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.

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.

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

There were none.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Licensing Committee meeting held on 4 January 2024 as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the Licensing Committee meeting held on 4 January 2024 be confirmed and signed as a correct record of the proceedings.

The purpose of this report is to consult the Licensing Committee on the draft 

Statement of Gambling Policy 2025- 2028 and the draft Local Area Profile.

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

The meeting heard:

·      Haringey already had a policy about what it allowed to be advertised and promoted on Haringey streets. The Council did not allow payday loan adverts, smoking and gambling. In the incident that that took place, it was a matter of getting in touch with the head office and informing them that they could not have staff outside handing out leaflets and enticing people to come into the premises. This was why it had been addressed in the policy. Should a new application for a premises be made, this would be added as a standard condition.

·      That gambling could be used for money laundering had been factored into the strategy. However, like many local authorities, the Council did not have the resources and the means to actually delve into this as an authority. For this particular objective, the Council would attend the premises with the Gambling Commission who did have more significant resources to carry out checks to the systems (such as betting systems) and would be better placed to a to detect any kind of money laundering.

·      There was a mechanism for the Licensing Authority to ensure that operators were following through with measures to protect vulnerable people. The Council did an annual inspection of the betting operators in the borough. Aside from this, the codes of practice which were put in place by the Gambling Commission was something that betting operators had to adhere to. Operators would send through their means of operation, what the staff was required to do, the engagement that staff was required to do on site with patrons as they came in and ask questions that they were required to ask relating to patron affordability and general welfare. Staff also needed to be more visible around enabling the customer to self-exclude. Now with the increased conditions, this should, in theory, be better managed.

·      If an application was allocated in a councillor’s ward, that councillor was not able to sit at the Licensing Sub-Committee hearing as per the policy at the Council. However, the councillor could submit a representation regarding the application.

·      On page 26 of the agenda papers, paragraph 3.6 discussed death by suicide and the paragraph would need redrafting.

·      On page 39 of the agenda papers, paragraph 3.18 stated that east of the borough compared poorly with the west and this paragraph should be adjusted.

·      When inspections took place, premises were inspected to ensure that they were abiding by the conditions and the Gambling Commission's code of practice. The questions asked tested the knowledge and practice of the licence holder’s understanding. Observations were made on how they interacted with the patrons coming in as well. On the whole, inspections had been fine. None had to be referred back to the Gambling Commission.

·      One of the changes being made by the Gambling Commission was that there would be an increase of availability of gaming machines in the adult gaming centres. It was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

This report sets out the new fees to be adopted for pavement licensing and updated conditions to be applied to pavement licences that are granted and seeks approval for these matters.

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

The meeting heard:

·      In relation to the wording on page 92 of the agenda papers, it was very difficult to have a designated smoke free seating area and to have a designated smoking area totally separated. If a smoke free area was designated, then assurances would need to be made to ensure that adequate space was taken into account. Complaints had been received from people who had been at bus stops where people have smoked and cigarette smoke had made its way over to them.

·      Officers checked premises that placed tables and chairs outside the High Road in Tottenham. Conditions often were placed on licensed premises such as on match and event days where no tables, chairs or any furniture should be out. Violations would be issued with fixed penalty notices. 

·      Standard condition 27 stated that “the Licensee must not sub-let the licensed area or any part of the licensed area”. If a premises rented out the space to a private party, this would not fall foul of the condition. This condition was for, say, an ice cream van turning up and occupying that space. 

·      In relation to standard condition 29, within the pavement licence space, if a premises user would be using lighting or heaters, this needed to be displayed on the application. 

·      Page 90 of the agenda papers stated that processing a pavement licence application took on average four hours for a renewal, but did not specify how long it would take for a new application.

·      Page 91 of the agenda papers on paragraph 6.1 stated that pavement licences could also be amended by the local authority with the consent of the licence holder if it is considered that the conditions on the licence were not being met. This related to if the Licensing Authority needed to withdraw a licence, then this could be done. This would be a matter of evidence being gathered and then discussion with the head service to determine what happens with the licence. The wording had been taken from the legislation and the guidance.

·      Page 90 of the agenda papers on paragraph 4.6 stated that the new fees allowed the Council to recover the cost of processing applications, but inspecting, monitoring and enforcing pavement licensing regime would be an additional cost. These would be added as an additional resource. The Government had stated that A-Boards were becoming a public irritation.  The Council had a nil-policy on A-Boards set in 1982. The Levelling Up Act had stated that no A-Boards should be allowed in the pavement licence space. This was unpopular with some of the restaurants. If a licence holder was not being compliant, then the Council could seize these, but this would be an additional resource as to where they get stored. The information regarding these rules were on the website, but would be placed into the notes as well.

RESOLVED:

1.   To agree to set the fees at the statutory maximum, that is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

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

There were no new items of urgent business.