Portsmouth City Borough Council Licensing Committee Meeting

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Tom Coles, Chris Dike and Benedict Swann. Councillors Coles and Dike were represented by Councillors Mary Vallely and Russell Simpson respectively.

Councillor Madgwick declared an interest as he is a personal licence holder in the city.

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 September 2024 were agreed as a correct record.

Nickii Humphreys, Licensing Manager, presented the report and explained she sought the Committee's approval to undertake a formal consultation on the draft policy as required by the Licensing Act 2003. The draft statement of policy had been prepared in accordance with statutory guidance issued in accordance with section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003. The Licensing Manager advised that sections of the current policy along with references to previous guidance that were now out of date and no longer referenced within the statutory guidance had been deleted. The report highlighted the Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) for the Guildhall Walk area. The Licensing Act sets out how the licensing authority must determine and evidence the implementation of CIAs. The Licensing Manager advised that the consideration of the CIA has been led by data provided by the police who were present today in case of any questions about the evidence. 

Members' questions

In response to questions from the Committee, Ms Humphreys and police officers clarified the following points:

·       The policy was due for revision in 2022 but regretfully there had been other pressing licensing matters to deal with. Ms Humphreys apologised for the delay which was partly caused by the Covid pandemic and partly by work on other statutory functions which had to come first in accordance with members' wishes, for example, on taxis and private hire vehicles, and the safeguarding policy which was now in place.

·       Legislation had changed so that the policy has to be reviewed every five years rather than three; however, CIAs have to be reviewed every three years.

·       The Legal Advisor said there had been no challenges to the policy to date although in theory it could have been challenged.

·       As to why the only CIA in the city was for Guildhall Walk when Central Southsea, according to the crime data, had twice as much theft, PC Pollard explained that when defining the criteria for a CIA and assessing data, the police looked at the total volume of night-time economy (NTE) related crime. Guildhall Walk contained a greater number of licensed premises in a smaller geographical area than Central Southsea where they were more spread out as the area ran along Elm Grove and Albert Road.

·       PC Pollard said the crime data was dated from 2021 until 2023 as the police looked for complete calendar years and the most recent three-year complete calendar year period was from 2021.

·       Ms Humphreys advised that the consultation should be a minimum of six weeks so as to enable effective consultation on the proposed new policy

·       PC Pollard could only comment on NTE resources but agreed it was possible more crime might be identified in Guildhall Walk because there were more police and council resources there. He had not examined the data to see what was reported by the police or the public. Although it looked as if there was no crime in areas north of North End, when the police compiled the report they focused on areas with a high concentration of NTE activity - Guildhall Walk, Osborne Road, Palmerston Road, Albert Road. There was some concentration of licensed premises in North End but not the same level of NTE activity as in other areas. Footfall in Gunwharf had dropped as some premises had closed.

·       Ms Humphreys advised that if there were concerns about an area or application the lack of a CIA did not negate the consideration of cumulative impact in a given area if problems were identified. If circumstances changed drastically, the LA could consider identifying additional areas

·       The Legal Advisor explained that generally speaking common sense and local knowledge were acceptable but with CIAs they were very clearly governed by legislation, guidance and case law; in this respect CIAs needed to be very much led by police evidence.

·       Ms Humphreys confirmed that for this particular consultation the research and analysis had been undertaken and was now presented to members and they would not receive different information in six weeks' time.

·       PC Vincent said the North End area was defined as beyond Guildhall Walk and up to Hilsea, in other words, north of the railway line. There had been a separate area for the north of Portsmouth but figures had dropped dramatically. He emphasised that the police assessed every single licensing application regardless of location so they considered conditions such as door staff and training for each one. North End was a very large, mixed area with licensed premises and takeaways on Fratton, Kingston and London Roads but surrounding streets could be wholly residential. Statistical classification included "NTE qualifiers" which was any incident that took place between 1900 to 0700 hours. Officers would then check if it had happened in a licensed premises or because of it. A pub might be "landmarked" and seem horrendous but it might be the key landmark in an area. Data was quantified weekly and daily. Statistics on the North End area's NTE could be broken down to some extent and the police could provide data on request though members needed to be mindful of the effect on businesses who did not cause problems.

·       PC Pollard explained that CIAs were not the only way of addressing disorder. Together with partners the police had set up a new Pub Watch in the last 12 months to support the NTE, for example, sharing information on banned individuals. The next phase would move to Fratton then Cosham. The police followed up all incidents with due care, whether they were in a CIA or not. If there was another CIA in the city they would have to juggle officers and resources.

