Agenda item

In relation to Agenda Item 8, Review of the Statement of Licensing Policy, deputations were heard from the following people, as set out in their written submissions contained within the supplementary agenda:

·   David Kaner, Covent Garden Community Association

·   TRACT and Kentish Town Road Action, represented by Kate Gemmel

·   Liam O’Hare, LabTech

·   Sophie Asquith, Music Venues Trust

·   Shaftesbury Capital, represented by Sarah Torrance

·   Michael Nicholas

The deputees responded to questions from Members, presenting their views as follows:

·   The proposed increase to framework hours in the draft Statement of Licensing Policy ("the Policy") could have had a negative impact on residents. If residents lived near a licensed venue that was open 30 minutes later than previously, it could result in 30 additional minutes of noise and disruption.

·   Applicants, particularly those in Cumulative Impact Policy Areas (CIAs), were required to outline how they would mitigate nuisance and impact on residents, and how they would be an exception to the policy. Removing CIAs would eliminate this requirement and mean that lower quality applications were granted.

·   New applications within the current CIAs were not often refused, however, CIAs were effective because applications that would not meet the policy requirements were not submitted.

·   The current policy treated each premises the same, regardless of operation, however, not every premises had the same impact. In Westminster, for example, the presumption to refuse applied to all alcohol-led premises, but not those premises where alcohol was offered ancillary to food, such as cafés and restaurants.

·   Quiet residential streets with a pub on the corner could be impacted by the later framework hours if the draft Policy was approved.

·   The Six-Till-Six report did not state that there was no evidence for a Cumulative Impact Policy, but indicated there was insufficient evidence, and the absence of evidence was not evidence of absence. For instance, data was not collected on street noise.

·   There was a desire for resident associations to collaborate with the Council to draft a set of model conditions that could be added to each application, with opportunities to revise these when appropriate.

·   The proposed changes to the Policy supported diversification within the local area and encouraged a range of different premises to come to Camden.

·   Schemes such as Best Bar None and Purple Flag had resulted in improvements to the nighttime economy and increased standards within venues in the areas that had implemented them.

·   Concern was expressed that the proposed Policy would encourage applications from unscrupulous operators who had previously been deterred by the restrictions.

·   Those premises that wanted extended hours would be required to apply for them and prove that they were suitable. Planning Permission might also have needed to be secured to make changes to hours.

·   It was difficult and expensive to run a late-night venue in the current economic climate, so while the proposed 30-minute increase in framework hours might not have made a massive difference to licensed premises, fewer regulations and restrictions could make things easier for existing premises and attract new, diverse businesses to the area.

·   The Policy would help improve women's safety, and safety in general, as premises opening later would mean that more people were in the area, more buildings with lights on, and security staff and other staff would be present, which could make people feel safer.

·   Some deputees thought that smaller businesses were deterred from opening in Camden due to the restrictive policies currently in place.

·   For example, a café that intended to open in Seven Dials had applied to serve alcohol alongside their day-to-day offering, but needed a restaurant condition that stated they must only serve alcohol alongside a full meal, which meant that the café could not have a diverse, flexible offering. The café decided not to open in the area.

·   If a premises decided to open later, it was unlikely that hundreds of people would leave all at once and was more likely that smaller groups of people would leave at different times.

·   Having the flexibility to be open later could be invaluable for people operating premises. The additional hours could enable music venues to have a phased wind-down period after shows. This could mean that venues could increase revenue but would also help stagger dispersal, resulting in less disruption and nuisance.

·   Music nights were expensive to run and were often not profitable; however, they were important in supporting local creativity, culture, and arts, so anything that supported these venues was considered positive by some deputees.

·   The Music Venues Trust had a crisis support line that provided support to grassroots venues, and there had been a marked increase in venues contacting the service. Over half of these venues had stated they could not afford to continue, and some owners had taken on additional jobs to support the venues.

·   It was important that local councils support these cultural venues, and any policy that provided flexibility to support the continued operation of these venues was welcomed.

The Licensing Committee noted the deputations.