Transcript

Transcript

As chair of this meeting, I hope I have no need to remind everybody about the standards of behavior and communication that we expect of each of us. We should be abiding by the Nolan principles and the council's members' code of conduct. So can we please be respectful and reasonable to one another in our deliberations despite any disagreements? I hope we can all behave courteously and respectfully as councillors between ourselves and with officers. When we have any external visitors as we have this evening, or members of the public, I will expect to be shown to them and amongst ourselves at all times. Questions and comments are to be made through the chair at all times and can I just say that it's so great to be called the chair and not Mulroney because nobody can mangle it. I intend that all members have as equal a chance of asking questions and making comments. So initially, you are invited to ask up to two questions starting with the opposition councillors. This, I believe, will allow the opposition members to scrutinise the items as they are presented. This will be followed by the administration members on the committee with a wrap-up of questions at the end if there are any outstanding or arising from previous questions or new thoughts that have emerged. I would like you to indicate before we start an item if you wish to speak in the first round as this saves myself and the Vice Chairman having to continually scan the room to see whose hand is up. Questions will be followed by comments and it would help if you could indicate you will have comments when you are asking your questions. I appreciate that. It won't always be possible. Following this, I will ask the portfolio holder if we would like to give a short summing up, then we can either note the item or give our comments by way of a recommendation to Cabinet. So thank you very much for all of that. First of all, Tim, can we start off with apologies for absence? Thank you, Chair. You have a apologies for absent from Councillor Ferguson and Councillor Faulkner Hatters, her substitute. Thank you very much. I am aware that Councillor MURPHY will be leaving the meeting for another commitment and I thank her for advising me in advance. Please leave whenever you wish to do so. I also note that the portfolio holder Councillor GILBER is unable to attend tonight and sadly Councillor DENT is unwell, so Councillor JONES has stepped in as substitute in their absence. Declarations of interest, Tim, please. Anybody? Maddie. Oh, sir. Thank you. I just have one to declare which is that I work in the gambling industry and under a business, so I'll have to leave when it gets to the gambling act part. Anybody else got any declarations? Nope. Okay, thank you. We now turn to questions from members of the public. We don't have a portfolio holder here to answer. Are you answering for Lydia as well? Yeah, okay. I don't think Mr Whitby is here, is he? No. So does that just take, taken as read and answered? Chair, if you wish to, you can have it read out if you wish, or you can just take it as read if you prefer. I think we'll take it as read and answered and he'll be supplied with the answer. So, Chair. The second question is from Tricia Cowdery. Tricia, would you like to come up to the table and ask your question? Thank you, Chair. On the 7th of September 2023 at full council, the motion regarding south end urban trees proposed by council long staff, seconded by myself from Councillors Murphy, Aylin and Terry, was passed and referred to cabinet for consideration. The motion aimed to improve the council's tree management, especially the management of declining trees, to maximise the benefits and lifespan of trees on council owned or council managed land. The benefits of mature trees on physical and mental health is well recognised. Indeed, south end on city council tree policy 2020 to 2030 highlights the positive impact of trees on lowering heart rate, reducing stress, boosting the immune system and improving overall wellbeing. Our trees are essential as natural filters for pollutants, absorbing both PM10 and PM2.5 particles and contribute significantly to improving overall hair quality. The motion also made clear that to maintain and increase our canopy cover, the council must seek to prolong the lifespans of mature trees alongside planting thousands of new ones, and that this will require a progressive and pragmatic approach to tree management and a refinement of practices with a preservation first approach. On the 20th November 23 cabinet agreed that the notice of motion be referred to the environment working party for consideration. I understand that a working party or some other format of meeting may have taken place, but there is no public record of this. Can the portfolio holder for climate, environment and waste guarantee that the working party will be put into force and that, as agreed by council, all tree felling will be halted, unless there is a perceived risk in the interim, that the working party will be formed cross-party and include independent observers to better safeguard our remaining trees and commit fully to the recommendations within the motion as a matter of urgency bearing in mind the nine month delay since proposal. Thank you. As per the constitution, the notice of motion to council last November was passed to the relevant portfolio holder of the previous administration to consider, who decided to include it in the business of their portfolios working party on the 19th March 2024. It should be made clear that this was not the formation of a new working party, but the standard portfolio working party which can be called as a discretion of a portfolio holder for cross-party councilors to provide advice on their brief. The decision of the previous administration was not to form an additional working party specifically on trees and external people are not constitutionally members of the portfolio working party. Note that the March meeting was the only time at this working party convened last year. The council's working parties are not recorded or broadcast as they are not decision-making meetings and