Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1  Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Kennedy, Rathbone. Ross and Wrout.

1.2  Apologies for lateness were received from Councillors Lufkin and Sizer.

1.3  It was noted that Councillor Conway and Councillor Suso-Runge had joined the meeting remotely.

1.4  Councillors accessing the meeting remotely, were reminded that they were not counted as being ‘present’ for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1972 and may not vote on any item under consideration. At the discretion of the Chair, may however contribute to the discussion and participate in non-decision making capacity.

2.1  In the interest of openness and transparency in relation to agenda item 4, Cllr Maxwell advised that she was a ward Councillor for Hoxton West. Cllr Walker advised that he was a ward Councillor for De Beauvoir. Cllr Garbett advised that she was a Dalston ward Councillor and also lived in Dalston. It was noted that these wards bordered or included areas which were to be discussed.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 17 July 2023

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 17 July 2023 be approved as a true and accurate record of proceedings.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 17 July 2023 be approved as a true and accurate record of proceedings.

RESOLVED:

1.  To consider the contents and findings contained within the Cumulative Impact Research Report and to consider a Cumulative Impact options paper at its meeting on 14 December 2023.

2.  To note the proposed timetable for publication and consultation of any Cumulative Impact Assessment.

4.1  David Tuitt, Business Regulation Team Leader gave a broad overview of the report, highlighting the following:

·  The report provided information on the cumulative impact research. Members were requested to consider the findings of the report, decide the next steps and note the proposed timetable for any consultation and publication of any Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA).

·  The Licensing Policy came into effect on 1 August and did not have a Special Policy or Cumulative Impact Policy, which were previously applied to parts of Shoreditch and Dalston.

·  Work was commissioned to assess whether there was any cumulative impact within the borough. The research highlighted Shoreditch as a significant hotspot for crime, ambulance service callouts and issuing of fixed penalty notices. Dalston was identified as having approximately half or less of such incident counts. Hackney Central, Hackney Wick and Broadway Market were identified as areas of interests with lower levels of crime.

·  Data was compared before and after the pandemic.  Shoreditch was the only area where the majority of  all reported crime and other incidents took place at night. There had been a significant improvement in crime rates post-pandemic; however the level of crime in Shoreditch remained high.

4.2  David Lucas, Licensing Solicitor from Six till Six outlined the statutory position relating to cumulative impact, as follows:

·  Cumulative Impact Assessments (CIA) was incorporated into the Licensing Act at Section 5A in 2018, moving from statutory guidance to a statutory footing. separate to the Licensing Policy.

·  The aim was to  strengthen the ability of authorities to control the availability of alcohol and reduce alcohol related crime and disorder. As well as providing industry with greater clarity on how they can be used.

·  Authorities were to determine whether there was evidential basis to introduce one or more CIAs within their area. The intent was that CIAs be used as discretionary and not mandatory measures to promote the licensing objectives.

·  Stage 1 - substantiating any concerns relating to the licensing objectives with evidence showing the correlation with the  behaviour of customers  of licensed premises in a defined geographical area.

·  Stage 2  - consultation making people aware of the concerns, proposed areas  and the supporting evidence.

·  Stage 3 - the Licensing Committee making a final decision on whether to publish a CIA (to be reviewed every three years) .

·  There was no longer a rebuttable presumption to refuse an application within a cumulative impact area if representations were received. As a statutory regime, each application was to be considered on its own merit on the basis of the evidence presented. If no representations were received the basic principle to be applied was to grant the application.

4.3  Alastair Turnham, a consultant from MAKE Associates, highlighted the main findings of the research as set out at the Appendix of the report follows:

·  The areas chosen for the analysis were: Dalston and Shoreditch (former Special olicy Areas SPAs). Hackney Central, Hackney Wick and Broadway Market were identified areas of interest.

·  The analysis was undertaken in consultation with various  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.1  There was no other business for consideration.