Meeting Details

RESOLVED that: the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 20 March 2024 and 22 May 2024 be confirmed as a correct record. 

The Committee considered a report requesting that it agree, for the purposes of consultation, the draft Gambling Policy 2025-2028, and to agree to the commencement of the formal consultation process.

Sarah White, Licensing Team Leader, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries. The Committee was asked to approve, for the purposes of consultation, the draft amended Statement of Gambling Policy (the Policy) which was before it. The Committee heard that the review of the Policy which had been carried out had been a ‘light touch’ review, as the results of a government white paper on gambling were expected later in the year, and it was anticipated that this would necessitate a wholesale review of the Policy which would be presented to the Committee in due course. The suggested changes which had been made to the Policy had been intended to improve its clarity, and repetition in the Policy had been removed, together with details concerned solely with process. Given the relatively slight changes which were suggested, it was proposed that a consultation period of 6 weeks was appropriate, before any responses were referred back to the Committee.

In response to a question from the Committee, the Licensing Team Leader confirmed that at present there was no sense of what changes the white paper may initiate, however, a lot of evidence gathering had taken place in relation to the protection of vulnerable people and children from gambling harm, together with online gambling, which did not fall under the Council’s remit. Work under the Gambling Act 2005 formed a relatively small part of the work of the team, and although there may be substantial implications for the Council’s Policy in the future, it was considered unlikely that Officer’s day-to-day work would be impacted significantly.

In response to a number of detailed and technical questions about the proposed Policy, the Licensing Team Leader confirmed that Councillors and members of the Committee were able to raise concerns they may have about gambling premises, but would then not be able to take part in any hearing which may relate to that premises. Formatting errors in the draft Policy would be corrected, and the Committee as assured that fees payable under the Gambling Act 2005 had not changed.

Some sections of the policy had been re-ordered to make it an easier document to read, including the area of the Policy which outlined the requirement for a risk assessment to be carried out by an applicant, and the requirement to safeguard children. Information concerning deprivation in the area was obtainable from the Council’s website, and when the full review of the Policy was carried out consideration would be given to creating a new Local Area Profile for Colchester.

The Committee heard that some sections of the draft Policy had been removed in a bid to make the document more user friendly, and to draw a distinction between the Council’s Policy and the process which was required to be followed in accordance with legislation, including, for example, fees which were charged.

Members of the Committee noted that the numbering of paragraph 2.2 in the Policy had been duplicated, and requested that the wording of paragraph 10.2 be amended so that it read, “no specific evidence of authorisation is required”.

The Committee appreciated the intention to make the Policy easier for Officers, applicants and members of the public to understand, and it sought to understand how areas of Policy and procedure were separated and the reasoning for this. The Licensing Team Leader confirmed that the Council had received feedback in relation to some of its other Policies that these had been too lengthy and difficult to digest, and as a result of this the general aim was to produce policy documents which were shorter and more accessible and which were supported by separate guidance on procedure. The Committee was reminded that it was intended that the draft Policy before it would be the subject of a rigorous review in the near future when the Committee would have a further opportunity to make any amendments to it which were felt to be necessary.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Licensing Team Leader confirmed that the use of Officer’s names in the Policy would be replaced by the relevant post title, and clarified that Council Officers were required to ensure that licence holders employed adequate numbers of staff to uphold the relevant licensing objectives. The Committee supported the suggestion that there be a distinction between policy and procedure documents, and the use of plain English and reduced jargon as a matter of course. There needed to be a balance between providing necessary information in an accessible format which was useful to all. The Licensing Team Leader confirmed that considerable discussion had taken place in the Council’s Licensing Team on the changes which were required to the Policy, and it was accepted that a thorough review of the document was needed, and would be carried out in the near future.

The Licensing Team Leader confirmed to the Committee that the document which was before it would be the document which was circulated for consultation, and this would be sent to all statutory consultees, every holder of a licence issued under the Gambling Act 2005 and would additionally be published on the Council’s website for the comments of the wider public. The draft Policy would be the subject of a 6 week consultation before being referred back to the Committee with the comments which had been received.

RESOLVED that: the draft revised Statement of Gambling Policy 2025-2028 be approved for the purposes of a six week consultation. 