are a space for collaborative open discussion amongst councilors mainly to help inform policy. However, the membership of this working party was published following appointments that year. This includes myself and I did attend this March meeting alongside the proposal of the motion. There was a worthwhile discussion at this meeting with all attendees sharing ideas as to how to improve our existing tree policy. The outcome of that meeting and the decision of the previous portfolio holder was that there would be no alteration to the current policy of only removing street trees when there is a safety need or the health of the tree is ever compromised. However, there was a substantial wider discussion on what can be done to improve the tree policy more broadly and that included the welcome news that the Budget Amendment included additional funding for street tree planting and could see the planting of hundreds of more trees. As the new portfolio holder, it is my intention that I hold at least quarterly meetings of my portfolio working party. I have made it clear that I am open to hearing the ideas of all members. However, as a lifelong environmental volunteer and nature level myself, you will find that I will be driving forward positive action to improve the environment anyway and work on this has already begun. Details of all new trees planted and any trees to be removed and the reasons for the removal are maintained on the council's website. Our next question comes from Mr Webb. Would you like to come up and ask your question please? My question is how many tons of pink bags, food bags and black bags and garden bags have been recycled in the whole year and each year of 2021-2022, 2022-2023 and 2024 so far. Also, what strategies have Southern Council and Veolia have put into strategies and campaigns to raise awareness of how and what to recycle in bags and blue paper and blue beads. My question is how many tons of pink bags, food bags, black bags and garden bags have been recycled in the whole year in each year of 2021-2022 and 2022-23 and so far in 2024. Councillor Hye, would you like to respond please? Okay, so for the answer for your first question, there is a table provided in the written answer there and you can have a look down at the tonnage, I could quickly summarise that for the 23-24 pink sack recycling was 10,496.2 tons, food waste was 2,202 tons, garden waste 6,396.1 and the residual, that's the curbside black sacks, 28,499.1. The second part of your question you ask about strategies and campaigns, so since May 2022, remind us about what goes in which sack and container based on the weekly contamination records from crews, the letter also includes a four-page service leaflet. In 2022, 13,000 leaflets delivered to properties in lower recycling performance participation areas. The leaflets were made especially for the project and included as many visual depictions as possible to make it easy to understand. In autumn 23, 28,000 leaflets delivered to encourage food waste recycling to the areas with the lowest food waste recycling rates. In winter 23, a service from mind a letter to 9,000 households in which a community and collection service operates. In early 24, delivered 70,000 leaflets to all households receiving the curbside collection service which with a cycling reminders is part of the One Black Bag a Week campaign. Monthly reminders about contamination, what goes in which sack or containers and general service reminders such as how to order more sacks or bins or how to check collection days on the social media pages of the council. Monthly recycling information stands to engage directly residents at various locations across the city. The full list since 22 can be found as a link that hopefully we can send to that link to the question office. We are in the process of finalising a new waste contract to commence in April 2025. As the new cabinet member, it is a top priority of mind to use this as an opportunity to increase recycling rates across both our domestic waste collection and our street collection. This will not only improve the impact of this city on the local and wider environment, but positively financially benefit this council and therefore save taxpayers money. Thank you. Right. Next item on the agenda, two items, minutes of the meeting of 12th of February and minutes of the special meeting on the 11th of March. Is everybody happy with those? Can I sign them as a correct record? Okay. Thank you very much. Right. Now we move on to the substantive items, the first of which is licensing. I will say initially because I know that Councillor Longstar and Councillor Cox were not here when I said this previously. I will be inviting the opposition to ask their questions first and a limit of two. That doesn't mean to say you can't come back later on, a limit of two and then I will go to the administration members that wish to ask questions and then we will mop up on any of the reason over the course of that and then we'll go on to comments. Okay. Thank you. So can anybody indicate to me on your side if you want to ask questions? So we have Councillor Warren and Councillor Cox and Councillor dear. Okay. Okay. Councillor Warren, would you like to ask your questions? Sorry. I do apologise. I should say that the portfolio holder Councillor GILBER is unable to attend tonight and unfortunately Councillor DENT, who is his substitute, is unwell so Councillor Jones has stepped into the breach. Okay. Sorry. Okay. That's right. Thank you very much, Chair. Under 11.3 of Appendix 1, there's a reference to spiking which has been added to the list of specific control measures. I wonder is this in response to anything specific such as increased reports of spikins in South End at all? Councillor JANGS. