Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1 Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bell, Gordon, Patrick, Smyth, Rathbone and Woodley

2.1  There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED the minutes of the previous meeting, held on 17^th October 2018, were agreed, subject to a number of amendments highlighted by Licensing Committee members.

3.1 Councillors Snell and Odze highlighted a number of amendments to the minutes of the previous meeting, held on the 17th October 2018.

3.2 Councillor Snell’s amendments were as follows:

·  Clarification on the final sentence of the minute at 4.3. What was meant by

"correspondence remaining stable"?

·  Paragraph 4.4 needed to be clearer. Does this refer to the review of massage

and special treatment?

·  The discussion around charging for pre-application advice. Needed to include

those concerns raised by the councillor about the practical impact. Councillor

Snell at the time had expressed concern about fee charging service should not compromise the Council's duty to provide appropriate levels of free advice to all applicants who might subsequently be subject to enforcement action. This is a legal requirement on all enforcing authorities imposed by the Human Rights Act implemented in the UK through the "enforcement concordat".

3.3 Councillor Odze highlighted a number amendments including his name missing from the Present field and also a number of typographical errors.

RESOLVED the minutes of the previous meeting, held on 17th October 2018, were agreed, subject to a number of amendments highlighted by members.

RESOLVED the Licensing Committee noted the contents of the report and the Appendices, subject to an amendment to Appendix A; the current list of special treatments being placed in alphabetical order.

RESOLVED the Licensing Committee approved the proposed changes to the Massage and Special Treatment licensing function.

4.1 David Tuitt, the Business Regulation Team Leader (Licensing and Technical Support) introduced the report. The report provided information and an update on the reform of the Massage and Special Treatment (MST) licensing function. Licensing of MST was a discretionary power under the London Local Authorities Act 1991. Persons and/or businesses carrying on these types of activity have required authorisation from the Council following adoption of the provisions under Act in the mid-nineties. “Massage and special treatment” include any beauty treatment that involves massage, manicure, acupuncture, tattooing, cosmetic piercing, chiropody, light treatments, electrical treatments and other similar treatments. It also includes saunas, steam rooms and other baths.

4.2 The London Borough of Hackney’s (LBH) Licensing Service was seeking to review the MST licensing function with a view to:

·  Simplifying the process for applicants by reviewing and updating the

various elements of the function

·  Review and update the local regulations and guidelines

·  Allow flexibility for persons wishing to carry on activities on a temporary

·  basis

·  Reduce red tape

·  Update the fee structure

·  Ensure the function is consistent with the European Services Directive

2009 and the Provision of Services Regulations 2009

·  Reduce the number of submissions made offline and reintroduce an

online application process

·  Align the application processes with the forthcoming ‘Business

Launchpad’ and ‘Business Landing Pad’ which will seek to make it easier to start up and grow businesses in the Borough.

4.3 The Licensing Service wanted to move the MST licensing function from the existing ‘light’ touch approach to a more advisory and compliance-based approach. The proposed streamlined application processes were designed to make application processes far less burdensome. Licensing Committee members noted that under the proposals MST practitioners must register, while exempt operators are not currently charged a fee to register.

4.4 The Licensing Service proposed to introduce a new system of temporary licensing. This will enable an operator to apply for and be granted a short term licence not exceeding three months. This new process will further support and offer flexibility to businesses by removing the need for a full 12 month licence whilst maintaining public safety.

4.5 Councillor Snell welcomed the news of the review of the MST function. He saw this as a very sensible move and would contribute to make the licensing process even better.

4.6 In response to a question from Councillor Moema, David Tuitt replied that businesses had a number of options available to them at the end of a short three months licence. They could either apply for another three months or apply for a 12 month licence.

4.7 In response to a question from Councillor Peters, David Tuitt replied that the licensing service were equipped to monitor compliance. Members noted that in relation to MST, under current legislation, there was no power to revoke a business licence but it was possible to object to a licence being renewed.

4.8 In response to a question from Councillor Peters, David Tuitt replied that the primary focus now of the licensing service was to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

RESOLVED the Licensing Committee noted the contents of the report and the Appendix.

RESOLVED the Late Night Levy (LNL) board and its minutes would be a matters arising item on future Licensing Committee meeting agendas, when any LNL board meetings have taken place between Licensing Committee Meetings.

RESOLVED the job description for the Late Night Levy Manager would be circulated to the Licensing Committee members and an update would be given at the next Licensing Committee meeting.

5.1 David Tuitt, Business Regulation Team Leader (Licensing and Technical Support) introduced the report. This was an update on the Late Night Levy (LNL) following the end of the first year of its operation.

5.2 The committee noted that LNL was a discretionary power, conferred on licensing

authorities by provision in Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Police Reform and Social

Responsibility Act 2011. This enables licensing authorities to charge a levy to persons who are licensed to sell alcohol late at night in the authority’s area, as a means of raising a contribution towards the costs of policing the Late-Night Economy (LNE).

5.3 Key factors considered when introducing the levy included:

·  That the legislation requires the net revenue to be split with at least 70 per

cent allocated to the Police and the remainder retained by the Licensing

Authority

·  The estimate by Hackney Police of the cost of policing the NTE around £1.4

million annually, of which £890,000 is specifically required to fund the

dedicated NTE teams Evidence of a correlation between the locations of licensed premises and the level of crime and disorder The establishment of a local management board responsible for overseeing how the revenue is spent.

·  429 premises were are authorised to sell alcohol between 00:01 and 06:00,

with an estimate maximum income of £395450

·  A voluntary levy in place the key NTE areas of Shoreditch and Dalston would

no longer continue

·  That no exemptions nor reductions would apply

5.4 Committee members noted the map at 3.6 in the report. This mapped the locations highlighting the spread of premises affected by the levy across the borough. A concentration could be seen in and around the Shoreditch Triangle. Premises were

also located along the main arterial routes such as the A10 (Stoke Newington

Road/High Street, Kingsland Road/High Street, Shoreditch High Street), Mare Street

and Upper/Lower Clapton Road.

5.5 Under 3.9 of the report, it was noted that the Police spend in year one had been

impacted by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) roll out of the Basic Command

Units (BCUs) during 2018. The BCUs saw single borough command units replaced

with operational police structures that cover between two and four local authorities.

After initial pilot schemes in Barking and Dagenham, Havering and Redbridge and

Camden and Islington, the Hackney and Tower Hamlets’ Police merged into one BCU.

5.6 The Council has power to exempt certain premises from paying the levy. In

addition, a reduction of up to 30 percent could apply to premises that are in receipt of

Small Business Rate Relief (SBRR) and have a rateable value of £12,000 or less and

operators participating in a suitable best practice scheme.

5.7 In response to a question from Councillor Pallis, David Tuitt replied that he did not have to hand those figures for how much uptake that had been for the SBRR.

5.8 The Licensing Service cited the example of the London Borough of Islington’s

involvement in the Best Bar None scheme. Operators  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

RESOLVED the Licensing Committee noted the contents of the WAVE presentation.

6.1  Committee members noted the Welfare and Vulnerability Engagement (WAVE) presentation by MPS Sergeant Guy Hicks.

RESOLVED the Licensing Committee noted the contents of the WAVE presentation.