Agenda item

Report of the Director of Public Protection and Licensing.

5.1       The Chairman stated that she, Richard Cressey, Principal Policy Officer and officers in the Licensing Service had been working with the entertainment industry since the start of the financial year to develop a voluntary Westminster Standard or Charter which promotes responsible behaviour amongst licensees and sets the standard in terms of caring for the welfare of their patrons and being good neighbours.  As set out in the report, this was a core commitment of City For All: Year 2.

5.2       Mr Cressey referred to the progress being made.  This included that there was a good working partnership with Heart of London Business Alliance who were keen to support the Council with this initiative in the Leicester Square/Piccadilly Circus area.  Mr Cressey advised that there was already good practice in the area.  The Council was looking to build on that, refresh how it worked with the trade and support the businesses to operate improved collective management standards.  It was hoped that this would result in the area becoming even more profitable and marketable, as well as better managed.  He had set out in the report what the Council was asking the industry to do, including signing up to voluntary schemes which exist in other cities such as Best Bar None.

5.3       Mr Cressey stated that as part of these discussions with the industry, the businesses were saying that they were prepared to support the initiatives but that they were seeking a commitment from the Council and Police as to how they would support them to achieve the well managed environment.  He added that there were proposals in the report which explored possible innovations in approach and policy and he was seeking a steer from the Committee.  These included reforming how the Council and Police identify problem premises by using a wider range of factors than purely crime data such as phone thefts.  This was something the industry had been requesting for some time.  Training and support was already being provided to licensing premises but this could be increased.  There was an opportunity for more partnership working which was being trialled in Carnaby Street / Kingly Street as well as Leicester Square / Piccadilly Circus. 

5.4       Members responded to the points raised by Mr Cressey in the report and at the meeting, including the following:

·           The Chairman stated that she concurred with the view that there were well run premises where there were reported phone thefts which identified them as problem premises.  On the other hand there were premises which were appallingly run and had not been identified as problem premises due to a lack of crime data.  Councillor Mitchell made the point that it could be a sign that premises were well run if they encouraged crimes to be reported correctly.  There were instances where staff removed patrons from their premises so that they were drunk and disorderly on the street.

·           Councillor Hyams asked whether there were any downsides from drawing in and coordinating support from voluntary schemes such as Drinkaware Crew and Street Pastors.  It sounded like a positive idea.  Mr Cressey replied that in some cases the downside was the cost which it would be necessary for the industry to meet. The Drinkaware Crew would be members of staff that were employed by premises.  This would not be imposed on the industry but the Council would be encouraging businesses to see the benefits of the scheme.  The role of the Drinkaware Crew, which is a national body, typically includes overseeing a queue going into a nightclub, identifying where patrons had left bags or phones in order to reduce the potential for crime and aiding dispersal of patrons to reduce the potential for public nuisance.  They were willing to offer training free as they were keen to be involved in the borough.  Mr Cressey informed those present that there were Street Pastors in Westminster currently but not in the trialled areas. A discussion would potentially need to take place with the Business Improvement Districts about whether to introduce Street Pastors in these areas.  Conversations had taken place with the Police about a focal point or hub where information is provided and Street Pastors give medical treatment.  The Police had hosted an information hub of this type during this year’s Pride celebrations.  Councillor Hyams expressed the view that these schemes should be trialled.

·           The Committee noted the section of the report which referred to the Local Alcohol Action Areas.  Councillor Harvey asked whether it was possible to capture the data of the cost of private individuals who became excessively drunk and ended up in Accident and Emergency (‘A&E’).  Mr Cressey responded that the reason reducing alcohol-related health harms had not been selected as an objective was that the data was particularly difficult to obtain.  It had been stated in the Council’s application to the Home Office that this would be monitored where possible.  It was possible to obtain ambulance service data as it was monitored where people were picked up from.  The A&E data was not as useful as it monitored where the individual resided and not where they were collected.  Mr Cressey added there was some ongoing work that needed to be taken forward with the health service so that the data was gathered in an appropriate way.

5.5       RESOLVED: (i) That the contents of the report be noted; and

            (ii) That officers take into account the views of the Committee as set out above.