Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Chair welcomed all present to the meeting, It was noted that Cllr Patrick had replaced Cllr Rathbone on the Committee.

1.1  Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Conway, Kennedy, Patrick, Sizer, Walker and Wrout 

1.2  It was noted that Councillor Sizer had joined the meeting remotely.

1.3  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.

Members are invited to consider the guidance which accompanies this agenda and make declarations as appropriate.

2.1  For the purpose of openness and transparency, in relation to agenda item 7, the following Councillors made declarations as follows: Cllr Maxwell ward Councillor for Hoxton West, Cllr Lufkin ward Councillor for Shacklewell, Cllr Sizer ward Councillor for Hoxton East and Shoreditch and Cllr Garbett ward Councillor and resident of  Dalston It was noted that these wards bordered or included areas which were to be discussed at agenda item7 - Cumulative Impact Options.

To consider the minutes of the previous meeting held on 14 November 2023.

Cllr Maxwell requested that an additional sentence be inserted at Paragraph 4.5 bullet point 4 to reflect that ward Councillors were not consulted as part of the cumulative impact research.

Subject to the aforementioned insertion the Licensing Committee:

RESOLVED: To agree the minutes of the previous meeting held on 14 November 2023 as a true and accurate record of proceedings.

3.1  Cllr Maxwell requested that an additional sentence be inserted at Paragraph 4.5 bullet point 4 to reflect that ward Councillors were not consulted as part of the cumulative impact research.

Subject to the aforementioned insertion the Licensing Committee:

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 14 November 2023 be agreed as a true and accurate record of proceedings.

A Councillor or a member of the public who lives, works, or studies in the Borough can ask a question of the Committee with one supplementary question relating to an item on the agenda.

If the Chair agrees, a member of the public can ask a question at the Committee without having given notice. If a question without notice is asked, the Chair will explain that it might not be possible to give a full answer at the meeting and that a written response will be provided.

Please contact governance@hackney.gov.uk for further information.

4.1  Question from Kerry Maisey and  Dan Beaumont

Given the extensive and robust evidence presented in the commissioned report which suggests that the Cumulative Impact area in Dalston is no longer proportionate, we would like to ask the Committee what type of evidence and reporting would councillors require in the future if they were to accept that Dalston no longer has activity that would warrant a Cumulative Impact Area?

4.2  The Chair advised that a question had been received from a member of the public. As the question related to the Cumulative Impact Options at agenda item 7, it was agreed that this question would be considered at the relevant agenda item.

RESOLVED: To note the report and appendix.

5.1   Samantha Mathys, Late Night Levy Manager briefly introduced the report which provided an update on the Late Night Levy activities during the third quarter of Year 6, from 1 May to 31 August and 1 September to 31 July 2023. The following points were highlighted:

·  Training levels remained high with over 2,600 individuals trained since the inception of the program, with free monthly sessions confirmed until 2025.

·  The #DontCrosstheLine campaign and connected welfare activities were the primary focus of the past few months. There had been lots of engagement and a full summary would be presented at the next committee meeting.

·  100% of all licensed bars, pubs and clubs which had been visited had been added to the portal. All of these venues now had an account, received weekly briefings and manager details were held.

·  The accreditation scheme was still ongoing with nearly 30 venues accredited with more applications incoming. There would be further promotion of the scheme in the coming months.

·  A new noise and planning checker aimed at implementing more business friendly licensing, planning and noise processes was launched following funding from the Greater London Assembly (GLA)

5.2  Following the summary of the main points, a brief discussion ensued where the following was raised:

·  The original accreditation target was set at 50. There were currently 30 venues accredited. This would be reported in terms of percentages at the next meeting.

·  Members welcomed the newly added courses including; gender diversity and the LGBTQIA+ as well as the #DontCrosstheLine campaign.

·  The noise and planning checker would enable venues to be notified when a noise report (including unsubstantiated complaints) was made against them. This would enable issues to be addressed in real time (before the following weekend)

·  Multiple stakeholders were involved in the working group for the  #DontCrosstheLine campaign. Young people were also consulted and a perpetrator approach had been adopted.

·  The Metropolitan Police were using Hackney as a model of best practice. They were investigating how they could further contribute and how this could be rolled out across other boroughs.

·  The intention was to establish zero tolerance spaces in the Night Time Economy (NTE), where any form of harassment, hate or abuse was not tolerated. Work had been undertaken with venues to change the culture, ethos and response to such incidents. Success rate would be measured through a variety of means including crime figures, incident and CCTV reports and level of engagement with the campaign.

·  Drink spiking remained an area of concern and was an ongoing focus of training. This had led to some positive responses from venues in intercepting such activities.

·  There were no NTE related sexual offences over the festive period.

RESOLVED: To note the report and appendix.

RESOLVED: To note the report and appendix.

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

·  Premises licences remained the focus of Licensing Sub-Committee hearings. There had been a continued fall in the number of new applications received over the past five years.

·  The number of variations and transfers remained consistent.

·  Temporary Event Notices (TENs) numbers had increased but these had not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Hackney received the second highest number of TENs in London after Westminster. However Camden, which had a significant NTE, did not return statistics.

