Agenda item - Alcohol Licensing Enforcement Report 2018 - 2019

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

Alcohol Licensing Enforcement Report 2018 - 2019

Report of the Executive Director Housing, Neighbourhoods & Communities

Minutes:

17.1    Sarah Cornell, Licensing Officer presented the report outlining the figures on enforcement procedures including the types of complaints including the active and reactive programmes.

 

17.2    Councillor Appich referred to Paragraph 2.2 of the proactive work and noted that the premises could appear aggressive in presentation when the team were trying to inspect and asked how big the team was.  The Licensing Officer replied that the team was made up of a total of five offices:  one senior, two full time enforcement officers and two part time administrative officers.  She confirmed that in that instance the enforcement work has already taken place and that the premises had been taken over.

17.3    Councillor Atkinson thanked officers for their work and was unclear about the differences in enforcement between Annexe A and Annexe B, and whether Annexe A was a “packet of tougher conditions”? The Licensing Officer replied that these conditions had been published by the Government in 2008 and the Licensing Team adopted these.  She confirmed that these were used specifically for reviews and that anyone could review the licence of an authority if there was evidence to do so and that it was a stepped approach.  Jim Whitelegg, Regulatory Services Manager added that although there was a yellow or red card system, it was possible to straight to a red card in some cases, such as those involving smuggled tobacco or alcohol.

17.4   Councillor Simson asked 3 questions: Firstly, she stated that it was good to see that the police were given certain highlighted premises to check and she asked how often the licensing teams carried out joint checks with the police.  Secondly, she also queried the term shadow licences and what they were and thirdly, she asked about the 50% failure rate on test purchase which she felt was concerning.  Sarah Cornell, Licensing Officer replied that the Licensing team organized both day and evening visits and often targeted places that they should visit together with the police for the evening visits.  She confirmed that shadow licences were new for the team and that two applications had been offered these, but that in this instance they would not be used.  If they were reviewed and revoked, these would only be used in the case that the Licence holder dies.  Jim Whitelegg, Regulatory Manager stated that usually a tenant would hold the licence and the landlord’s licence would sit beneath this.  However, he added that there was concern that if revoked in review, the shadow licence may have to be used and that the Licensing team would have to get legal advice in this case.  The Regulatory Manager also stated that in regard to test purchases, he had spoken to officers regarding this and it may not be indicative that the situation had worsened, since it could just be an indication of strong intelligence.  He confirmed that since the parents had contacted police and thus it was a very child-driven example.

17.5    Councillor Wares asked about the number of premises that the Licensing team had obtained creditable intelligence on. The Regulatory Manager replied that the team followed up on any premises that they had received intelligence on and that a staged approach was followed.  He stated that if the premises failed then they were invited to a meeting with police and that, usually, the intelligence was credible and normally from other council officers, parents or the police.

17.6    Councillor Osborne quoted the figures of 286 off licences and 192 premises in regard to the Sensible on strength scheme and queried whether the Licensing team could request that it was mandatory for all licence holders to become members of the scheme.  The Regulatory Manager replied that it had to be a voluntary scheme, since mandatory membership would mean breaking the law to enforce this.  The Chair added that the Brighton Sensible on Strength scheme was one of the best in the country. The Regulatory Manager suggested that an alternative, they could request that licence holders would not sell any ciders or beers above 6%, with bespoke conditions for particular premises.

17.7    Councillor Simson asked when the next test purchase for gambling would be, after the high failure rate of 70% of recent tests.  The Regulatory Manager replied that the team planned to set the next test up before the end of the year.  Sarah Cornell, Licensing Officer stated that it was now stated on the Licensing form that operators were now required to carry out test purchases for gambling as well as alcohol.

17.8    Councillor Appich was also concerned about the failure rate of the tests and asked whether the Licensing Team had access to the help of colleagues in Public Health on these issues.  The Regulatory Manager confirmed that the Licensing Team worked closely with Public Health and provided very good data on this.

17.9    RESOLVED: That the Committee agreed the recommendations set out in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of the report, and its content should be noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents:

 


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints