Agenda item

Report of the Director of Public Safety.

This report details Camden’s draft Statement of Licensing Policy 2024-2029 under the Licensing Act 2003 and the measures taken to review and amend the Policy.

The Licensing Committee is asked to consider and comment on the new draft Statement of Licensing Policy 2024-2029 and agree a 12-week public consultation on the draft Policy. The Committee is also asked to consider the evidence of cumulative impact and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a cumulative impact policy.

Consideration was given to the report of the Director of Public Safety.

The Director of Public Safety introduced the report and thanked the deputees for giving their views to the Committee.

Councillor Cotton addressed the Committee as ward councillor for Camden Town.

The Director of Public Safety provided the following information in response to questions from Committee Members:

·   Framework hours were intended to serve as a guide only, as outlined in the legislation. Whilst the importance of framework hours was noted, the Licensing Act 2003 was clear that each application should be considered on a case-by-case basis, which required flexibility. The draft Policy sought to emphasise this.

·   Whilst the Licensing Service had frequent dialogue with other Authorities about best practice and benchmarking could be a useful tool, it was not always relevant as it did not consider local differences.

·   For example, in terms of the cumulative impact assessment that was undertaken by Six-Til-Six, the data used was specific to Camden, whereas other authorities would make different decisions on their policies based on local data.

·   There were some examples of local authorities in London that collected data on levels of noise, however this data could be subjective, and it would be difficult to attribute public nuisance caused by group of individuals to a specific venue.

·   Public Safety and the Environmental Health Service had attended weekly meetings to discuss and shape the draft Policy.

·   The Metropolitan Police had not submitted a deputation on the proposals and had been engaged in extensive dialogue with officers about the draft Policy.

·   The proposal for a set of model conditions was intended to support and enhance the decision-making process for applications.

·   The model conditions would form part of the consultation, if agreed, so comments on how they could be enhanced would be welcome.

·   Local information was an important aspect of determining applications on their individual merits, therefore the information submitted by responsible authorities and interested parties would continue to from a crucial part of the decision-making process.

·   It was unclear how many existing venues would submit variation applications if framework hours were amened, however the protocol was absolutely clear and set out within the draft Policy. It was intended that all Responsible Authorities would actively engage with the process to scrutinise new and variation applications.

·   There will be some situations where an application did not require consideration by a Licensing Panel because there were no representations. However, if Responsible Authorities or interested parties made representations, the application would then be considered by a Licensing Panel.

Committee Members made the following comments on the report:

·   The increased focus on pre-application advice was welcomed and it was positive that applicants would be encouraged to increase engagement and consultation in the early stages of submitting an application. 

·   The Licensing Committee Chair had undertaken valuable work on emphasising the importance of women’s safety, and the addition of a women’s safety action plan was welcome. A mandatory condition on Ask for Angela would further support this work.

·   It was important to ensure that the Policy continued to develop to include important issues, such as Women’s Safety.

Having considered the information provided in deputations, the report, officer presentation and discussion the Licensing Committee were generally favourable of the proposals outlined within the report but stated that, if agreed, it was important that the feedback received from the consultation was taken on board.

However, some Members, whilst noting positive aspects of the draft Policy, expressed concern about the proposed change to framework hours.

Therefore, upon being put to the vote, with 10 in favour and 2 opposed, it was

RESOLVED –

i)               THAT the Licensing Committee note the draft Statement of Licensing Policy 2024-2029 at Appendix 1;

ii)               THAT the Licensing Committee agree a 12-week public consultation on the draft Policy;

The Committee then considered the recommendation on Cumulative Impact.

Responding to a question, Officers clarified that if Members determined that there was insufficient evidence of cumulative impact, there would be no need to issue a statement to that effect, and therefore there would be no need for further consultation, in respect of a cumulative impact policy.

Whilst most of the Committee agreed with the findings of the report prepared by Six-Til-Six, some disagreed and had determined there was evidence of culminative impact in certain areas. 

Therefore, on being put to the vote, with 9 in favour and 2 opposed, it was

RESOLVED –

iii)               THAT the Licensing Committee agree that there is not sufficient evidence of Cumulative Impact in the Camden Town and Seven Dials areas to require a Cumulative Impact Assessment Statement.

          ACTION: Director of Public Safety