Agenda and draft minutes

Please note this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method.  Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on.  By entering the ‘meeting room’, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The Chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual, or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred to the filming of meetings and this information was noted.  

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies had been received from Councillor Makbule Gunes, Councillor Reg Rice and Councillor Mark Blake.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of Urgent Business. (Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with under item 8 below).

There was no urgent business.

A member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered:

(i) must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest becomes apparent, and

(ii) may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must withdraw from the meeting room.

A member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Register of Members’ Interests or the subject of a pending notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.

Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are defined at Paragraphs 5-7 and Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct

Councillor da Costa stated that he was a trustee of Alexandra Palace and Park Charitable Trust and a Director of Alexandra Palace Trading Limited which was mentioned within the report.

To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, paragraph 29 of the Council’s constitution.

Mr Francis Wilkinson, Secretary of the Highgate Society and a member of the Highgate Forum had submitted a deputation for the consideration of the Licensing Committee. In addressing the Committee, he stated that:

·      He was aware of a number of occasions when local residents had found out about licensing applications too late to make representations. This was because the current arrangements for notifying applications were ineffective. This was contrary to Haringey’s Constitution and the Licensing policy. The Constitution had been updated in May 2022 and stated that one of its principal purposes was to support the active involvement of citizens in the process of local authority decision making and that the Council considered it important that the local community was fully aware of local licensing applications being made within its area. However, the current process was not working. This was because the notification was only by an A4 notice on the premises which was very easy to miss, an advertisement in the local paper which was very old fashioned as few people ever read them and if they did, they would not read the small print notices and by being put on the Council's website. At paragraph 23.4 of the Licensing policy, residents were advised to regularly check the Council's register of Licensing applications. As most people would be affected by an application only occasionally, perhaps every few years, this was quite unrealistic advice. No resident was likely to do a weekly check which was what would be required just on the off chance of discovering a licensing application that was relevant to them.

·      He would make two alternative proposals. Firstly, that local residents be notified of Licensing applications as they were for planning applications - a long established process – or, secondly, that residents and businesses be able to sign up for licensing alerts in their ward. This approach had been taken by the London Borough of Camden following a deputation to them and worked well.

·      The Licensing Team Leader had stated that she had asked for the second alternative, but she could not say if or when it would happen. She had further stated that the Licensing Committee had no say in whether or when this would happen. This could not be right.

·      He asked that the Committee, as the responsible committee for the Licensing policy, ensured that the arrangements were consistent with the Council's constitution and its Licensing policy and asked for one or both of the proposed solutions be implemented with a date for the implementation which provided a commitment to the Committee.

In response to questions, Mr Wilkinson informed the Committee that:

·      He understood that there was a weekly email to councillors about licensing matters which was not submitted to any community organisations or individuals. The Neighbourhood Forum was a statutory organisation and the Highgate Society was quite a large and long-established organisation, but it was possible that there would be people who would be affected by licensing applications who did not know about the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

i)  To confirm and sign the minutes of the Licensing Committee meeting held on 22 June 2023 and 10 January 2023 as a correct record.

ii) To note the Licensing Sub-Committee and Special Licensing Sub-Committee decisions from January 2023

RESOLVED:

1.         That the minutes of the Licensing Committee meeting held on 22 June 2023 be confirmed and signed as a correct record of the proceedings.

2.         That the minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee and Special Licensing Sub-Committee decisions from January 2023 be noted.

The Councils income policy requires an annual review of the level of the fees and charges levied upon service users the aim of the review is to ensure that income generated ensures full cost recovery and that charges remain in line with increases being experienced in the cost of delivering services.

Ms Daliah Barrett, Licensing Team Leader, introduced the report.

The meeting heard that:

·      Enforcement of markets and enforcement of people legally street trading was a challenge.

·      There were issues that had occurred at car boot sales in Scotland Green market and at the car boot sale on White Hart Lane. What happened within the grounds was the responsibility of the operators and what happened outside on the highway was the responsibility of the Council (to take enforcement action). However, the Council needed proper resources to fully utilise its function. If it was to be a committed to having markets in the area and seeing a growth in the business sector, then the Council needed to enhance its enforcement sector. This may lead to the Council needing to consider increasing fees. 

·      Traders wanted to be able to come and trade in Haringey, but they did not want to have to pay a cost to do so. There once was a subsidy which allowed traders to trade for £4.00 a day and now the fee structure put in place was that a trader could apply for three days at a particular location. This was supposed to be set just for newcomers, but as regular traders had become accustomed to it, it would be hard to remove this offer from them. Therefore, traders would be allowed to have three days of trading in a row at a particular popup market location.

·      If the fees were increased, then contributors would not be able to trade in the borough and the whole market strategy could not be viable. The offer of the three dates captured traders who felt that they were benefitting from it.

·      It would be useful to obtain the demographics of traders that were given licences to trade. It would be useful to know who was benefiting from the offers made by the Council. The borough had a visiting French market that went through Muswell Hill but the Myddleton Road and Tottenham markets often had the same traders that traded in those markets. In some cases, it was unclear how newcomers would establish themselves.

·      Street trading was anything that took place on the public highway. If it was in an enclosed area, it would not be covered by the fees and charges regime. The £175.00 initial fee was arrived at as it covered the current cost to Licensing. Road closures would need to be applied for separately, but road closures were often classified as a ‘street party’ which did not have a fee.

·      Some Tottenham markets were never busy and were expensive. If new people did not become involved then the markets would lose popularity. It may be possible to have a phased approach to increase popularity year on year. 

·      Haringey was the only borough amongst its neighbouring boroughs which was not a market borough. Neighbouring boroughs had lively markets which were already financed because it was part of the corporate spend on markets. This circumstance was not shared by Haringey. The Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider any items of urgent business as identified at item 3.