Agenda and minutes

Councillor Bond as Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Aramaz, Aydin, Chibah and Savva.

Members of the Licensing Committee are invited to identify any disclosable pecuniary, other pecuniary or non pecuniary interests relevant to items on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive and confirm the minutes from the last meeting of the Licensing Committee held on 29 November 2017.

RECEIVED the minutes of the meeting held on 29 November 2017.

AGREED that the minutes of the meeting held on 29 November 2017 be confirmed as a correct record.

To receive the report of the Principal Licensing Officer in respect of the Gambling Act 2005 – Gambling Policy and Casino Resolution.

RECEIVED the report of the Principal Licensing Officer.

NOTED

1.    Introduction by Ellie Green (Principal Licensing Officer) that this report was presented to Licensing Committee as part of the formal approval of the Council’s licensing policy Gambling Act 2005.

2.    This was the fifth edition of the statement, which must legally be published every three years.

3.    The authority’s position remained strong in respect of a resolution not to issue casino premises licences.

4.    The local area profile alongside the policy was highlighted and that updates could be done more frequently and efficiently.

5.    The public consultation had received no unexpected comments. Where possible the comments had been included. Annex 3 of the report showed the responses. Matters regarding cumulative impact and online gambling were not in the Council’s remit to consider. Consideration may only be given to the three licensing objectives set by the Gambling Act 2005. Consideration of the cumulative impact of betting shops was prohibited by the Gambling Act. Enfield’s records showed that the number of betting shops in the borough had varied between 80 and 73 and the current actual number was 77, so there had been no surge in shops opening at any one time.

6.    Discussions were ongoing, for example the campaign in relation to fixed odds terminals. There had been mention of introducing cumulative impact and additional licensing objectives but at the moment the scope for changing the Council’s policy was limited.

7.    Members welcomed the engagement, and the responses received during the consultation period, and observed that the maps and correlations were interesting and useful.

8.    Members supported not issuing casino premises licences.

AGREED to

1.    note the results of the public consultation and amendments made to the proposed Statement of Principles, under the Gambling Act 2005;

2.    approve the Statement of Principles, under the Gambling Act 2005, attached as Appendix 1 of the report;

3.    resolve not to issue casino premises licences, under the Gambling Act 2005.

To receive the report of the Principal Licensing Officer in respect of the Local Authority’s Safety Advisory Group.

RECEIVED the report of the Principal Licensing Officer.

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Esther Hughes (Chair of LB Enfield Safety Advisory Group (SAG)) of the report produced in response to councillors’ requests for more information in respect of their advice being provided to Licensing Sub-Committees (LSC).

2.    The template to collate the SAG advice was a work in progress, and the latest draft was circulated to Members for feedback. This tried to draw out the pertinent points to help the LSC in making decisions.

3.    Important points were the date of the SAG meeting and the representatives of the event in attendance.

4.    SAG meetings were scheduled every third Tuesday of the month, to ensure attendance by all key partners, including Police and Emergency Planning.

5.    It was aimed to bring events for consideration by SAG in good time to then be able to pass advice to LSC.

6.    SAG would consider anything pertinent to the licensing objectives or anything giving concern, or outstanding. The consideration of crime and disorder issues fell to the Police at SAG. Public safety considerations fell mainly to Environmental Health, including traffic management. A lot of events had been running for some years and the authorities had built up a good relationship with the organisers and focus would be on trying to control factors outside the event. Prevention of public nuisance was important, particularly how noise and disturbance could be minimised and managed so there was not severe detrimental impact.

7.    SAG would give a recommendation to object or to grant with conditions. The industry guidance (purple guide) was used by SAG as a benchmark.

8.    There would be an agreed date for a final event management plan to be submitted, recognising the need for some flexibility around this. The basic plan would be published, but it would be the case that some sensitive information may need to be not disclosed.

9.    Details of how an event would be monitored were important. There would always be clear lines of communication, and real-time communications. There would always be Parks staff in place, and the Council was looking to skill up staff with more environmental health knowledge and awareness to help in monitoring.

10. The Chair confirmed his preference for the SAG information to be provided to Members by being handed out to LSC on the day of a hearing.

11. The taking of a higher bond from event organisers was discussed, with a greater amount subsequently to be given back for good behaviour.

12. In response to Members’ queries, it was advised that the notification letters sent to residents by the Parks Department would be improved and would set out the grounds on which objections could be submitted.

13. The advice from SAG would provide evidence to demonstrate that the responsible authorities had given full consideration to licence applications and should assure residents and ward councillors that background work had been done and that all concerns were taken seriously.

14. Members approved the proposed procedure and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 733.