Agenda item - Notice of Motion from Council

27.1    The Committee received a Notice of Motion from Full Council regarding Responsible Licensing.

27.2    Councillor West introduced the Notice of Motion on behalf of Councillor Fryer, and stated that the Notice of Motion was accepted by Full Council as an important motion. There was a worrying increase in the number of hospital admissions related to alcohol misuse. He felt that the current drinking culture in this country equated to an “exploding time bomb”, but believed there were ways that the Council could successfully tackle this problem.

            The current licensing laws had exacerbated the problem with principle issues around pricing, availability and responsibility not being addressed adequately. Strong alcohol had in the past been a luxury item, but the incredible transformation in pricing of alcohol had made it prevalent in society. He noted that Councillor Fryer was a member of the Responsible Drinking Forum in London and was keen to help the Council develop progress on this issue. He felt that there was not an appropriate forum within the Council to address this issue on a partnership basis. Councillor West urged Members to look at the Big Drink Debate manifesto and sign up to the recommendations.

            Councillor West referred to the DCMS response to the Notice of Motion, and recognised it dealt with issues around irresponsible trading and promotions. There were enhancements to the Councils powers to call a review of licensed premises, but Councillor West did not believe the DCMS response went far enough. He noted there were political moves to make traders more responsible and he asked the Committee to support this Notice of Motion to move the issue along.

27.3    The Chairman stated that the Notice of Motion had been agreed by Full Council and as such could not be amended by the Committee. The Committee must agree or not agree the actions requested therein.

27.4    Councillor Lepper noted that there was in fact an appropriate forum where these issues were being addressed within the Council called the Licensing Strategy Group.

27.5    Mr Nichols addressed the Committee and stated that the Licensing Act 2003 appeared to have achieved its stated aims of integrating several separate licensing regimes under the democratic, accountable control of local authorities and reducing disorder arising from artificially early, fixed closing times. In Brighton & Hove, pubic place violent crime was at a 10 year low and noise complaints from licensed premises declined last year; whereas the health implications of the joint strategic needs assessment showed that children were drinking less than previously, but PCT reports showed that alcohol related hospital admissions and chronic liver disease had increased. The health impact assessment had demonstrated decreasing alcohol related offending but increasing domestic abuse.

Regarding the price elasticity of demand of alcohol, Mr Nichols stated that an increase in price could lead to a significant drop in demand. Pricing was recognised as a key influence on consumption.

Mr Nichols went on to note the request for a Scores on the Doors type system for alcohol premise, and that the department would look at all options, but added that the Scores on the Doors for food premises was a national Food Standards Agency backed scheme. A local scheme for licensed premises would be vulnerable to criticisms of defamation and inconsistency. Food safety had a single regulator whereas licensing has several responsible authorities, including two principal ones for age restricted sales (Police and Trading Standards). There would also be resource implications arising from this request, including increased inspection and revisit rates, website development and the implications for inspectorates outside local authority control. There were also complicating factors around a consistent risk based prioritised scheme with different inspectorates with different responsibilities.

27.6    Councillor Alford felt that price was always a significant issue but availability was also a large problem. He believed that twenty-four hour licensing laws were a disgrace and felt that there were now too many shops able to sell alcohol. The Chairman responded that statistics showed that pricing had the largest impact on alcohol consumption.

27.7    Councillor Hyde stated that she was concerned about cost implications if the Council tried to introduce a Scores on the Doors type system for licensed premises. She also felt that it would give a good indication to young people where they were most likely to be sold alcohol if they were underage, and providing publicity for less well managed premises may be counter-productive. She added that the Planning Department and Committee worked very hard to ensure cross-working on this issue.

27.8    Councillor Mrs Theobald stated that controlling the availability of alcohol through licensed premises was very difficult for the Council to achieve, but she believed the Licensing Team were working hard to ensure that the Council was doing as much as possible to mitigate the negative issues Councillor West had raised.

27.9    Councillor Older asked about the membership of the Licensing Strategy Group. Mr Nichols replied that representatives from the Licensing Authority, namely Officers, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, responsible authorities, licensing trade and interested parties, plus residents associations and LAT groups, were invited to attend.

27.10  Councillor Duncan stated that reports showed the young people’s average pocket money could now buy between 50 and 100 units of alcohol per week, which was a worrying factor. He added that enforcement was also an issue and enforcement of noise or public nuisance was not currently sufficient. He added that more money and resources needed to be directed to this area.

27.11  Councillor Kitcat added that many low level instances of antisocial behaviour or public nuisance were not being picked up on as the police also had resourcing issues and were often dealing with bigger problems. He felt that in many instances applications were agreed at planning without reference to licensing and there needed to be more joined up working on this issue. He asked whether, because licensing was a cost neutral service, could the department only enforce the elements that could be funded out of the licensing fee.

27.12  Councillor Hawkes noted that, in terms of cross-working, the Licensing Strategy Group was already working with the RU-OK service, and she commended this practise.

27.13  Councillor Hyde asked if licensing hours overrode planning application hours and Mr Nichols responded to both her question and Councillor Kitcat’s comments. He stated that applicants may apply for permissions in whichever order they wished, but it was the business’s responsibility to comply with whichever permission or condition was most restrictive. As Licensing and Planning had different considerations and objectives it was legitimate to grant one but refuse another, even though that may cause confusion and dissatisfaction to residents and businesses.

27.14  Councillor Lepper proposed a report with cost and legal implications to be prepared for the next committee meeting based on the Notice of Motion request. Councillor Cobb seconded this and the Committee Members agreed. Councillor Duncan noted that legal implications would have already been dealt with by the Monitoring Officer regarding the NoM as it had been agreed at Full Council.

27.15  RESOLVED -

1.         That the Notice of Motion from Full Council is noted, and

2.         That the Licensing Committee will draw up a list of ‘best practice’ which takes into account the recommendations of the ‘Reducing Alcohol Related Harm to Children and Young People scrutiny panel and looks into ways of publicly recognising and rewarding responsible licensees who follow best practice, in a similar way to its successful “Scores on the Doors” scheme.