revisions to Sub-Committee reports, the way applications are listed, frequency of hearings and a cap on finishing times for the meetings were trialled during the first quarter of the 2015/16 financial year.  The feedback gained from Members, residents, applicants and representatives would be put before the Licensing Committee at the July 2015 meeting.            

3.2      Councillor Caplan commented that he would not support a reduction in the frequency of meetings at this stage.  In practical terms it was better to keep the meetings in Members’ diaries and cancel a meeting should there be a lack of items in a given week rather than look to cancel a meeting a month initially only to find that an additional meeting might be needed at a later stage with Members contacted at short notice.  The scheduling of applications on a weekly basis worked well currently and there were no complaints about this from Members of the Committee.  He had no problems with an informal aim to finish meetings at 4.30pm but this should be at the discretion of the Sub-Committee.  He was content with trialling proposals to change the way applications are listed for Sub-Committee hearings and to revise Sub-Committee reports.

3.3      Ms Hayes explained in response to Councillor Caplan’s point and also a question from Councillor McAllister that it was possible for applications to be listed in a smarter fashion.  Senior Licensing Officers would be responsible for preparing reports at an earlier stage and would make a judgement based on policy whether an application was likely to require a Licensing Sub-Committee hearing.  Applications would be listed earlier than the statutory deadline.  Discussions were likely to take place with those who had submitted representations at an earlier stage.  There would be an increased potential for applications to be resolved prior to meetings and therefore a greater potential for meetings not to be required.  Meetings would not be cancelled only to be reinstated at a later stage.

3.4      It was felt by Members that whilst 4.30pm could be seen as an informal guideline in terms of being a latest time for Sub-Committee meetings to be concluded, of particular importance was how the meetings were managed.  Members were able to inform the parties at the meetings that they had read the papers and would expect oral representations to be to the point.   Councillor Aiken referred to the fact that she stipulated that meetings that she chaired needed to be completed by 3pm in order that she was able to collect her children from school.  It was possible to manage hearings, including cases such as the Madame Jo Jo’s interim steps hearing, in such a way that parties would agree to be relatively succinct and keep to a time limit providing they were given an equal period of time to make their points. 

3.5      Peter Large, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, confirmed that the Licensing Act Hearings Regulations encouraged the setting of time limits provided that equal time was given to applicants and objectors.  The courts also permitted time constraints for the parties involved.  The Council’s Rules of Procedure reflected that Chairmenwere able to explain how the proceedings would be conducted and any time limits that would apply to the parties to the application.  Barry Panto, Senior Assistant Solicitor, added that in his experience of Sub-Committee meetings most of the applicants and their legal representatives wanted to progress their applications and be relatively succinct.  It was those exceptions which needed to be managed carefully.  Richard Brown addressing the Sub-Committee on residents’ behalf often lessened the length of a hearing in comparison to when residents did not have a representative present.  It was rare for meetings to continue past 3pm and there were less instances of late meetings than there had been in the past.  There were of course some cases that were more complex which required more time.  He made the point that if one meeting in a month was cancelled the average number of four applications per week would be increased and would potentially lead to a significant workload at the following meeting.  He expressed the view that the themes of the review should be applauded but the key was smart management of the applications rather than a pre-programmed reduction in the Sub-Committee meetings.

3.6     Councillor Harvey referred to the fact that Chairmen of the Planning Applications Committee read out a statement at each meeting which reflected that they had read the papers.  It was agreed that it would be useful to provide a chairman’s note for meetings.  The Chairman referred to the proposal in the report to review the reports and use technology available at the hearings as a driver to reduce paper documents.  These would include maps and photographs on the screens at the meetings and the provision of plans in a larger format.  The Chairman and Councillor Evans recommended that for larger versions of CRIS and CAD reports which often were several hundred pages, one paper copy be made available at the Callover meeting in addition to being e-mailed to the Sub-Committee.  Councillor Aiken stated there was a benefit to summarising the content of letters in the report if there were a number which were very similar in nature.  It was noted that officers had the software to be able to summarise this information.

3.7      The Committee agreed to trial the new reports format which would be assessed at the next Licensing Committee in July.  Members were also content for officers to introduce a change to the way applications are listed for Sub-Committee hearings.  Members were not of the view that the current frequency of hearings, held on a weekly basis each Thursday, should be reduced.  In the event that the new scheduling of applications system introduced by the Licensing Service lead to there being a lack of applications in a given week then there was the potential for that meeting to be cancelled.  The suggested cap of 4.30pm for Sub-Committee hearings and a set 30 minute lunch period would be used as an informal guideline.  Members were content for officers to develop guidance and a rules document for the Sub-Committee process and that a final draft be brought before the Licensing Committee in July 2015.

3.8       RESOLVED: (i) That the trialling of revisions to the proposed Licensing Sub-Committee reports be approved;

            (ii) That the trialling of a change to the way applications are listed for Sub-Committee hearings be approved;

(iii) That the results from the approved trials along with feedback and recommendations whether to adopt these new approaches as part of the Licensing Sub-Committee process be put before the Licensing Committee in July 2015; and,

(iv) That the proposal for officers to develop guidance and a rules document for the Licensing Sub-Committee process be approved and the final draft of that document be brought before the Licensing Committee in July 2015 for approval.