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the level of concern around particular things in the press just over this weekend. I have to say that one of my young—one of my family was affected by this in the last year and it's of grave concern. It is a statutory requirement that we have this part of it in but equally as members of licence in committee—for those of you who are licence, members of licence in committee, I'm sure it's something that you will be interested in when you do your formal response and equally this does come back to licence in committee as well. I'm sort of like very grateful now and it's perhaps sort of like much more of a local matter in the press. Some establishments were mentioned, you know, sort of some sort of being good and some being, you know, could do with improving. I'm just was a little bit surprised and a bit disappointed on behalf of a former colleague that PubWatch wasn't mentioned at all and I think that they've been very supportive as a local network. So, apart from the fact that this is quite statutory, the local knowledge and, you know, for members of committees, for members for Councillors and for the community is invaluable in feeding back and, you know, sort of like, you know, sort of great sympathy to the young people that were affected over the last few days because it's an absolutely horrible thing. And there's some confusion about where the venue compliant. We won't know that until there's an investigation, but I know that they're a great deal and it wouldn't be unreasonable to have more awareness campaigns particularly as the weather has changed. A little when young people come to the end of their school lives, et cetera, and celebrate in a way that they may not have celebrated before, et cetera. So, apart from the statutory, either work of local people and local cancer, this is invaluable. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have a further question? No. Okay, thank you. Councillor COX. Thank you, Chair. I just have one question actually to see stage and it's actually in 10.3 of the report. It was a new element that was added in red. One of the bullet points, it says the use of a drug safe were appropriate. Could we just have some explanation on what it means by providing a drug safe? Thank you. Councillor Jones? Mr. Payne. A drug safe is literally what it sounds like. It's a safe for door staff and management of a venue where they confiscate drugs to place them in there. They don't have access to it. It's a fully, basically, a locked box that the police hold the key to. They then have to record what they put in, who they took it from, if they can get that information when they did it, and references to their CCTV so the police can carry out investigations if necessary. Thank you. It was just a little bit of a follow-up from that because it was concerning. We've got to provide a drug safe to then give the bit back on their return. But if there is illegal drugs going into a premises and they've been searched and found, are we saying that the policy will be to take the drugs, put it in the safe, allow them to go into a venue, or would we be advising as part of the license to hold it there to please come, because they've got illegal drugs on them, because that would sound counter to us. You have to say, you've got the illegal substance, put it in the safe, and you go enjoy yourself, and we've got no details. Chair, the normal procedure is to hold them there if possible. Obviously, occasionally they're going to scarper, but then they're certainly not allowed into the venue after being caught with drugs. Okay. Go on then. Where I'm struggling here then is where do these have any use, because they've been searched, they've been caught with drugs, they won't go in. Is it a post-box then for people to put their drugs in if they've evaded search, so they go in, because I'm struggling to see where this would have some use, and that's just where I thought, thank you. I would, I'd take the point on your question, but I would think that any removal of any drugs from anybody is a benefit rather than, you know, yeah. The point chair is that the police can be satisfied that those drugs are secured until they can empty the drugs safe. Okay. I assume also, Mr. Pena, there will be times when they find drugs on the premises and don't know where they've come from. It's possible, yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Coxe. Councillor Dier. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Bonn, touch on my question actually, but just to expand on that, could you give me more detail, but what equipment would it be used for protecting people from spiking their drinks? What will be the requirement? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Co-sticks are not great in here tonight. I think sort of like there are a number of things which can be used to prevent rather than, you know, than testing afterwards. So, you know, sort of like covers, et cetera, you know, given out routinely with drinks, you know, sort of, and drinks come in very, very many forms. So, it does require a number of different sort of artifacts to go out. And it is that, you know, in terms of the training that a bar person has been given that they would make the, you know, the right dispatches it were. But equally, it's important to have information in the venue with regard to, you know, and training for staff about what to look for and for information for, you know, for users of the bar in case it happens, something happens to a friend and they may be able to identify at what point it happened and sort of coming back to the articles in the press at the weekend. There's a degree of confusion about that. And I think that, you know, whilst the policy is going to be quite dry in it, well, that's not great word, quite, you know, statutory in the way that it's put forward again, sort of like being a, the particular sort of location that we are and having the nighttime economy that we do, a lot of the stuff will be tailored. But I mean, there is scientific testing, et cetera, you know, but it's usually, you know, it's not great to have it after the event it's about the prevention as well. Thank you. That was trying to go. Will we, in the policy, will we actually be saying what we require as a authority? Or will it be left to the licensee? Could be a bit, a bit woman's. Jared, it's, um, it's left to the licensee, A, because the market, like any other market, changes with, with time, they'd be expected to risk assess