Members' comments

·       Some members had seen fights and evidence of extensive shoplifting in Albert Road and thought there was a case for a CIA. The area did not seem to have the police presence that others did but it was only through reporting incidents that they got the required attention. However, there seemed to be slightly more police there but that might be counterbalanced by officers retiring or cuts to the service. Members thanked the police for their work and attending the meeting.

·       PC Pollard pointed out that although Guildhall Walk had the highest volume of crime statistics, Albert Road had the second highest volume so there was evidence available that members could use to consider an assessment for a CIA.

·       Ms Humphreys advised that an assessment for a CIA for Albert Road could be added to the consultation but officers would need to work on a proposal and delve deeper before going out to consultation. Members were advised that in order to consult on a CIA there had to be sufficient data analysis and evidence to justify the proposal for a CIA area in Albert Road. It was also advised that a CIA in a new area would likely attract significant consultation response given the effect / impact upon existing businesses.

·       Although members were generally in favour of considering an assessment for a CIA for Albert Road, some were uncomfortable with the extra weeks of delay adding the proposal to the consultation on the policy statement would cause thus leaving the council open to challenges. The delay in adopting the policy had already been flagged by the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee as a moderate to high risk. The report could be accepted as it was with clear direction for officers to carry out research on Albert Road, return to the Committee with a full report and then have a separate consultation if the evidence suggested it was necessary to consult on an additional CIA.

·       Ms Humphreys explained that the impact of a CIA meant it created a rebuttable presumption that applications for the grant or variation of licences would be refused. Looking at the area of Albert Road, in this case, a large entertainment area would be affected. It would be incumbent on the applicant to prove their application would not contribute to existing problems in the area. A CIA included premises like takeaways as well as restaurants and bars. It did not apply to TENs (Temporary Event Notices). A CIA did not negate the requirement to make representations, either by responsible authorities or any other persons in relation to the promotion of  the licensing objectives.

·       The Legal Advisor confirmed that the impact of a CIA was quite onerous so the case needed to be robust and backed by police evidence and not done on a whim.

·       Ms Humphreys reiterated that any public consultation on the draft policy had to be meaningful and allow sufficient time for responses to be received and considered. Any consideration for an additional CIA for Albert Road would require more work by officers and the police as if the consultation and evidential basis for a CIA was not meaningful it could be challenged. She apologised in case she had given the impression that licence holders overruled the process but a CIA would have a big impact on them and they had the right to respond and have their responses considered. Four to five weeks was feasible to provide a robust assessment for Albert Road for a separate consultation, which was not tied to the policy.

·       With regard to the recommendation that a final draft of the policy return to the Committee for further consideration by no later than end of May 2025, members requested that this be no longer than the end of April to avoid the disruption caused by any change of membership after May's AGM.

DECISIONS

The Licensing Committee:

1.    Agreed, with any necessary amendments, the draft statement of licensing policy prepared in accordance with Section 5 of the Act and the Cumulative Impact Area Assessment (CIA) in accordance with Section 5A as set out in Appendix A; and instructed the Licensing Manager to undertake a process of consultation and to prepare a final draft of the policy for further consideration by the Committee by no later than end of April 2025.

2.    Requested that work should begin for a separate consultation about a CIA for the Albert Road area.

Nickii Humphreys, Licensing Manager, presented the report and explained she sought the Committee's approval to go to public consultation as required by the Gambling Act 2005. The policy had to be reviewed every three years and was now out of date. The draft had been updated to reflect changes in the statutory guidance. Since the Act had been introduced in 2005 and implemented in 2007, the LA had never needed to consider an application.

There were no questions from members.

Members' comments

·       As the Cabinet Member for Community Safety, Leisure and Sport, Councillor Hunt wanted to highlight understanding of where gambling addiction could lead. 

·       With regard to the recommendation that a final draft of the policy return to the Committee for further consideration by no later than end of May 2025, members requested that this be no longer than the end of April to avoid the disruption caused by any change of membership after May's AGM.

DECISION

The Licensing Committee agreed, with any necessary amendments, the draft Gambling Act 2005 Statement of Licensing Policy as set out in Appendix A of the report, and instructed the Licensing Manager to undertake a process of consultation and to prepare a final draft of the policy statement for further consideration by the Committee by no later than the end of April 2025.