·  The number of reviews overall compared to the previous year had fallen.

·  Massage and Special Treatment Licences appeared to be returning to pre-pandemic levels.

·  New applications considered under the Gambling Act and renewal of gambling licences remained consistent.

·  Key activities for the forthcoming year included: the Hackney NIghts initiative, more inspection of licensed premises and the continued implementation of new software.

6.2  The Chair and committee welcomed the report and asked questions which were responded to as follows:

·  Anecdotally, there was believed to have been a shift in how people socialise, with working from home and economic challenges being significant contributing factors. This was believed to be more prevalent in areas of the borough closest to the city.

·  The number of TENs was simply due to the nature of the NTE

·  The spike in the revocation of licences was due to one premises having 3 licences, which were all subject to review under section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003. All three proceeded to a summary review, resulting in one premises having 6 review applications. The decision was taken to revoke all three licences.

RESOLVED: To note the report and appendix

RESOLVED:That having regard for the options (as set out in Appendix 1) for each of the five areas that were assessed as part of the Cumulative Impact research, it was agreed:

1.  That the area described as within the boundary formerly identified as the Shoreditch Special Policy Area and the area to the southwest as highlighted in the research, be considered for inclusion if a Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) be published:

a)  Applying to all relevant authorisations within the defined geographical area or;

b)  Applying  only to relevant authorisations of a particular kind within the defined geographical area.

Additionally it was agreed that officers would consider the most effective way to consult all stakeholders and relevant persons.

2.  That the area described as within the boundary formerly identified as the Dalston Special Policy Area be considered for inclusion if a CIA is published:

a)  Applying to all relevant authorisations within the defined geographical area or;

b)  Applying to only relevant authorisations of a particular kind within the defined geographical area.

Additionally it was agreed that officers would consider the most effective way to consult all stakeholders and relevant persons.

3.  That there was insufficient evidence in relation to the areas of interest Therefore it was agreed not to describe these areas in the consultation:

·  Broadway Market and London Fields area of interest.

·  Hackney Central area of interest.

·  Hackney Wick area of interest

7.1  The Chair advised that the question submitted and set out at agenda item 4 would be considered under this item as it related to paragraph 18 of Appendix 1 of the report. It was noted that Ms Kerry Maisey and Dan Beaumont were Co-Chairs of Dalston Pubwatch and members of the Late Night Levy Board

7.2  Question from Kerry Maisey and Dan Beaumont to the Chair of Licensing

Given the extensive and robust evidence presented in the commissioned report which suggests that the Cumulative Impact area in Dalston is no longer proportionate, we would like to ask the Committee what type of evidence and reporting would councillors require in the future if they were to accept that Dalston no longer has activity that would warrant a Cumulative Impact Area?

The question related to Paragraph 18 of Appendix 1 of the report which reads:

“A Home Office Impact Assessment (November 2016) on giving CIAs a statutory basis said “it will place a greater onus on licensing authorities (LAs) to ensure that the evidence they use as the basis of their CIAs is robust. In particular, we would like to increase the transparency of the process that LAs go through when deciding to retain existing CIPs and ensure that when a decision is taken by an LA to implement or retain a CIA it is based on up to date evidence and is appropriate and proportionate for the promotion of the licensing objectives”

  Response from the Chair of Licensing

The Chair advised that at its meeting on 14th November 2023, some Members of the Licensing Committee expressed a view that a special policy should apply to some, if not all of the previously defined Dalston Special Policy Area (SPA). The Chair further advised that no decision had been made in relation to a consultation on publishing a Cumulative Impact Assessment which would set out a policy approach in Dalston. The Licensing Committee was considering an Options Paper at this evening’s meeting.

The Chair referred to paragraph 14.29 of the guidance issued by the Home Office which set out the information that local authorities could draw on when considering cumulative impact. This included:

·  local crime and disorder statistics, including statistics on specific types of crime and crime hotspots;

·  statistics on local anti-social behaviour offences;

·  health-related statistics such as alcohol-related emergency attendances and hospital admissions;

·  environmental health complaints, particularly in relation to litter and noise;

·  complaints recorded by the local authority, which may include complaints raised by local residents or residents’ associations;

·  residents’ questionnaires;

·  evidence from local and parish councillors; and

·  evidence obtained through local consultation.

Concluding, the Chair stated that should Members be minded to agree to consult, the Committee would take into consideration any views, comments and further evidence received during any consultation in making a final decision.

The Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Regulatory Services gave assurances that a decision had not yet been taken and requested that this be relayed to members of Dalston Pubwatch.

Whilst Ms Maisey  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

It was noted that the dates for Licensing Sub-Committees for the remainder of the Municipal Year had been circulated and there were a number of Councillors who were yet to confirm their availability. Members were encouraged to contact the Governance Officer to advise of which hearings they were available to sit.

8.1  It was noted that the dates for Licensing Sub-Committees for the remainder of the Municipal Year had been circulated and there were a number of Councillors who were yet to confirm their availability. Members were encouraged to contact the Governance Officer to advise of which hearings they were available to sit.

.