To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Marc Francis.

Councillor Mizan Choudhury submitted apologies for lateness.

To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992. See attached note from the Chief Executive.

No declarations of personal or prejudicial interests were made.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Licensing Committee held on 14^th June 2011 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Licensing Committee meeting held on 14^th June 2011 be agreed as an accurate record.

Colin Perrins, Head of Commercial Services presented the report circulated at agenda item 4.1.

The Committee noted the rationale for the determination of the fee which was given at section 6.

Councillor Abdal Ullah asked that the Authority, in its monitoring of the event, seeks to ensure that less disturbance is brought to residents of the Wards in the locality of the event.

The Chair MOVED and it was agreed unanimously that application fee be approved.

RESOLVED

That the application fee for a massage and special treatment licence for the London Tattoo Convention be set at £2,532.

The Head of Commercial Services presented the report circulated at agenda item 4.2.  The Committee was informed that, Licensing Act 2003 provided that Cumulative Impact policies could be introduced where licensed premises had a combined impact or cumulative effect on one or more of the licensing objectives.  A draft policy was being prepared and an indicative timetable for implementation was given at section 6.5.

In response to questions from the Committee, Senior Officers provided the following information:

·                      The Brick Lane area was defined as the area of Brick Lane from Bethnal Green Road to Whitechapel Road and adjoining roads up to 100 yards either side.

·                      The Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy dictated the committees through which the draft policy would travel before approval by Council; this included Cabinet.  Officers noted the omission of Licensing Committee in the timetable.

·                      Timescales for policy implementation (section 6.5) were undertaken according to the council's corporate programme and included a statutory consultation period of three months.  This allowed consultation outcomes to be factored prior to implementation.

Members of the Committee raised the following strong concerns and requested that these be recorded:

·                    in the Committee’s view, the three-month lapse between each of the phases of the policy implementation was unacceptable

·                    the Committee was dissatisfied that the corporate publicity delivered around the policy had failed to include Members of the Licensing Committee

·                    the Committee was dissatisfied that the timetable for policy implementation referred the draft cabinet a draft policy to approval by cabinet and ignored the role of the licensing committee in the policy implementation..

·                    the Committee's concerns about the Mayor's association with the Clifton Group be noted.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

The Head of Commercial Services presented the report circulated its agenda item 4.3.  The Committee was informed that anti-touting action plans, in the main, had not produced a long term reduction in touting activity.  Therefore the Council had reviewed its approach and developed an anti-touting strategy. This included novel elements such as an anti-touting code of practice, which licensed premises owners would be asked to subscribe to, the introduction of anti-touting conditions to premises licences and use of closure notices / orders.

Committee Members raised the following serious concerns:

• Councillors photographed in East End life publication as part of the corporate promotion of the anti-touting code of practice were neither Members of the Licensing Committee nor Ward Councillors. 
• All reference to the Licensing Committee had been omitted from this publicity
• Service Heads / Officers had been unable to invite Ward Councillors to be involved and whether this would now be the protocol on such matters.
• A strong message had not been given at the launch of the Anti-Touting Code.
• Although at its previous meeting, the Committee had resolved to invite restaurant owners to a meeting to discuss touting, there had been an informal meeting between the Mayor and restaurant owners without the Committee's involvement.

Andy Bamber, Service Head – Community Service, informed the Committee that following directorate restructures, control had been centralised and organisation of all publicity campaigns now lay with Corporate Communications and agreed to take up the matter with the Head of Service.

The Chair endorsed the issue raised and advised the Committee that she would write requesting that the Service Head, Corporate Communications explain why the Licensing Committee had been omitted from all aspects of the corporate publicity on this matter.

Councillor Surajil Islam joined meeting at 7:25 p.m.

Councillor Bill Turner moved to note the Committee's significant concern at the Authority’s failure to invite the Committee to the launch of the anti-touting code of practice on 14 September 2011 and its failure to involve the Committee in the informal meetings held between the Mayor and restaurant owners in Brick Lane.  The motion was put to the vote and carried unanimously.

The Chair agreed to write to the Mayor and Chief Executive is to convey the Committee’s significant concerns on these matters.

The Committee made the following comments in regard to the proposed anti-touting strategy:

• Councillor Abdal Ullah endorsed the use of closure notices as a strong and effective action to address breaches of licensing conditions and antisocial aspects of touting behaviour.  He asked Officers to ensure closure notices be used as tool to send strong messages in touting problem areas and in the community before 2012 and was informed that provided notices were served by the end of October 2011, these could be implemented by the end of the year.

• At the request of the Chair, the Head of Commercial Services and Legal Advisor agreed that the names of the offending businesses that comprised that table at 6.2 of the report be provided to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.3

Colin Perrins, Head of Commercial Services presented the report circulated at agenda item 4.4.

The Committee was informed that the there was a consultation on the proposed policy due to end on 17 October 2011.  Four focus groups were to take place in the week 26 – 30 September 2011 and publicised in East End Life.  It was hoped that the responses to the consultation would ratify the draft policy contents.  It was intended that the policy would be presented for adoption at Council early 2012.

Committee Members raised the following concerns:

• Councillor Bill Turner noted the Mayor had fronted the publicity while as a policy matter, this area was not in his gift.  As this area was in the gift of Council, elected Councillors or the Chair of Council would more appropriately fulfil this role.  The Committee was informed that publicity had been arranged by the Council’s Corporate Communications section.  The Chair requested that this matter be taken up with the Head of Corporate Communications and an answer circulated to Member.

• Councillor David Snowdon moved that the Service Head, Corporate Communications be requested to attend a special meeting of the Licensing Committee to respond to Members’ questions and issues on the matters around the recent publicity of licensing matters.  The proposal was seconded by Councillor Bill Turner and upon voting was unanimously carried. 

It was unanimously agreed that an extraordinary meeting be held one month hence to hear from the Service Head, Corporate Communications and to receive the proposals around the Sex Establishments Policy.

The Committee wished to ask a question to Council at its meeting on 21 September 2011 concerning how the Authority's corporate communications engaged with Councillors in delivering the Council's publicity.  It was suggested by Councillors Abdal Ullah and Peter Golds that the Committee ask a question without notice on this matter.  The clerk agreed to take up the matter with the Service Head, Democratic Services to verify whether the Committee could procedurally raise their concern via this route.

In response to Member’s questions the Committee was provided with the following information:

The Licensing Committee had not been involved in the adoption of the policy as the it was not a function for which the Licensing Committee had responsibility.

Sex establishments were defined as any premises where there was nudity for the purposes of entertainment on more than 12 occasions per year; these were essentially provided for purposes of gain.  There were 3 categories striptease lapdancing and venues with occasional entertainment.

Existing licensed premised had received letters informing them of the changes in legislation.

There were no automatic rights of transfer under the new legislation. 

The Council had adopted a zero policy which could be judicially challenged.  To mitigate this, legal advice had been sought extensively and there has been extensive consultation with existing licensed premises.

Councillor Mizan Choudhury joined the meeting at 8.13 p.m.

Members were advised in regard to an appropriate approach to applications / reviews in order to avoid predetermination.

The Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.4

Nil items.