it. The, the, the most common ones, I think, as the Jones has touched on, which are the covers for, for the drinks, but there's, there's also testing strips which can be given out as, as well, which you can test a small amount of your drink by dipping your finger in and putting it on the testing strip to see if it's, um, contains the more common, um, spiking drugs. Yes, thank you, Chair. And just more, it's really, it's actually clarified to Council Cox's answer actually about the sites being in the business and everything that we actually do. The, it'll be deposit safe, basically. And they're the same way you deposit money. They've been around for years. You can get them with, that's got letterbox size and you can have them where one key fits the 50 of them. So the police would retain that one key, which would open up 50 or around when they need. And there'd be other, a, a rectable size of safe. And it'll be like you said, a letterbox, there'd be a metal box, basically, for that. My, my question would be, um, obviously the items in red here, are they open for, uh, additions, are they set? No, Chair, that anything can be changed. The whole point of a consultation is to see what people think of it. And if, if necessary, we can change things. Can I also say, Councillor waitfield, the purpose of the scrutiny is to tease out anything that we might want to recommend to cabinet to be included. Yes, on that case, then, uh, obviously there's a couple of changes that we need to do here. Okay, coming into CCTV again, because because of court law, they have to actually say here, 60% facial recognition, because obviously when it gets to court and that's not been added to, it will be thrown out. The other thing about small signs to CT, CCTV, a lot of people don't follow the law when they put up signs for CCTV. The signs should actually say images are being recorded for the purpose of crime prevention and public safety. And that should be stipulated on the actual sign itself. If that is not actually on the sign, then it is not legal. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Um, it's good, you know, it's a good point. I mean, licensing, you know, is quite specific about the size of signs for, you know, in premises and license premises, for a variety of reasons, but the CCTV would be part of an inspection regime and carried out by the police. Further to that, Chair, if I, if I may, the conditions at the back of the policy, the CCTV conditions have actually been written by the police for us. So that's what they've asked for. Yes, I'm just pointing out the circularity. Even if they've been put there, they haven't been overshadowed. It's just that I'm in this industry and I know what's been happening, obviously, when these sort of actual things haven't been adhered to. So I'm only just making recommendations. Thank you. Thank you. I think, Miss Penn, would that not come as part of any police or officer inspection when they went to premises? That is great, Chair. Okay, Councillor Bawton. Thank you, Chair. If I turn to page 11, 12.5, the, the, um, examples of, uh, control measures that are given out to assist applicants, um, I wonder, I can, I appreciate that, uh, drinking control zones may only cover a small area, but I wonder if we could include that, um, you know, if a license is granted for somebody in a drinking controlled area, that they must display a sign to say that alcohol should not be consumed in the public areas within this restricted zone, this was on from a license in meeting the ads last week. I just wonder whether we could include it. Okay. Now, as the Jones, I'm Mr. Penn. Chair, Chair, we, we can include it as a suggestion. What we, we can't say in the policies, you must do it, but, but as a control measure for them to consider, yes, we can certainly put that in. Can we finish this and then come back to it, okay? Have you any other questions, Councillor Bawton? Okay, Councillor Muffach. Thank you. Um, on again, uh, the topic of 11.3 with the spiking, um, obviously I'm really happy to see drink spiking in there. I know it was to do with the legal side of things and having it as a requirement, but is there any chance of looking at, uh, including other types of spiking? Because as much as these are very alcohol-based premises, lots of places like nightclubs will have smoking balconies, um, and areas where there are lots of other places to be spiked in other ways about drink spiking. And so it would be good to look at maybe, uh, including more wide variety of spiking to protect against, uh, any other variation that could occur. Councillor Jones. Um, thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Um, just to, sorry, this is really sounding strange in my head because I've not very well. Um, under the safe and responsible management of premises, I think that more could be expanded on that if you would, you know, sort of wish to make that an addition. But, um, you know, I think it is all about, um, understanding the establishments and the spaces. So it would vary from venue to venue, but, um, that's, that's a reasonable request, um, to explore the behaviours more and to respond as licensing authority and as a community. Thank you. No, that's it. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Chair. It was really just to follow on the point from Councillor Bawton because I was going to do it as part of the comments, but it's worth making now. I know Councillor Bawton made reference to one element, but we were looking at 10.2 as well as 11.3, uh, to actually have the alcohol exclusion zone as well because that would actually then make the owners on the applicant to actually come up with plans rather than just rely upon a sign. It's a valid point in that area, but we would like that as a recommendation for more recommendation to cabinet that the alcohol exclusion zone is included, as Councillor Bawton said, in the particular reference, but also in 10.2, 10.3 to make reference that the applicant should make reference on how they go to demonstrate what controls they get to put in place if it's in a PSPO area where there's alcohol exclusion zone. Thank you. Large PSPOs in