Agenda item - Late Night Levy Consultation

Report of the Director of Public Health (copy attached)

28.1  The Committee considered a report of the Director of Public Health providing an update to the Committee on questions raised concerning the Late Night Levy (LNL) at its last meeting held on 19 November 2015.

28.2  At that meeting the committee had resolved following discussion to defer consideration of the report submitted to that meeting in order for a further report to be prepared for their consideration at a future meeting as soon as practicable. It was agreed that further pre–consultation only would take place in parallel with officers obtaining additional information for inclusion in the further report. It had been agreed that the report would 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 (paragraph 3.2);

·         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; (paragraph 3.3)

·         Precise details of how money raised by a LNL would be spent; (paragraph 3.4)

·         Up dated information/feedback in relation to how LNL’s already introduced are operating (paragraph 3.5); 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. (paragraph 3.6)

28.3    Details of the pre-consultation undertaken were set out including details of  discussions which had taken place at a meeting of the Licensing Strategy Group held on 18 January 2016. Since publication of the report 15 submissions had been received representing 100 venues and those representing the trade setting out their concerns in relation to the imposition of a Late Night Levy, which they considered could damage the late night economy and would not resolve problems arising as a result of pre-loading, expressing their willingness to explore alternative options including a BID.

28.4    It was recommended:

            (1) That the committee decide whether to instruct officers to proceed with the formal consultation to raise the levy; and

            (2) If it is decided to proceed to consultation, the matters set out in 3.9 of the report should be determined.

28.5    Councillor Simson stated that notwithstanding the additional work undertaken she still had grave doubts about the concept of an LNL. It used a broad brush approach, which she considered was essentially unfair as the burden of cost did not necessarily fall to those creating the greatest nuisance. It was important to fully explore measures which could be implemented in cooperation with the trade. As a consequence of hard work undertaken with the trade successful initiatives such as “Sensible on Strength” and the Taxi Marshall Scheme. In her view the report did not give sufficient detail on these issues. A decision to consult needed to be made on the basis of more detailed information than had been provided to date.

28.6    Councillor Moonan stated that she was concerned that consultation on an LNL at this stage could be premature, as if, new legislation  (which was anticipated) adopted a different approach taking on board the concerns expressed in respect of LNL’s as they currently operated, abortive work and expensive would have been incurred. Councillor Moonan considered that the questions as set out in the appendix had been made on the basis of certain assumptions and were also leading in the way that they were worded.

28.7    The Quality and Projects Manager, Jean Cranford, explained that it was difficult to predict the level of take up, or how many operators would seek minor variations to their existing licences.

28.8    Councillor West stated that he was far happier with the information provided with the current report but was in agreement that to proceed with a consultation at the present time would be premature. He considered that it was important to have further discussions with businesses and operators to ensure that there was a proper debate  to enable the issues to be presented and discussed. There could be positive benefits, but positive benefits could accrue from other models too and changes to existing legislation could impact on that too.

28.9    Councillor Horan stated that there were other options than an LNL, citing the arrangements in place in Bristol and Leeds and in Chelmsford where voluntary arrangements were being looked into.

28.10  Councillor C Theobald sought clarification of the costings put forward in the report and clarification of who and how the LNL would operate. Also details of the cut off times during which the LNL would operate.

28.11  Councillor Bell stated that he shared the concerns expressed by Councillors Simson and West if an LNL consultation took place ahead of anticipated legislation from Central Government, abortive work could be undertaken resulting in wasted time money and resources.

28.12  Councillor Deane stated that in her view there was a danger of debating the merits of having an LNL, whereas that position had not been reached. There was value in having consultation but this needed to arise in neutral way which would allow all parties to have their say. There were flaws because an LNL did not address pre-loading or availability of alcohol in supermarkets for example.

28.13  Councillor Wares stated that he concurred with much that much that had already been said, although an LNL would address some of the issues that arose, including incidents which had been fuelled by alcohol, it would not address them all and he remained to be convinced that an LNL was the only option, issues such as the provision of the quad bike and taxi marshalls, which were supported by the trade needed to be factored in too. He was concerned that if consultation was undertaken at present in the absence of further guidance from Central Government that when that information was received a further consultation would need to be undertaken in response to it; involving additional expense and work for officers.

