Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member Housing and Safety

Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item Councillor Chard left the room and did not participate in the debate.

Councillor Jeffries, as Cabinet Member Housing and Safety, introduced the report saying Cheltenham has a vibrant night-time economy that far exceeds other towns of similar sizes. The town offers a rich choice of entertainment and facilities which makes it a destination that attracts high numbers of visitors, with some travelling considerable distances to enjoy what the late night economy has to offer. The town also hosts a number of internationally renowned festivals throughout the year.

He reminded Members that although the vast majority of people visiting the town do so safely and responsibly, an active night-time economy nonetheless demands additional resource and cost for the council, police and other partners to deal with associated crime, disorder and other anti-social behaviour.  The council has set out a priority to strengthen communities by making those communities feel safe and ensuring they are safe.  By working in partnership with the police and other stakeholders it has brought forward a proposal to adopt a late night levy in Cheltenham.

He advised that the late night levy is a new discretionary power arising from Part 2 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.  The levy can be charged to persons who are licensed to sell alcohol between midnight and 6am as a means for raising a contribution towards the costs of policing the late night economy.

He drew attention to the exemptions which the council could choose to apply and also the discretion as to the proportion of the funds raised, which it must allocate to the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC).  The levy if adopted would raise around £200,000 before exemptions, reductions for costs and any variations.  The report outlined the consultation that had taken place and the issues that had been raised

In coming to a decision as to whether to adopt the levy the council must consider the cost of policing and the desirability of raising revenue.  The costs of policing were set out in section 8.9 of the report. It  could be seen that these costs were significant and in terms of desirability of raising the revenue, Councillor Jeffries felt that public safety and the costs of cleaning were important factors.

Section 11 of the report set out the outcomes which might be achieved with the introduction of the levy, and advised that the PCC had given assurances that if the scheme was introduced he would ensure that the money would be spent in Cheltenham.  There had been meetings with the police and the trade, who were supportive of one single programme, with an advisory group identifying how the money should be allocated.

In his summing up he reminded Members that licensees have a business choice as to whether they wish to serve alcohol after midnight and also to adopt best practice schemes and asked Members to support the recommendations as outlined in the report.

The Mayor then asked Members for any questions on the report before moving to the main debate.  The following responses were given:

• The scheme has to be borough wide
• Any establishment serving alcohol during the levy period (0:01 to 6:00 hrs) would be subject to the levy.  This would include small residential hotels and B&Bs.
• The scheme would be operational from 1 April 2014, but given that the funding will not be available until 2015, it would not be sensible to review it until after this period.  The PCC has indicated that should the advisory groups identify projects prior to funding being available, then he may be able to provide some upfront funding.  The levy has no automatic review date, and the decision to review is one for the Executive to determine.
• The advisory group will include representatives from the licensed trade so they will be able to monitor the impact of the levy on the trade.
• It was recognised that much of the litter is generated from people throwing away takeaway packaging but the levy only applies to licensed premises.  However this may be something that could be considered as a project by the advisory group.
• The recommendations are that none of the potential exemptions set out under regulations 4a to 4h should be applied.  The only exemption that has been recommended is the exemption for New Year’s Eve.  It is for the license holder to determine whether they wish to sell alcohol after midnight.
• Monitoring of the licenses is undertaken by the police and the licensing team.  Whether the establishment is a large hotel, nightclub or a small hotel they are still selling alcohol with the consequences of doing so.  If an establishment chose not to have a license for selling alcohol after midnight but continued to sell alcohol, it would be committing an offence and subject to prosecution.
• If the levy was adopted the licensing team and police would continue to follow their normal enforcement procedures and policies.
• Establishments can apply for a temporary event license and this is not covered by the late night levy.
• The levy is designed to deal with the impact of late night drinking regardless of location.

As there were no further questions the Mayor then moved to the substantive debate.

