minutes

The Minutes of the Licensing Committee Meeting held on 26th September 2006 (Minute Nos. 387 - 390) and the Minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee Meetings held on:

10th November 2006 (Minute Nos. 472 - 474)
24th November 2006 (Minute Nos. 520 - 522)
14th February 2007 (Minute Nos. 708 - 709)
9th March 2007 (Minute Nos. 796 - 799)
25th April 2007 (Minute Nos. 920 - 922)
23rd May 2007 (Minute Nos. 55 - 57)
27th June 2007 (Minute Nos. 201 - 204)
20th July 2007 (Minute Nos. 296 - 298)
21st August 2007 (Minute No. 351)
18th September 2007 (Minute Nos. 455 - 458)

were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

A Member requested that in the future, for clarity, the minutes of the previous Licensing Committee were attached to the agenda of the next Licensing Committee as the former meeting was often in a previous civic year.

Democratic Services Officer

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

part a minutes for confirmation

licensing policy review

The Senior Solicitor introduced his report and explained that the Licensing Policy had been revised as a result of the Canterbury City Council Judicial Review case and that there was a statutory requirement to review the Policy every three years. He advised that there had been no complaints against Swale Borough Council's (SBC) Policy. The list of responsible authorities to be consulted had been added to within the Policy, as this had initially been incomplete.

The Executive Member for Community Safety and Regeneration tabled a letter from the Chief Inspector Borough Commander (Swale) which confirmed that the Police considered that SBC's administration of Licensing appeared sound.

enforcement protocol amendment to include gambling act enforcement

The Senior Solicitor introduced his report and explained that the Enforcement Protocol had previously been approved by the Licensing Committee in 2004 but had now been amended to include The Gambling Act 2005. He confirmed that SBC were administering the Licensing Act well, but enforcement of the act was difficult. Enforcement was done on a re-active basis, rather than a pro-active one and sometimes by volunteers. Members considered that volunteers could be putting themselves at risk with regard to lone working and lack of safety clothing and suggested this issue be discussed at the Health and Safety Committee and the next Licensing Committee.

Democratic Services Officer

The Senior Solicitor had met with the Police, who understood that SBC was held back in what they could do because of financial restrictions. He explained that ideally an enforcement team would be in force, but not within the licensing department; most of the complaints were noise related. License holders were required to display a two-page summary of their license at the licensed premises; he explained that although this was a legal requirement, only 50 per cent of licensees did this. He reported that SBC were unable to enforce this requirement at the moment.

The Executive Member for Community Safety and Regeneration brought the Committee's attention to page five in the report which highlighted the Police's wish that Local Authorities were more proactive and visited licensed premises regularly. He suggested that the license fee could be increased to finance commitment to enforcement.

The Senior Solicitor explained that SBC had already signed up to the protocol in 2005 and that he considered the aims within the report were an 'ideal' scenario. He explained that the Police accepted that not all Local Authorities would be able to carry out enforcement action. In response to a query regarding whether costs would be met by the cost of the license fee, as was originally thought in 2005, the Senior Solicitor explained that the licence fee, which was set by the Government, paid for administrative costs, not enforcement. He advised that in the past, enforcement had been the responsibility of the Police and that the Enforcement Protocol was a way of reducing their costs.

A Member suggested that three years ago the Protocol had been an aspiration, but considered that it should not be endorsed before more information, with regard to balance sheets, was provided. She emphasised the importance of finding out the full implications of the Protocol before SBC signed up to something that they may not be able to carry through. The Senior Solicitor re-iterated that SBC had already signed up to the Protocol, which was now adopted.

A Member agreed in principle to the Protocol, but suggested that it was not possible to carry out in the long term.

The Executive Member for Community Safety and Regeneration suggested that in order to be more pro-active, there may need to be an increase in licence fees. He considered that SBC should sign up as long as the work that would be carried out was within the Council's budget and that the money coming into licensing should finance both administration and enforcement.

training

Some Members of the Licensing Committee advised that they needed to update their licensing training before the next meeting.

Senior Solicitor, Democratic Services Officer