Agenda item - Late Night Levy

Report of the Director Public Health (copy attached)

17.1    The Committee considered a report of the Director of Public Health updating the Committee in respect of the proposed policy position of the licensing authority concerning the Late Night Levy (LNL).

17.2    It was noted that that expression of support for a levy had been received from the City Management Board (a letter had been sent from the Board to Committee Members), including directors of council departments, the PCC and local police. The Head of Regulatory Functions, Tim Nichols explained that Public Health England published local authority profiles and that in June 2015, Brighton & Hove had recognised the need to reduce harmful drinking as a priority area.

17.3    At the previous meeting of the Committee on 25 June, it had been agreed that officers investigate further on the possibility of consulting in respect proposals for a Late Night Levy (LNL) and that Officers report to the November meeting on consultation cost, design and methodology for the LNL in order for the Committee to decide whether or not to go ahead with the consultation. Officers had provided details of the potential costs of consultation in the report and it was noted that these figures did not include officer time and that consultations costs could be deducted from income collected before any split was made and that Sussex Police had indicated that they would be prepared to split the cost of consultation with the city council.

17.4    It was explained that officers had calculated that depending at what hour the levy was set, the LNL could apply to approx. 255 pubs, bars and nightclubs, 14 members clubs and commercial members/sports clubs, 56 convenience stores/off licences, 65 restaurants, 10 café bars, 2 large supermarkets, 2 late night refreshments with alcohol, 33 hotels/guest houses, 2 hotels/guest house with nightclubs, 13 hotels/guest houses with licences for guests and public, 3 SEVs, 2 Casinos, 6 cinema/theatres, 2 bingo halls, 2 large supermarkets and 16 “other” (which includes racecourses, entertainment venues etc). Data obtained from other authorities where a levy had been imposed were also included and it was recommended that the Committee instruct officers to proceed with formal consultation to raise a levy. In answer to questions it was explained that the amount at which the levy was set was based broadly on a premises’ rateable value, staff time involved in processing matters in relation to the levy and could come into operation at an agreed hour after midnight.

17.5    Superintendent Roy Apps was in attendance on behalf of the Police and addressed the Committee. Superintendent Apps explained that notwithstanding the financial pressures under which the Police had found themselves, there was a commitment to provide operations such as “Marble” over each weekend which responded to issues which arose across the city in relation to the Late Night economy. By consulting on and ultimately by imposing an LNL this would assist the Police in continuing to plan for provide such initiatives. Also, that in addition to its other benefits “Operation Marble” was valuable in providing preventative intervention for example by identifying those who were vulnerable due to intoxication and assisting them in leaving the city safely.

17.6    Councillor Marsh, the Chair stated that she was concerned that this process was not rushed and that the Committee were able to give all relevant matters their full consideration in a measured way, she was also unhappy at that Members of the Committee had been lobbied directly in the form of the letter sent by the City Management Board, which she did not consider appropriate. In order to do so she felt that they needed to have more information available to them than had currently been provided. She considered that the focus appeared to have shifted somewhat from the previous occasion on which this matter had been considered. Councillor Horan concurred in that view, considering that there were factors which were unique to operation of the night time economy in Brighton and Hove and that these needed to be considered fully.

17.7    In answer to questions the Head of Regulatory Services, Tim Nichols explained that generally there appeared to be a degree of support from the premises itself, certainly from larger/medium sized establishments.

17.8    Councillor Simson stated that she was concerned that there appeared to be a lack of clarity around what would be funded, it was her understanding that the Levy was not intended to fund police operational measures and that given the city wide remit of an LNL it provided a blanket approach which could not be fine-tuned. Councillor Simson went on to state that she had recently attended a meeting at which the Police and Crime Commissioner had also been present and at which she had indicated that in her view many of the “benefits” achieved from the imposition of an LNL could also be achieved by entering into a Business Improvement District (BID). It would be worth pursuing this option further before going down the road of formal consultation as this could prove less unwieldy and could be applied as appropriate to different parts of the city in the same way that the existing CIZ and SSA areas applied. Whilst there were clear financial advantages for the Police in adopting a LNL, the Committee had to consider and weigh all relevant factors and in her view it was not appropriate to go to the expense of a consultation exercise without considering whether the same results could be achieved by other means. Councillor Simson stated that she was very concerned that there seemed to be a premise that a LNL would be proceeded with and was of the view that to do so currently would be premature.

17.9    Councillor Cobb concurred in that view stating that she was also very concerned that the approach/focus being taken in considering this matter appeared to have changed, also and regarding the amount of lobbying which had taken place. It was important to ensure that any consultation set out clear questions and was broad based. Currently, information provided appeared to be confused and in some instances conflicting.

17.10  Councillor O’Quinn stated that she also had concerns about this whole process whilst large operators, particularly those who were part of large chains could afford to pay a levy it could have a very detrimental impact on small to medium sized ones. Many smaller premises relied on weekend trade as a mainstay of their business model. The need to cut back their hours in order to avoid paying a levy could render them financially unviable. It was important therefore to ensure for any consultation needed to be wide ranging and inclusive and designed in such fashion that it was not “leading” as this could of itself skew the feedback received and therefore the ultimate outcome of the process.

17.11  Councillor Deane considered it was regrettable that the Government had provided a blunt too for dealing with the negative impacts which could arise from operation of the late night economy within city centres and Councillor West also concurred in that view.

17.12  Councillor Wares considered Councillor Deane’s comments to be overtly political and unhelpful although he was in total agreement that further information/work was required before the Committee was in a position to decide whether or not to carry out a consultation exercise. He was in agreement with the views expressed Councillor Simson that it would not be appropriate for monies received from a levy to be used to back fill Police services, he was concerned that the services for which such funding could be used were becoming blurred.

17.13  Councillor Moonan was in agreement that it would be premature to agree to a consultation exercise at the present time considering that it was important to carry out a pre-consultation exercise to ascertain whether/what will existed for raising a LNL, alongside the other additional information requested and for this information to come to a future meeting of the Committee as soon as practicable in order to enable members to determine whether or not they wished to proceed to a formal consultation exercise.

17.14  Councillor Allen stated that as effectively no decision was being made at this stage, that the officer recommendation was to consult, he considered that he was minded to support it.

17.15  The Chair, Councillor Marsh sought advice on the issue following which she stated, that as the view of the Committee appeared to be that consideration of the report should be deferred, that she would put that to the vote.

17.16  On a vote of 14 with 1 abstention Members indicated that they wished to defer consideration of the report indicating that they wished to consider a further report including the additional information set out below prior to determining whether or not to proceed with a formal consultation exercise in respect of raising a Late Night Levy (LNL) for the city.

17.17  RESOLVED – That consideration of the above report and consultation in respect of a Late Night Levy (LNL)to be deferred in order for a further report to be prepared for consideration at a future meeting of the Committee (as soon as practicable). No consultation except pre-consultation referred to below to be undertaken until the Committee has had the opportunity to consider a further report. The report to include the following information:

            Details of pre-consultation undertaken with a representative range of stakeholders/premises operators, of various types, capacity, floor area and styles of operation;

            Whether it would be appropriate/practicable to introduce Business Improvement District (BID) arrangements as an alternative to a Late Night Levy (LNL) including details of the differences between the two and how either would work in practice;

            Precise details of how money raised by a LNL would be spent;

            Up dated information/feedback in relation to how LNL’s already introduced are operating; and

            An assessment of factors which are unique to the city, conference trade, tourism, student population, residents and whether it would appropriate/how “bespoke” arrangements which reflected that mix could be implemented.