Agenda item

The current statement Licensing Policy is due for review and to be Published by Jan 2026. This report seeks permission to consult on a revised statement.

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

The meeting heard that:

·         Fast food outlets would not usually be subject to much licensing regulation unless they proposed to operate after 23:00 and offered hot food and hot drink. A licence would then be required and the business may step into the realm of delivery operations whereby considerations would be made regarding prevention of public nuisance. The Public Health department had worked with the Commercial Environmental Health team to do some work with businesses around how food was cooked and prepared.

·         Vapes were not usually subject to licensing processes. However, Trading Standards dealt with the enforcement issues regarding vapes. There was expected to be new legislation regarding tobacco. If a licensed premises were found to be selling vapes to underage individuals or stocking illicit vapes or illicit tobacco, then Trading Standards may submit a review under the Licensing Act. 

·         In relation to the Government’s expected new proposals on licensing regulation, it was likely a new Statement of Licensing Policy would need to be completed. The work around the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 may impact on Safety Advisory Groups and possibly other areas of licensing.

·         Licensing Sub-Committees could consider the cumulative impact of licensed premises in a given location in relation to considering a licensing application. Police and Public Health would like to have certain areas of the borough defined as a saturated area. This would make the area subject to a presumption of a refusal of a premises licence. However, the Sub-Committee would still make a determination of an application based on the evidence before them.

·         Vaping at the Tottenham Hotspur stadium inside the club rooms and the buildings would definitively not be allowed as those areas were enclosed. However, it was notable that the stadium area itself had no specific roof. The football club would be consulted with regarding the issue.

·         The circular letter would be sent to representatives of residents. This would be done via the consultation team who would send out the links to all the residents associations that the Council had listed. The economic development team would also share the consultation link with the various trader’s associations. Residents that had been in contact with the Council tended to get copied in as well.

·         The consultation was a borough-wide consultation. In the past, the Communications team would always include a line that stated if a document needed to be seen in another language, a contact detail would be provided for this. The issue would be explored further with the consultation team.

·         Schools and colleges in the borough would be made subject to the consultation. It was already sent to Children’s Services and would be subject to their team meetings.

·         In the past, discursive events would be held with licence holders, but these had become limited due to budget constraints. The hiring of the space incurred a cost. Work had been done with the Police regarding Ask for Angela, but the Police had allocated a budget for this. When a new applicant became known to Licensing, it was rare to get an application that had no objections. As a matter of course, applicants would then be asked if they had consulted the policy or if they had looked at parts of the policy that would be relevant to their application. They would also be asked to look at the model conditions. Links would be provided to them to do this.

·         Licensing communicated regularly with licence holders. A mailshot of licence holders was kept on file if information needed to be communicated to licensed premises. This had been put in place since the coronavirus crisis and had simply carried on.  The Regeneration team ran a business newsletter. This too had been created during the coronavirus crisis to engage with licensed premises.

·         In relation to cumulative impact zones, under the licensing regime, the Police and Public Health would only look at off-licences. There was no flexibility under the Gambling Act to be able to have cumulative impact zones. It was something that had been mentioned in the white paper that the Government had released at the time in 2022, but had not been brought forward further.

·         Residents using the licensing process to deal with issues relating to vibrations at Finsbury Park would not be useful to them. There was an underground that ran through that area and it was subject to heavy traffic. Some of the resident-based meetings had Hackney residents who had said they had problems with the land owners, that they did not think the area had been built properly and that they were suffering from the vibrations caused from it. Licensing legislation could be used address this if there was a noise nuisance and it was directly in relation to the event. A review application could be submitted. If residents had issues with vibrations, then the occupant of the home would have to get their own independent surveyor to come into their home, take assessments and do readings in order to show the cause or effect. The Council would then need to take a view as to the use of the land.

The Licensing Committee RESOLVED:

1. To approve consultation on the draft Haringey Statement of Licensing Policy 2026- 2031 attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

2. To note and agree the arrangements for public consultation as set out within this report at section 6.

3. To note that following the consultation the responses will be brought back to the Licensing Committee who will then make recommendations to Full Council for adoption of the policy.