Councillor Garnham, a chair of the former Police Authority, said that he had been supportive of the late night levy proposals when the 2011 Act was introduced, as he believed that those who create the mess and problems should be expected to pay for dealing with it.  However following the clarifications that Members had received in response to their questions, he now had concerns and felt that the proposal was a sledgehammer to crack a nut.  He did not understand how it was equitable that a large hotel, such as The Queens Hotel, should pay the same amount as a small privately run hotel.  He believed that more needed to be done to understand the impacts of alcohol and particularly preloading i.e. when young people drink at home before they go out.  In principle he was supportive that those clubs where there are fights, litter and people unwell, should pay for the resource required to deal with the issues, but was unhappy that the council would not be applying any exemptions.  He felt that the scheme was an example of red tape, it was bureaucratic and would require significant administration and monitoring.  He reminded Members that the council may retain a proportion of the business rates, and it should look to maximise this income by growing the economy and using this to offset the costs of the night time economy.  He questioned whether the council had the employees to enforce the proposals and that it was too blunt an instrument to deal with a range of complex issues. On that basis he and his group would be voting against the recommendations.

Several Members commented that they thought that the levy was a good idea and that it would support the vibrant night time economy by making it a safe and enjoyable environment.  The funds raised could be used to support the taxi marshals, the street pastors and potentially street cleaning and extended toilet opening hours.  The assurance from the PCC that the money would be spent in Cheltenham to support community safety outcomes was welcomed.  The scheme would be reviewed at some point and in the meantime it was important that there was a partnership approach with the police to encourage best practice and ensure that individuals drink responsibly.

One Member made reference to the supply of cheap alcohol available from supermarkets, and also to the attitude of the pub companies who have closed the local neighbourhood pubs which tended to be self policing.  They felt that the council should be campaigning to change this pattern of behaviour by these national companies.  They also felt that when reviewing the scheme, consideration should be given to the exemptions which are available and that these could be seen as an incentive for small establishments and community organisations to operate responsibly.

Another Member reminded the Council that the adoption of a levy was a discretionary power and that the Council was not required to adopt the proposals.  The felt that the proposed split of funding, i.e. 70% to PCC and 30% to CBC, would leave very little for the proactive actions as proposed by other Members.  They also highlighted that the PCC was intending to raise the precept, and that the council should not introduce the proposals but consider alternative ways of addressing the issues.

One Member felt that the proposals were targeting the wrong people and that more should be done to encourage people to drink responsibly.  They would want to see the money ringfenced, to make sure it does not get used for other things.  They also questioned how the review would work; and if it was found that the scheme was unsuccessful, as to whether they would refund the levy.

Councillor Jordan, Leader of the council, said he was supportive of the proposal and reassured Members that the money would be ringfenced and the PCC had also given similar assurances.  He recognised that it was a new tax on businesses and as such the council needed to demonstrate why it should be introduced.  He felt that the proposal to have one programme overseen by an advisory group was the right thing to do and would build on existing partnership working.  He recognised some of the concerns regarding the exemptions but also reminded them that businesses will make a choice based on their business needs and financial situation as to whether they sell alcohol after midnight.  As the Cabinet  lead for the economy he advised Members that the town currently does not have any business improvement districts (BID), and should one be introduced, which has been discussed, then one could not have the levy and the additional rates arising from a BID.  He felt that given that only 50 people had responded to the consultation, it was not a huge issue and that some of the feedback had been positive.  He stressed that the council would work with the trade to minimise the concerns that have been expressed.

Indicating that it had been an interesting debate, a Member said that all the issues relating to the night time economy were centred on the town centre whilst the exemptions, if applied, would be for those outside of the main core area.  They asked the Cabinet Member to explain why he was recommending that the exemptions should not been applied.  They were supportive of the idea as a way of dealing with town centre issues, but felt that more thought should be given to the proposal as it was a blunt instrument in the way it was being implemented across the whole town.

