Agenda item - Late Night Levy and Early Morning Restriction Orders update

Report of the Head of Regulatory Services(copy attached)

RESOLVED – (1) That the licensing committee notes the contents of this report;

            (2)That licensing committee agrees to implement the Late Night Levy in Brighton & Hove only as a last resort and when relating to the Crime and Disorder licensing objective; and

            (3)That the licensing committee agrees to implement Early Morning Restriction Orders in Brighton & Hove only as a last resort relating to disorder or nuisance.

26.1    The Committee considered a report of the Head of Regulatory Services which provided an update on the proposed policy position of Brighton & Hove City Council as licensing authority concerning the Late Night Levy (LNL) and Early Morning Restriction Orders (EMROs).

26.2    The Head of Regulatory Services explained that Officers were concerned about the number of free Minor Variation Applications that would have to be dealt with if EMROs/LNL were implemented in the city. The Home Office Impact Assessment (IA) stated “There may be other costs in administering the levy, such as sending out a levy invoice, but these processes will be done in tandem with the existing licence fee regime and will not constitute a new cost”. The late night levy could be collected alongside the annual licence fee  which it was considered would contain negligible new costs”.  The licensing authority would only be able to keep up to 30% of income collected (after administration costs had been taken out) but this would have to be used as specified. Officers were very concerned that introduction of EMROs or LNL would necessitate a large amount of work not already carried out, possibly requiring more staff.

26.3    In consequence Officers were suggesting that this matter be kept under review but that these powers not be adopted at the present time; whilst noting that the Committee had not ruled out application of the levy in the future. The London Borough of Islington had recently taken the to commence consultation (November 2013) with a view to considering implementation of a Late Night Levy but were seeking commitment from the Police for 70% contribution hypothecated for the night time economy policing in Islington, and not the wider London area. It was proposed that Officers followed progress of this matter by the London Borough of Islington.

26.4    Councillor Simson stated that she supported the approach being proposed and sought confirmation that measures were in place to secure continuation of the Taxi Marshall and Safe Space schemes. It might be appropriate for a levy to be considered to fund such provision in the future. The Head of Regulatory Services stated that these arrangements had been funded originally by the Council and latterly (over the past two/three years) by the Police, currently there was a short hiatus. Councillor Simson stated that this was a matter for concern.

26.5    Councillor Marsh was in agreement with the views expressed by Councillor Simson stating that the Taxi Marshall scheme had made a positive contribution and its loss was matter for regret. Councillor Marsh hoped that all continuation of this service could be supported and hoped that the Police could be encouraged to reconsider continuation of funding. The Head of Regulatory Services stated that discussions were taking place in respect of this matter. Funding provision of this service, an idea put forward by the taxi trade, be funded least in part from licence fees had been explored. Subsequent advice that such practice was not lawful had been received and in consequence such practice has ceased.

26.6    Councillor Rufus sought clarification regarding comments that further consideration of a Late Night Levy should be a “last resort”. The Head of Regulatory Services stated use of a Levy was complex and could as indicated give rise to additional administrative costs which it would be difficult to quantify in advance. Such additional work needed to be proportionate to the level of problems within the late night economy that it had been implemented to address. Councillor Rufus sought  clarification that  further report(s) would be brought to the Committee if the current position were to change and it was considered appropriate to bring in EMROs or LNL in future. The Head of Regulatory Services confirmed that that this would be the case, that there was a specific consultation process had to be observed and that ultimately approval would be required by full Council.

26.7    Councillor Duncan stated that he had the same queries as those raised by Councillor Rufus which had now been answered. He considered that the report set out clearly why it would be inappropriate to proceed with EMROs or LNL at the present time and he was in agreement with that rationale. He hoped however, that further consideration would be given to this in future if the current position changed.

26.8    Councillor Hyde stated that in her view if significant problems were to arise in consequence of removal of the Taxi Marshall scheme the Police were likely to reconsider means by which it could be funded.

26.9    Councillor C Theobald also expressed regret regarding the current Taxi Marshall situation, considering that if levies were to be introduced funding could be used to fund this and similar schemes. The Head of Regulatory Services responded that in practice it could be difficult to apply the levy in this way. Notwithstanding that it was predicated on a “polluter pays” principle in reality the structure required to run it would be complex and there was no discretion regarding where it was implemented in that it would apply across the city’s entire administrative area.

26.10  Councillor Simson Councillor Simson was in agreement that whilst it was not considered appropriate to implement EMROs/LNL now that it was important for this decision to be revisited in future if the existing dynamic of the city’s night time economy changed. She noted and understood that any potential changes were subject to Committee/Council approval as implementation could have significant consequences for the local economy in that it amounted to an additional local tax on businesses.

26.11  Councillor Deane concurred with the points raised by Councillor Simson stating that she noted that the London Borough of Islington was considering an LNL. She considered that there were more likely to be comparators and similarities between the City and this London Borough than for example with Newcastle, the first authority to introduce one. She considered that it would be beneficial if Officers could check on progress there periodically and report back to Members as appropriate.

26.12  RESOLVED – (1) That the licensing committee notes the contents of this report;

            (2)That licensing committee agrees to implement the Late Night Levy in Brighton & Hove only as a last resort and when relating to the Crime and Disorder licensing objective; and

            (3)That the licensing committee agrees to implement Early Morning Restriction Orders in Brighton & Hove only as a last resort relating to disorder or nuisance.