Agenda item

The Panel will consider a report on proposals to introduce a Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) Policy under the Licensing Act 2003.

Contact:         Russell Williams, Public Protection Operational Manager

CCc The Panel considered a report on proposals to introduce a </AI6>Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) Policyunder the Licensing Act 2003 which was presented by Russell Williams, Operational Manager- Public Protection. Katherine Armitage, Service Director – Environmental Strategy and Climate Change was also in attendance. 

Russell Williams gave a presentation which explained that the purpose of the report was to brief members of the Environment and Climate Change Scrutiny Panel on proposals to carry out public consultation in respect of introducing a CIA for Huddersfield and Dewsbury Town Centres. It was also advised that:

·         The Licensing Act 2003 required the licensing authority to prepare and publish a statement of its licensing policy at least every five years.

·         The existing policy was adopted in January 2020 and was due for renewal in 2025.

·         A review of the policy was to be undertaken which included a focus on aligning the policy with the Councils vision for the regeneration of its town centres.

·         As a part of the review work had been undertaken to consider the introduction of a CIA.

·         Cumulative impact was the potential impact on the promotion of the licensing objectives of a significant number of licensed premises concentrated in one area.

·         The publication of a CIA set a strong statement of intent about the Councils approach to considering applications.

·         It also placed the responsibility to demonstrate the need for a premise and the planned steps to mitigate risks (as identified in the CIA) on the applicant.

·         Working with the Councils Public Health Data Intelligence Officers and the West Yorkshire Police local crime statistics had been reviewed over the last 5 years.

·         The data showed that alcohol related crime statistics were above average in both Huddersfield and Dewsbury.

·         The review demonstrated that there was sufficient evidence to propose Consultation on the introduction of a CIA.

·         The scope of a CIA could be applied to a specific class of premises (i.e.- Off Licenses, On Licenses, late night refreshment or a mixture of these).

·         Concerns had been raised by Ward Members around the number of Off-licences opening in town centres.

·         In response current proposals were to carry out Consultation for the introduction of a CIA which was limited to the off-licence trade.

·         Whilst the initial evidence was reviewed for Huddersfield and Dewsbury town centres, there was potential for ward members to request consideration be given to introducing CIA’s in other areas.

·         The evidence to support the introduction of a CIA had to be robust and able to stand up to judicial scrutiny.

·         As part of the full review, work may be undertaken with ward members to investigate if there was sufficient evidence to support the introduction of a CIA elsewhere.

·         The next steps were to report to the Licensing and Safety Committee on 19^th July 2023.

·         If approved a 12-week consultation would begin and end in September 2023 and the analysis of the outcomes would take place in October/November 2023.

·         A report would then be submitted to a meeting of the Full Council to consider any recommendations and for the adoption or rejection of the CIA in January 2024.

·         Whilst this process was ongoing, work was being undertaken to reduce the current impact to communities through alternative interventions which included:

o   A review of the Council’s current PSPO’s to ensure they were more robust.

o   Working with premises selling alcohol to establish a voluntary agreement to remove sale of single high strength cans of alcohol (6% or above).

o   Collating evidence to support the potential review of individual premises licences.

o   Taking a multi-agency approach to tackling street drinkers

The Panel thanked officers for the presentation but raised concerns in relation to the clarity of the data presented as well as noting grammatical errors in the report. In relation to this it was requested that clearer information formatted to a higher standard be presented to the Panel moving forwards. The Panel also noted that one area had significantly higher crime data than the other areas, and wanted to understand more about the boundaries of the assessments and where there was scope for these to be amended noting a lack of clarity around where the lines would be drawn.

In response, Russell Williams acknowledged the lack of clarity in the report and agreed to recirculate the amended map to the Panel. It was also explained that the data marked in red was supplied by the Councils Public Health team, and that the information had been blocked out as it represented a number less than 50. However, Russell acknowledged the Panel’s concerns that this did make it more difficult to make comparison and agreed to liaise with Public Health colleagues to obtain the actual figures and to circulate this information after the meeting. In response to the question in relation to the boundaries of the geographical assessment it was advised that the initial Consultation was to be in alignment with the boundaries shown but reassured the Panel that this would be made clearer prior to the start of the consultation period. Russell further highlighted that work would continue with the Police and Public Health as well as Ward Members to determine if the scope of the boundaries needed to be widened or more restricted as part of the Consultation.

