Agenda item

Report of the Director of Public Protection and Licensing.

6.1       The Committee received a report which summarised the recommendations made by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Licensing Act 2003 published on 4 April 2017 and the Government’s response to the recommendations published on 6 November 2017.  Ms Acik provided the additional information that the Select Committee had accepted submissions, including from the Council.  It had heard from witnesses, including Richard Brown, Solicitor at the Citizens Advice Bureau Licensing Advice Project.

6.2       The Committee noted that the Government had not supported the recommendation of the Select Committee to enact the provision for permitting locally set fees.  Ms Acik drew Members’ attention to some points in the recommendations of the Select Committee and the Government response that could potentially be taken forward at Westminster.  The Government response to the Select Committee accepted the point that planning and licensing could work better together and coordination was encouraged where appropriate (there was not support from the Government or from the Council for the recommendation of the Select Committee for the transfer of functions of Licensing Committees to Planning Committees).  Ms Acik advised that further thought could be given to licensing and planning officers engaging more than was the case currently.  The Select Committee had recommended that there was a minimum level of training for councillors before they are permitted to sit on a Licensing Committee or Licensing Sub-Committee.  Ms Acik commented that there was a good standard of licensing training for Members at Westminster.  Members’ views were welcomed however as to whether this could be improved, including whether the training could be provided differently.  There was a recommendation relating to the Late Night Levy.  Ms Acik stated that the Government’s response referred to local initiatives and the Licensing Charter was an example of the Council’s local initiatives.  Finally, the Select Committee had recommended that licensing authorities should publicise the reasons which had led them to settle an appeal and should hesitate to compromise if they are effectively reversing an earlier decision which residents and others intervening may have thought they could rely on.  Ms Acik said that this was a matter to be discussed with Legal as ideally the process could be made more transparent.        

6.3       Heidi Titcombe, Principal Solicitor for Shared Legal Services was asked to give advice on the issues relating to settlement of appeals.  She explained that in the event the applicant decided to appeal a Licensing Sub-Committee decision, the appeal would take the form of a re-hearing.  At the appeal hearing, new evidence would be produced.  Those who may have made representations to the Sub-Committee originally, including residents, may decide not to take part in the appeal process.  The appellant would endeavour to resolve any issues at the premises prior to an appeal hearing.   A Court would need to determine the appeal, based on the position at the time of appeal, including taking into account any change of circumstances and any new measures proposed by the appellant in terms of practices and additional conditions they are proposing to add to the licence, if the Court is minded to allow the appeal.   The appellant’s legal representatives often attempt to achieve a compromise in respect of the appeal in order to avoid a full hearing.  The licensing authority is required to consider any compromise very carefully.  The House of Lords Select Committee had concerns that discussions between the parties tended to take place in private so the parties to the original committee hearing would not necessarily be involved. Different authorities have different practices in terms of settling cases, decisions to settle can be made by officers.  However, in Westminster if it is proposed to settle a case, the decision is made by the Licensing Sub-Committee, who receive a report from officers.    This determination is in private but depending on the case, if a lot of residents are involved and in appropriate cases, meetings can be held with residents to explain the reasons why a compromise is recommended.   The licensing authority’s legal representative does liaise with any residents who had made representations to the Sub-Committee during the appeal process.        

6.4       Ms Titcombe stated that it is important to explain to any parties opposing the appeal, why a compromise is being considered.  However, these discussions generally have to take place in private so that it does not undermine the Licensing Authority’s defence of the appeal.  In appropriate cases, it is a good idea, to have a meeting with local residents to go through the evidence being produced at that stage and the reasons why a compromise should be achieved.  She referred to the Council’s success in managing appeals, including the settlement of appeals.

6.5       The Committee agreed that the Select Committee’s recommendations had not recognised the good practices and trained Committee Members which applies to larger local authorities.  It had not been taken into account when the Select Committee had recommended a transfer of functions of Licensing Committees to Planning Committees.  Councillor Caplan asked officers to consider whether it was possible for Members of the Sub-Committee to be better informed at an earlier stage when an appeal has been submitted, when a decision had been made by the Court or when it had been settled.

6.6       RESOLVED: That the contents of the report be noted.