28.14  Councillor Page stated that it was clear that it was clear that there was a desire to work pro-actively with the trade. He was concerned that unless obliged to do so that operators would pay. It was important to seek to ensure that schemes such as the taxi marshalls continued. It had been acknowledged that there were issues associated with alcohol misuse in the city, particularly the city centre and it was in response to them that the CIZ had been drawn up.

28.15  Councillor Allen stated that before agreeing to go forward with a consultation process members needed to be of the view that was appropriate, whilst that might be the case ultimately he considered that for members to vote on this issue now would be premature.

28.16  Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that all options needed to be pursued and any decision to proceed needed to be made on the basis of all available information.

28.17  Councillor Simson reiterated her earlier comments that she considered that it would be premature to carry out any consultation ahead of Home Office guidance. Whilst that was awaited officers could look further at voluntary schemes and to discuss potential options with operators and other interested parties. It was important to address the issue without penalising well run businesses.

28.18  Councillor West stated that it was disappointing that as this was the second time that a report on the LNL had come before the Committee there were still a number of matters to be resolved and the Committee did not appear to be in a position to move forward. Councillor Allen concurred but considered that Members needed to feel that they were in possession of sufficient information to carry out a meaningful consultation process.

28.19  Inspector Katy Woolford and Jean Irving Police Head of Licensing were in attendance in order to answer any questions and queries which Members of the Committee might have and at this point, following the initial discussion and debate, the Chair invited the Police representatives forward to answer Members questions. The Head of Police Licensing stated that she considered that there was confusion and lack of clarity around this issue at this point in time, Members were simply being asked to consult to ascertain the level of support for an LNL and to explore the practicalities of so doing, rather than making a decision to do so/confirming a decision to do so.

28.20  The Police and Crime Commissioner had sent a letter of confirmation(included with the papers before the Committee that day), that any monies raised from a levy would be used to support services across the city and would not be used elsewhere within the region. Recent discussions which had taken place with the Home Office had indicated that as/when any changes to the existing legislation were made amendments could be made to any arrangements already in place without the necessity for further expenditure or a requirement re-consult.

28.21  In answer to further questions, Inspector Woolford referred to the fact that there were a number of schemes in operation across the city which were associated with the late night economy e.g., the beach patrols/buggy which were manpower intensive but were also recognised as being of great value in creating “safe spaces” and in seeking to protect those who were under the influence of alcohol and were vulnerable. The Police were fully committed to continuing to offer these services, but like the local authority were under increasing financial pressure. Money generated in this way could be used to support initiatives associated with the late night economy. It was also important to note that even if an LNL was agreed to ultimately, implementation was not immediate as there was a further lead in period.

28.22  Councillor Moonan stated that whilst there was no unwillingness to consult or to listen to feedback received, any consultation needed to go forward in an open and balanced way. Current legislation appeared to be a “blunt instrument” in terms of seeking to achieve its aims and it would be premature to proceed in the absence of knowledge of proposed changes or a full exploration of potential alternative options.

28.23  Councillor Bell stated that he remained of the view that a clearer and more detailed financial breakdown was needed than had been provided, notwithstanding the explanation given that this could not be predicted fully in the absence of knowing what take up an LNL would have. Councillor Bell was also of the view that more in-depth information needed to be provided in respect of alternative options and costings for them.

28.24  Councillor West stated that he considered that, as the matter appeared to have been debated fully, the Committee should move to a vote on the recommendations contained in the report.

28.25  Councillor Cobb stated that she was not averse to the concept of an LNL as she considered that there was much to commend it.

28.26  The Chair stated that it appeared to be the view of the Committee that it would be premature to proceed with consultation as it stood. On that basis she proposed to put each of constituent recommendations to the vote separately.

28.27  Councillor Simson suggested it would be simpler to propose alternative recommendations (these are set out below), these were seconded by Councillor West.

28.28  A vote was then taken and the original recommendations were lost on a vote of 14 to 1. A vote was then taken on the recommendations as set out below and those were agreed on a vote of 14 to 1.

28.29  RESOLVED – (1) That the Committee defer any decision to proceed with formal consultation to raise a Late Night Levy until such time, as Home Office proposals to change the nature of the levy are clarified and approved; and

            (2) That the Committee request officers explore other alternative options including voluntary schemes for the reduction of crime and disorder in the late night economy and incorporate them into the final report.