| The Head of Enforcement, Litigation and Licensing gave a brief introduction to the report and explained that it was necessary for the Council to review the licensing policy every three years. He stated that officers felt the current policy was working well and had not been subject to any legal challenge. There were a few minor amendments by way of `housekeeping' partly as a result of revised guidance and revisions to the fire regulations.
|
| He then responded to a number of questions and clarified that there were separate policies in respect of other aspects of licensing work, such as tattoo parlours and adult shops, but that this policy related mainly to alcohol and crime reduction and community matters.
|
| Following a query he stated that the partnership working referred to in paragraph 1.13 of the policy was working well. He mentioned an alcohol forum will be held in March 2008, led by Kent Police, which will encourage more control on drinking taking place in licensed premises. He also stated that he was unaware of anti social behaviour being moved to other areas of Medway because of the alcohol control zone being in operation in Rochester. He clarified that the Police only enforced the zone in cases of anti social behaviour. As such drinking in a public place could still take place as long as there was no anti social behaviour involved.
|
| In relation to paragraph 1.29 of the policy Members queried why they had not received the annual report on licensing matters from the Chief Officer of Police referred to in that paragraph. The Strategic Enforcement Manager undertook to look into this. A suggestion was made that an invitation could be extended to the Chief Officer of Police to attend the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee when it considered the policy.
|
| Discussion then took place regarding the Member task group on drugs and alcohol, which was currently ongoing. In response to a further question the senior lawyer present stated that while this was a necessary review of the licensing policy currently being undertaken revisions could be made on an ongoing basis where it was felt necessary. In the event that the Member task group came up with suggested changes these could be taken into account.
|
A request was made that the licensing objectives set out in paragraph 2 of the policy be clarified as 2.4 mentioned a selection of control measures being set out in 2.3 but none were actually set out in that paragraph. The senior lawyer present stated that the control measures were set out in each section rather than that specific paragraph but, nonetheless, undertook to attempt to clarify the policy on this issue.
|
| A further suggestion was made that it would be helpful if the policy were able to show a start date and revision date. The senior lawyer stated that it would be possible to show which version the policy was.
|
| Members paid tribute to the Licensing Manager, his team and the legal staff for the successful implementation of the licensing policy, which had not generated any legal challenge, they felt this in itself was a credit to the work of the staff involved. |