The Committee considered a report requesting that it approve an updated version of the Council's Pavement Licensing Policy (the Policy).

Sarah White, Licensing Team Leader, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries. The Committee heard that this Policy had been presented to it recently, but relevant legislation had been updated and the Policy had been amended to reflect these changes. Licences were now issued for 2 years, and the fee cap had increased to £500 on initial application, and £350 on renewal of a licence, and the Council now had new enforcement powers. The Committee heard that the Policy would apply to the entire area of Colchester.

A Committee member questioned how the fees were calculated, and the Licensing Team Leader confirmed that they were calculated on a cost recovery basis, which meant that any fee charged would only be used to cover the administrative costs of the Council in issuing the licence. The fee would include the costs of the Committee, Officers and resources and enforcement activity, and in common with many fees charged under various licensing regimes, the Council was not entitled to make a profit from this work.

A Committee member had raised a number of detailed questions, and in response the Licensing Team Leader confirmed that the Council’s Street Care Team had been consulted on the Policy and were aware of its contents. The Licensing Team and the Council’s Street Wardens met monthly to discuss any issues relating to the city centre, and concerns about broken glass and other litter in the city centre were not related to pavement licences, but were associated with premises which were open later into the night time economy.

Turning to the use of plastic of toughened glass which was mandated by the standard conditions on pavement licences, The Licensing Team Leader confirmed that the Council’s Climate Emergency Project Officer had not been consulted in relation not the Policy, but consideration would be given to seeking their views in the future.

A member of the Committee sought assurance that the increased application fee would contribute to a greater number of inspections and assistance to businesses who wished to apply for a licence. The Licensing Team Leader confirmed to the Committee that Officers would always offer assistance to any applicant who approached them in relation to the application process or legislative or Policy requirements. Applications were made online, and it was considered that the biggest challenge facing a prospective applicant was the creation of a suitable plan of the proposed licenced area which would satisfy Essex County Council as the Highway Authority. The Council made every effort to ensure that the application process was as user-friendly as possible.

A Committee member noted that it was a condition that licensed areas and the pavement immediately adjacent were required to be kept clear form litter, including staining of the highway surface. If the licenced area continued to be a public right of way and the licence holder was already paying an additional fee to use this area, why were they also given the responsibility to clean a public area? A concern was raised that members of the public using the licensed area at night when the licence holder’s business was closed could leave the area in a dirty and unhygienic condition, why should the licence holder have to clean this up? The Licensing Team Leader confirmed that there was no expectation on licence holders to clean any litter from the highway that was not the direct result of their business, such as ketchup spills and there was no responsibility on the licence holder to clean the broader pavement area, which the Council’s Street Clean Team would maintain.

A Committee member noted that the question of fees for a pavement licence had been considered in the past, and wondered whether there was any scope for implementing a fee regime that recognised the size of the business which was applying for a licence, and required a lower fee from a smaller business. Was the Council taking a pragmatic approach to enforcement? The Licensing Team Leader confirmed that the Council did take a pragmatic approach to enforcement, and reminded the Committee that any fee charged for an application was required to relate to the amount of work which was required to process this application, and not the relative business size of the applicant.

In discussion, it was suggested that the wording of the Policy be amended to require the use of ‘re-usable’ plastic drinking vessels instead of the current requirement for drinking vessels to be plastic of toughened glass, and the Licensing Team Leader was happy to make this change. It was confirmed to the Committee that no complaints had been received in respect of litter or mess created by the operation of a pavement licence, and in general premises which had the benefit of such a licence operated without any significant problems.

RESOLVED that: the amended Pavement Licence Policy be approved, subject to the following amended wording being included at condition 10 in the Council’s standard conditions, to replace the words “plastic or toughened glass”:

“Where the consumption of alcohol is permitted to take place, all drinking vessels shall be re-usable plastic”.

The Committee considered a report requesting that it agree to delegate to the Head of Public Protection the Council’s functions in respect of film classification, and to make the necessary changes to the Council’s Film Classification Policy (the Policy).

