Agenda item

Report of the Director of Policy, Performance and Communications.

3.1      The Chairman introduced Mr Richard Brown, a solicitor specialising in licensing law, who manages the Citizens Advice Bureau Licensing Advice Project.  She referred to the excellent service he was able to provide to local residents, including representing them at Licensing Sub-Committee meetings. This service was subsidised by the Council.  Applicants often had experienced legal teams to represent them and that without Mr Brown’s assistance residents had the burden of putting forward their own cases in response.  His involvement was also of benefit to the Committee in terms of concisely setting out the case of interested parties.    

3.2      Mr Brown explained to Members of the Committee the work of the Project, including the activities undertaken during 2015 as set out in his report.  The Project provided advice, assistance, information and representation to residents and businesses in respect of their rights and responsibilities under a range of licensing legislation, principally Licensing Act 2003, Gambling Act 2005 and Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.  His advice reflected the increased role given to residents in relation to the three licensing regimes.  Mr Brown stated that a major part of his casework was to represent residents (including associations and amenity societies) and also businesses at Licensing Sub-Committee hearings.  It was important that residents were kept informed of the process prior to the hearing, including any proposed conditions.  He expressed the view that it was very rare for residents to leave the hearings less content with the process than when they arrived.  They were able to observe the matters that the Sub-Committee took into consideration and why a decision was made.  If a decision did not go the way of the resident or business Mr Brown was representing, they appreciated that it was not necessarily the end of the matter.  Should the licensing objectives be undermined following the granting of an application, there was the potential for a review of the premises licence.      

3.3       Mr Brown stated that he was available to advise clients at a location which was convenient for them.  Residents and businesses were able to access the Project website containing information and advice.  He had included a table in the report with the website statistics of the documents which had been downloaded during 2015.  The document downloaded most frequently had been a Guide to the Licensing Act 2003. Other aspects of the Project’s work included responding to local and national consultations, writing articles for residents’ magazines, maintaining close links with residents’ associations and amenity societies and contributing to surveys.  The Project aimed to contribute to the wider Social Policy aims of Citizens Advice, improving the policies and practices which affect people’s lives.

3.4       Mr Brown commented that in addition to ensuring that the interested parties’ points were communicated to the Sub-Committee, he encouraged his clients to speak at hearings as they were often able to give powerful evidence.  An example of this had been the William Hill review application in Harrow Road in November 2015.  He also briefly referred to the current issues that were concerning residents, including the later permitted hours for the Night Tube on Friday and Saturday evenings being likely to result in an increase in people entering, and remaining in, the West End late at night.

3.5       Members of the Committee echoed the Chairman’s view that Mr Brown’s attendance at Sub-Committee meetings benefited those present.  They asked Mr Brown a number of questions, including the following:

·           Approximately how many cases had he dealt with during 2015 and how did that compare with previous years?  Mr Brown replied that he received at least 100 to 110 enquiries per year.  Some of the enquiries related to residents seeking his advice on applications and others residents’ concerns relating to noise from premises.  The split was approximately 70% to 30% in favour of advice being sought on applications.

·           Were there areas in which Sub-Committee meetings could be improved?  Mr Brown stated that he appreciated the way Members tended to take the time to listen to what local residents had to say at the meetings.  He believed it would always lead to a better decision if Members listened to the residents’ case in its totality.

·           Mr Brown was asked about his priorities in terms of his workload and whether there was anyone who could cover for him in the event he was not present at a Sub-Committee meeting.  He replied that his workload was varied depending on the client.  For instance some local residents might be quite capable of drafting their own representations whilst others needed assistance.  Mr Brown added that he aimed not to take leave on Thursdays but on the few occasions when he was not present at hearings he had provided Members with a written version of the points he would have made had he been in attendance and advised local residents accordingly.  Leo Charalambides, a barrister, had offered to do some pro bono work and at the request of Mr Brown, had previously represented residents at Sub-Committee meetings.

·           Did he have any thoughts about decision making at recent Sub-Committee meetings?  Mr Brown expressed the view that the vast majority of decisions were fair decisions.  He was able to explain the reasons for the decisions to the residents who had made representations.  There did not appear to be a large number of appeals and when appeals were submitted, they often appeared to be by premises licence holders in response to review decisions because of the impact on the businesses and not because the decisions were unreasonable.  He did not recall a Sub-Committee hearing where he felt that he had not been adequately heard.   

3.6       The Chairman thanked Mr Brown for submitting the report and providing additional information regarding the Westminster Citizens’ Advice Bureau Licensing Project at the meeting.  She requested that Mr Brown update the Committee on an annual basis.

3.7       RESOLVED: That the Committee receive an update on the work of the Westminster Citizens’ Advice Bureau Licensing Project on an annual basis.