Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 14 July as an accurate record.

The minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday, 14 July 2021 were agreed as an accurate record.

To approve as an accurate record the minutes of the meetings of the

Licensing Sub-Committee since the last Licensing Committee:

·         15 July

·         22 July (To follow)

·         25 August

·         28 September

The minutes of the following Licensing Sub-Committees were approved as an accurate record:

·         15 July 2021

·         22 July 2021

·         25 August 2021

·         28 September 2021

To receive notice of any business not on the agenda which in the opinion of the Chair, by reason of special circumstances, be considered as a matter of urgency.

There were no items of urgent business.

Members and co-opted Members of the Council are reminded that, in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct and the statutory provisions of the Localism Act, they are required to consider in advance of each meeting whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI), another registrable interest (ORI) or a non-registrable interest (NRI) in relation to any matter on the agenda. If advice is needed, Members should contact the Monitoring Officer in good time before the meeting.

If any Member or co-opted Member of the Council identifies a DPI or

ORI which they have not already registered on the Council’s register of interests or which requires updating, they should complete the disclosure form which can be obtained from Democratic Services at any time, copies of which will be available at the meeting for return to the Monitoring Officer.

Members and co-opted Members are required to disclose any DPIs and

ORIs at the meeting.

·         Where the matter relates to a DPI they may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must not stay in the meeting unless granted a dispensation.

·         Where the matter relates to an ORI they may not vote on the matter unless granted a dispensation.

·         Where a Member or co-opted Member has an NRI which directly relates to their financial interest or wellbeing, or that of a relative or close associate, they must disclose the interest at the meeting, may not take part in any discussion or vote on the matter and must not stay in the meeting unless granted a dispensation. Where a matter affects the NRI of a Member or co-opted Member, section 9 of Appendix B of the Code of Conduct sets out the test which must be applied by the Member to decide whether disclosure is required.

The Chair will invite Members to make their disclosure orally at the

commencement of Agenda item 3, to be recorded in the minutes.

There were none.

The purpose of this report is to adopt a new fee structure which has been determined on the principle of cost recovery and for the Committee to delegate authority to the Director of Sustainable Communities to undertake reviews of fees and fee setting in addition to making decisions regarding the determination of applications, including decisions as to whether to vary or revoke any condition attached to a licence.

The Licensing Committee considered a report which detailed a proposal to adopt a new fee structure which had been determined on the principle of cost recovery and for the Committee to delegate authority to the Director of Sustainable Communities to undertake reviews of fees and fee setting in addition to making decisions regarding the determination of applications, including decisions as to whether to vary or revoke any condition attached to a licence. The Committee received an introduction from the Head of Environmental Health, Trading Standards & Licensing and Sustainable Communities who delivered a presentation which can be viewed here.

In response to queries raised by the Committee, the following was clarified:

• The Dangerous Wild Animals act did not include pets such as cats and dogs which had been domesticated.
• The premises would be inspected every time a resident applied for to renew their licence and public liability insurance was required.
• The premises of the applicant would be inspected by a vet rather than an animal health inspector.
• This act covered dangerous wild animals that residents kept in their premises.
• The licence was for two years and the vet and inspection fees which are quoted are the fees that the City of London would charge the Council for the inspection.
• If the Council received information that a dangerous wild animal was being kept that would require a licence, it would be followed up.
• The Head of Environmental Health, Trading Standards & Licensing and Sustainable Communities had temporarily removed the fees from the Councils website as they were under consideration during this item. He did also clarify that there were various different payment methods such as online or via the telephone.
• If there were any doubts about whether an animal qualified as a dangerous wild animal the Council would check with the City of London.
• There could be instances where an individual was suited to keep a dangerous wild animal but their premises wasn’t. This was why vets would inspect the premises to ensure that the person and the premises were suitable for that animal.
• There was a percentage increase of the licence fee which was based on the workings and the inspection fee. There are different proposed fees for commercial or outside premises and domestic premises.
• The legislation gave an individual the right to apply for a licence, so there needed to be a fee which reflected that opportunity. Officers advised that prior to buying a potentially dangerous wild animal, residents are recommended to seek advice to ensure that they had all of the relevant information before they purchased the animal and applied for a licence.
• The cost recovery principle was what was applied in setting the fees, the council covering the costs it incurs when it issues licenses.
• In the event that an applicant could no longer afford the fee for a licence, the council would help to ensure that the animals were housed in a suitable establishment where they could be kept safely.
• Once a licence had been issued, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5/21

The purpose of this report is for the Committee to consider the revised Statement of Principles and recommend that the Statement of Principles be adopted by Full Council.

The Licensing Committee considered a report which detailed that the Gambling Act 2005 made local authorities, as licensing authorities, responsible for the administration of licences, registrations, permits, notices and notifications under the Act. The Committee received an introduction from the Head of Environmental Health, Trading Standards and Licensing and Sustainable Communities.

In response to queries raised by the Committee, the following was clarified:

·         Over the past 15 years the landscape had changed, there used to be independent bookmakers which only had a single premises. More recently, the borough had become filled with many larger chains which had a corporate responsibility. These larger chains conduct their own test purchasing, so the Head of Environmental Health, Trading Standards and Licensing and Sustainable Communities recommended that residents should contact the branch directly or the head office of the particular gambling company if they are aware of any issues. However if a resident did not feel comfortable doing so then there was a review mechanism or they could contact the Licensing team and they would pass on any concerns.

·         The Council is responsible for gambling at premises, which is what they would license. The Gambling Commission regulates online gaming, so the Council does not possess any regulatory powers in respect to online gaming. The focus of the Council, any responsible authorities, the police or any sub-committee should they receive an application for a license where there are representations, is whether the activity at the premises is supporting the licensing objectives.

·         Every betting operator must receive an operating license from the Gambling Commission, they are unable to apply for a premises license unless there already possess an operating license from the Gambling Commission.

·         If the manner in which a company operated nationally resulted in the loss of their operating license then that company would also lose their premises license.

·         In the event of any police investigations, the Council would focus on whether the premises had been operated in a manner that made a source for crime and disorder, or had been associated with crime or disorder.

·         If a gambling operator had multiple premises within the borough, then the Council would be assessing the activity at one particular branch under the review of their premises license. If the issues were replicated then the Gambling Commission would then review their operating license.

The proposed recommendations were put to a vote, the motion to agree the recommendations carried with ten Members voting in favour and no Members voting against.

The following motion is to be moved and seconded where it is proposed to exclude the press and public from the remainder of a meeting:

“That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within those paragraphs indicated in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended.”

This item was not required.