The Panel noted the response and raised concerns that the boundaries seemed to exclude the side of Trinity Street adjacent to Greenhead Park and that in doing so, the problems may persist in this area. In relation to this, the Panel requested to understand more about how the maps were determined.  In respect of the public Consultation, the Panel wanted to understand more about the process, who was being consulted with and what the desired outcomes were.

In response, Russell Williams noted the concerns raised about Trinity Street and agreed to revisit the boundaries alongside Public Health colleagues as part of the Consultation. In response to questions about the approach to the Consultation, it was advised that the Council was duty bound to consult with the responsible authorities, but consultation would also be held with ward members, trade groups and the public. Officers would work with the Councils Consultation team on the approach with the aim of achieving a high number of responses particularly from the public. 

Then Panel noted Safter Dewsbury as a useful forum and highlighted that it was important to be inclusive about who was involved and that surrounding areas be included, for example Ravensthorpe and Batley. The Panel further emphasised the importance of setting a clear ambition for the number of responses from the public to ensure the validity of the Consultation and to measure success.

Katherine Armitage, Service Director – Environmental Strategy and Climate Change responded to acknowledge the importance of ensuring adequate representation and agreed that a figure that was deemed to be statistically valid against the overall population be provided when developing the Consultation and the aim would be to achieve above this number of respondents.

In response to the question about how the maps were determined, Russell Williams explained that the maps were produced by Public Health who obtained the data from the Police. This information was then processed using a public health toolkit before being entered into a matrix which produced a score for the area. This model was based on national public health guidance and was used widely by other authorities.

The Panel asked a question around the enforcement of existing licences and scope for these to be included in the CIA.

In response, Russell Williams acknowledged that there were existing challenges and agreed that more work was needed to address these. The intention was to do so through alternative planned interventions, and a part of this involved looking at if there was sufficient evidence to review existing licences.

The Panel welcomed the approach to consider other areas and requested that if approval for Consultation was given that an email be sent to all Ward Members asking them to put forward the areas that they represent for consideration if they felt it would be useful. The Panel also asked to understand more about the other interventions listed and the multiagency approach.

The Panel further highlighted the importance of addressing issues in relation to fast food chains, electronic cigarette/vape shops and street-drinking at family friendly events adding that it would have been helpful for data to be included in relation to alcohol related hospital admissions and the long-term effects of alcohol.

In response, Russell Williams agreed to invite Ward Members to approach officers if they would like an area to be included. In relation to the other interventions, from a licensing point of view the data was essential and part of the work with the multi-agency side was around gathering evidence to be reported to the police which supported the need for a CIA. If the evidence identified individual premises, then intervention could be taken.

The Panel noted the response, and further recommended that the Consultation dates be reviewed to include the student population. 

RESOLVED: The Panel noted the report, ‘</AI6>Cumulative Impact Assessment’ and recommended that:</AI7><AI8>

1.    The data be reviewed where it was felt to be incorrect (particularly in relation to Dewsbury Town centre) and be shared with the Panel.

2.    The maps be made clearer and shared with the Panel following review with the Public Health Department.

3.    Where figures less than 50 had been blocked out in the report that liaison took place with the Public Health Department to obtain actual figures and that these be shared with the Panel.  

4.    The quality of the report presented be improved and formatted to a higher standard before presentation to the Panel moving forwards.

5.    A review of areas be undertaken where streets may be excluded by the boundary line and allow for issues to persist (i.e.- Trinity Street).

6.    The ambition for the Public Consultation was made clear and that a statistically valid figure against the overall population for the number of public respondents be set to ensure broad representation and meaningful engagement.

7.    Consideration be given to amending the period within which the Public Consultation was to be held to ensure the student population be represented.

8.    The Panel be informed with the outcomes of the Public Consultation if approved by the Licencing Panel.

9.    The Panel be provided with information in relation to; those licences that were being reviewed (i.e.- where areas were congested with premises selling cheap alcohol), the scope for refusal and evidence of good practice.

10.It was important to be inclusive in the approach and that consideration continue to be given to the inclusion of other areas.

11.If the Consultation be approved, that an email be sent to all Ward Members asking them to put forward the areas that they represent for consideration if they felt it would be useful.

12.The Panel to be informed if the Consultation was approved and for an update be provided on progress prior to further consideration by Licensing and Full Council.