In his summing up, Councillor Jeffries advised Members that he did not have the freedom to design a scheme as the regulations were set by government and the council has to apply these if it is to implement a levy.  The introduction of the levy will support the town and if exemptions had been applied they would have reduced the income available to introduce actions to minimise the impact of late night drinking.  He reminded Members that businesses have options and can choose how they wish to run their business based on business needs.  He felt that the proposed levy would support the town and asked Members to support the recommendations.  With regards to the issues of preloading, he acknowledged that this was a national issue and outside of the scope of the levy.

Resolved that:

1. The consultation feedback be noted.
2. Pursuant to section 125(2) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (“2011 Act”)  the late night levy be applied  in Cheltenham;
3. Pursuant to section 132(1) of the 2011 Act:-

a)     that the 1^st of April 2014 be the date on which the late night levy requirement is first to apply; and

b)     for the first levy year and, subject to section 133 of the 2011 Act, each subsequent levy year;

                                                              i.      that the late night supply period be set from 00:01 to 06:00;

                                                            ii.      that the following permitted exemption categories as defined in regulation 4 of the Late Night Levy (Expenses, Exemptions and Reductions) Regulations 2012 are to apply:-

(1) regulation 4(i) – premises authorised to supply alcohol for on consumption only between midnight and 6 am on 1 January.

                                                          iii.      that the following permitted exemption category as defined in regulation 4 of the Late Night Levy (Expenses, Exemptions and Reductions) Regulations 2012 is not to apply:-

(1)regulation 4(a) – hotels etc. supplying alcohol for on-consumption by resident patrons;

(2) regulation 4(b) – theatres supplying alcohol for on-consumption to ticket holders, performers, guests at private events;

(3) regulation 4(c) – cinemas supplying alcohol for on-consumption to ticket holders, guests at private events;

(4) regulation 4(d) – bingo halls where the playing of non-remote bingo is the primary activity;

(5) regulation 4(e) – registered community amateur sports clubs;

(6) regulation 4(f) – community premises like church halls and village halls, etc. that are subject to the alternative licence condition;

(7) regulation 4(g) – single country village pubs in designated rural settlements which receive rate relief; and

(8) regulation 4(h) – premises liable for the Business Improvement District levy.

                                                          iv.      that the following permitted reduction category as defined in regulation 5 of the Late Night Levy (Expenses, Exemptions and Reductions) Regulations 2012 be applied-

(1) regulation 5(1)(a) – members of business-led best practice schemes.

                                                            v.      that the following permitted reduction category as defined in regulation 5 of the Late Night Levy (Expenses, Exemptions and Reductions) Regulations 2012 is not to apply:-

                                                          vi.      regulation 5(1)(b) – certain premises authorised to supply alcohol for on-consumption which receive small business rate relief.

                                                        vii.      that the proportion of the net amount of levy payments that is to be paid to the relevant local policing body under section 131 of the 2011 Act is 70 per cent.

4. That the Deputy Chief Executive, in consultation with the Cabinet Member Housing and Safety, shall have delegated powers to do all things necessary to implement these decisions, including:-

a)     power to publish notice of the decisions in accordance with regulation 9(1)(b) of the Late Night Levy (Application and Administration) Regulations 2012;

b)     power to determine whether the holders of any relevant late night authorisations fall within any permitted exemption or reduction categories;

c)     power to determine the aggregate amount of expenses of the Council that are permitted deductions under section 130(1)(b) of the 2011 Act;

d)     power to publish annual notices under section 130(5) of the 2011 Act relating to anticipated expenses and the net amount of the levy payments;

e)     power to make adjustments to payments in accordance with paragraph 7 of the Late Night Levy (Application and Administration) Regulations 2012;

f)       power to determine from time to time when and for what purposes the Council will apply the non-specified proportion of the net amount of the levy payments; and

g)     to enter into an agreement with the Police and Crime Commissioner regarding the use of the net amount of levy payments as a single programme and the establishment of a Late Night Levy Advisory Group to facilitate a single programme.

Voting : For: 24, Against: 5,  Abstentions : 4