Sarah White, Licensing Team Leader, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries. The Policy had been in place for some time, but the Council had not yet had cause to rely on it. Officers had been approached in respect of a proposed Essex film festival which had suggested that approximately 60 films would require to be classified, and although it was believed that these were likely to be short films, full details were not known at this stage. In the light of this, Officers had re-considered the Policy and did not believe that it would be possible for Councillors to provide classifications for the proposed volume of films, even if these were short films. The process involved would potentially require many hours of work, and it was therefore suggested that the authority to provide film classification be delegated to Officers, with any dispute in the classification which Officers provided being referred back to the Committee to resolve. The Committee heard that Officers would be required to view any film which was submitted for classification irrespective of how the classification was provided, and so the proposed change in the scheme of delegation would not necessarily create an extra burden on Officer time. Officers had received training from the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) and would refer to the relevant BBFC guidance when classifying films.

The Licensing Team Leader confirmed to the Committee that the changes to the Policy which it was asked to approve were changes to the scheme of delegation and not to the body of the Policy itself. The Head of Public Protection would not have the power to amend the Policy in the future without reference to the Committee, but would have the ability to provide film classifications in accordance with the Policy. It was envisioned that the proposed change would be a permanent amendment to the Policy.

In discussion, the Committee wondered whether the delegation of this function to Officers require additional hours to be worked, at a cost to the Council? The Licensing Team Leader assured the Committee that it was not anticipated that there would be a significant increase in staff hours or costs, as Officers would be engaged with this work in any event to support Councillors. If the provision of film classifications functions remained a Councillor decision, then additional costs would be incurred through the requirement to arrange formal meetings of the Committee.

A Committee member was concerned at the suggestion that the need to review the Policy every 5 years be removed from the document, and considered that regular reviews were important. The Licensing Team Leader explained that it was not anticipated that the Policy would be subject to change in the future, and in the event that legislation or guidance did change any Policy revisions would be presented to the Committee for approval. In spite of this, there would be no issue with leaving the requirement for a Policy review every 5 years in the document, if this was was the Committee wished.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Licensing Team Leader clarified that once the Policy had been approved, Officers would not be able to amend it further without referring any changes to the Committee for its approval.

Addressing some concerns which had been raised about the delegation of functions, the Committee heard that the vast majority of uncontested licensing decisions were already delegated to Officers and accordingly a huge volume of licences were processed and granted which were not referred to the Committee. The proposed Policy would continue this method of approaching licensing work, and the Committee was reminded that if an Officer awarded classification was disputed then it would be referred to the Committee for a final decision. Officers were comfortable that the proposed Policy represented the correct way of dealing with this area of work.

The Committee accepted that the process which would be required for Councillors to provide film classifications was likely to be time intensive and costly, and it could not recall the last time it had been requested to provide such a classification. It considered that the current practice of issuing licenses under powers of delegation was the most appropriate approach, and noted that the Committee would be asked to intervene to determine applications of appeals when it was needed to. It recognised that Councillors would need training if they were to classify films.

In the light of further discussion around the review of the proposed Policy, the Licensing Team Leader confirmed to the Committee that Officers would happily continue to review the Policy every 5 years if the Committee wished this, and assurance was offered that if the Policy needed to be reviewed in the interim then then any such review would be presented to the Committee.

The Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee did not see any issue with their powers being delegated to the Head of Public Protection, and considered that this was the right thing to do.

In response to a question asked by the Licensing Team Leader, the Committee clarified that when it was asked to reach a determination in the event of a disputed classification, then 3 Committee members would form the Committee on this occasion, in the same way that Driver Appeal Panels and Licensing Sub-Committees were convened.

RESOLVED that:

- That the Council’s functions in respect of film classification be delegated to the Head of Public Protection.

- When meeting to consider an appeal against a classification that has been provided by the Head of Public Protection, the Committee shall be formed of 3 members.

The Committee considered a report requesting that it approve its draft work programme for the current municipal year.

A Committee member enquired when the Committee was likely to discuss the mandatory provision of closed circuit television cameras (CCTV) in licensed vehicles. The Licensing Team Leader confirmed that the Council’s Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Policy was due to be presented to the Committee at its November 2024 meeting, and CCTV discussion was likely to form part of this report.

RESOLVED that: the contents of the work programme be noted.