Agenda item

Discussion paper.

7.1       The Committee received a discussion paper on the Licensing Service’s review of how it communicates with the public and licensees relating to licensing applications and information.  The Chairman referred to the fact that there had been information technology issues in the last few months which had prevented the Licensing Team producing Licensing News in its previous format.  This had occurred at a similar time to when the future of Licensing News had been consulted on.  These two matters were entirely unconnected.  However, it had brought a number of very important matters to the forefront.  Councillor Karen Scarborough had been concerned about the future of Licensing News.  The Chairman had asked her to work with officers on producing a plan as to how the Council should communicate with residents, in particular about licensing applications, in the future.  From the consultation process and from discussions with Councillor Scarborough, it was clear that there was a need for a Licensing News document to be published.  However, the Chairman added that it was not clear whether Licensing News in its current format is fit for purpose.  She was keen to seek the views of Members of the Committee on the points set out in the discussion paper.

7.2       Mr Simpkin advised that the review was a major piece of work, assessing functions which the Licensing Service carry out which are not statutory requirements.  As part of this work, officers in the Licensing Team had asked themselves four questions, ‘why do we provide the communication?’, ‘who is the intended audience?’, ‘does the content meet the needs of that audience?’ and ‘does it provide a cost effective means of communicating the information?’  He brought to Members’ attention that the likes of the consultation letters, Licensing News and lamppost notices had been introduced prior to the Licensing Act 2003 and officers had not previously reviewed in detail whether these non-statutory processes were still fit for purpose. 

7.3       The Chairman recommended that in addition to Members of the Committee commenting on the questions and points in the discussion paper at the current meeting, they would have the option to contact officers in the Licensing Team with any views they had post meeting.  Comments made by Members during the meeting included the following:

·           Councillor Hyams expressed the view that officers should not rely on social media only to consult residents and businesses.  All age groups needed to be catered for.  Councillor Hyams and Councillor Burbridge shared the view that information should be made available in The Westminster Reporter and in libraries.  Councillor Hyams queried whether the consultation letters for applications were effective.  She supported the retention of lamp post notices.

·           Councillor Mitchell stated that there were a lot of tools and information on the website should residents’ groups or businesses wish to access them.  He questioned whether the information needed to be emailed in all cases.  He was of the view that people often only found out about applications via lamp post notices and that this was still a necessary form of consultation.  Councillor Mitchell shared Councillor Hyams’ view that letters ‘to the occupier’ were an anonymous way of trying to contact people within the vicinity of premises which had submitted licensing applications and was perhaps not the most effective method of doing so.  It perhaps also depended on the ward where the letters were being sent as St James’s Ward had a lot of applications and it was easy for the application/letters to be missed.  Mr Simpkin advised that a large number of the consultation letters were returned.

·           Councillor Acton made the point that although she was aware of the various ways in which the Licensing Service consulted residents and businesses she had only become aware of an application near to where she lived as a result of receiving a consultation letter.  She was of the view that some system should be used to notify people in close proximity to an application, whether this was via letter or e-mail.  She wished to retain the lamp post notices as local residents often found out about applications via this route.

·           Councillor Harvey recommended retaining all the consultation options until the customer service interface improved.  She did not believe there should be a reliance on social media and felt it was important to maintain a ‘contract’ with residents and businesses.

·           Councillor Prendergast and Councillor Gassanly commented that residents were often new to the process and were not aware of how the Licensing Sub-Committee regime operated.  There was a question around how residents were informed of their rights and the rights of the other parties.  Councillor Prendergast referred to the fact that Richard Brown was residents’ best hope of having the position explained to them in respect of applications.  She also asked whether consultation letters or the notices on lamp posts could be more eye-catching.

·           The Chairman stated that once the consultation had been concluded and the way forward decided upon, it would be helpful if all ward Members sent an alert to the local amenity societies and residents’ associations to highlight that if these groups would like specific information on licensing applications they should sign up.  She recommended that Licensing News should include short descriptions of the applications referred to there in the same way as the weekly planning list.

7.4       Mr Simpkin wished to emphasise that there was a significant cost and time spent in producing the consultation letters and it could be argued that they were not good value.  They were useful to some residents/businesses some of the time.  However, a different approach could be to advise residents or businesses how to get hold of specific information.  It was still necessary for applicants to put notices up in their premises and in the local paper if they were submitting a licensing application.

7.5       Annette Acik, Head of Licensing, stated that officers were reviewing Licensing News, including the type of information provided and whether the language used was suitable for people who were not familiar with licensing.  She was keen to work more closely with library staff so that they were aware of what information could be passed on to relevant stakeholders.  

7.6       Councillor Mitchell referred to the fact that he received an alert from the Committee & Governance Services’ part of the website when a St James’s Ward application was included on an agenda.  There should be scope for Licensing News updates to be available via the website.  There was potentially not a need for an attachment to be e-mailed.  The Chairman stated that it was necessary to make the process easier and more cost effective.  Members were recommended to send any additional comments post meeting to Mr Simpkin. 

7.7       RESOLVED: That in the event that Members had any further comments on the points or questions in the discussion paper, these be forwarded to Mr Simpkin.