this town, so they could see front one. Yeah. Okay. Through you, the alcohol exclusion zone is not the same as the PSPO area. It's a smaller area within the PSPO, so we can't restrict an alcohol, or prohibit alcohol in the PSPO. If you wanted to do that, you'd have to ask Council to amend the order. It's only the restricted area that you can actually put those in. Yeah, but there's where the alcohol is permitted. Yeah. Chair apologies to see alcohol exclusion zone. We know the alcohol exclusion zone is forwards within the whole PSPO, but does it cover it for the PCO exclusion zone. Anyway, Councillor JOHNSTON, Mr. Payne, would you like to respond to that? The difficulty, Chair, is that the enforcement of those areas falls, obviously, with the authorities. I'm not really sure what you would be expecting of a licensee in that regard. The sale of alcohol itself to anyone in that area is not illegal, quite obviously. I don't think it's feasible for them to be checking where it's going to be drunk with every customer, so I think I'd probably need to have more information on what you had in mind. I appreciate what you're saying, but what we're saying is, is if there is a licensee premise, certainly where we know, certainly when the in the alcohol exclusion zones, a lot of premises there are contained. The alcohol was within seating areas, it's contained. There are now some, and certainly one that has just passed, that would enable with the and looking of the licensing conditions attached. There is no conditions to actually even alert people or make reference in the application or what they could do to minimise antisocial behaviour or other behaviours. If you have a premises, what I'm saying is, intent two is about the making reference of what measures they could take to make reference to the alcohol exclusion zone. It can make reference, as Councillor Bawson said, about providing a sign, but what it does is just makes it a requirement that they have to take note and consideration of what they are to minimise, or when addressing the issue of crime and disorder, how they would do that if alcohol is being sold in that alcohol exclusion zone. Thank you. Councillor JOHNSTON, I'll just make some comment, but it's not always licensed premises as in where consumption will take place on site. We've also got to take into consideration other premises, and I appreciate that there are small supermarkets, et cetera, in those zones. That's what it was. It was my fault. Firstly, I think supermarkets and premises like that, their training and their information is largely pretty good. Are we going to differentiate between sales for consumption on site and sales for consumption off site? I think it would be, you know, within—on a first application, there is a great deal of proof that has to be given. It is about the ongoing and changes to licensing. So, I mean, I think in terms of the consultation, I think actually, and I can't direct committee or, you know, how to cover that aspect of the consultation, but that's certainly the way that this is put out to those businesses, perhaps should be considered, and to seek their views on such. Thank you. Where I'm coming from is under the current licensing regime. We've got nothing where the applicant will have to take due consideration to that. I think, as you rightly say, Councillor Jones, one of the things may well be as a response to that element, if it was as part of our application procedure, as part of our licensing policy, we train staff, we know when to sell them, where they're drunk, where we could put it, and it may well be if there is a premises that's licensed that has a bar seating area and say, well, we won't allow alcohol to leave these premises. That's all part of the responses that could be given to the application phase. What I'm saying is we've got nothing here at present, and I think Councillor Bourne's are touched upon it, what would happen if a premises wants to open, and that's what I'm saying our policy should make reference to, not spell out how they do it, but it's about making reference to, and that's what I'm trying to drive if that this helps on the currency, thank you. Would this be helped if we had a sort of informative in the licensing policy to the effect that applicants would be asked to have regard to the fact that they are within an exclusion zone? I don't think there's a problem with that. Well, over to you, Mr. Payne. Chair, we can certainly put a line in about that. It does form part of the application form itself to risk assess any matter of crime disorder, but we can certainly guide people towards that side of it within those sections that they should consider that when making an application. Okay, you happy with that? Okay, Tim, you've got to know that. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Just coming into this, obviously, since I've only been Chair for about a week or so, certain discussions have come across, which I'm not going to talk about, but there's certain outside discussions up in the rise from applicants making an application, but obviously, would it be? I probably don't know. Do they have to give their photo ID and make an application? Because obviously, then later on, if they have a refusal of that, and they've changed their name and they are the same applicant because it's happened in the past. So each time that someone makes an application, they make sure that they give their photo ID to cut down any forthcoming bits and pieces to kind of clamp down. As well, it's obviously from the meeting we had last week, the actual make sure that their font in the sign is large enough, so it's legible, not just a sign, that's a thumb now print that says what you want to say. Thank you. Oh, sorry. I suspect that's to do with personal licenses rather than premises licenses, but I'm good to you, Mr. Payne. Thank you, Chair. There is a requirement certainly for personal licenses. Everybody has to provide their photo. If you apply for a premises license as an individual, you have to prove your right to work in the UK, but there's no requirement that that has to be photo proof. It could be a birth certificate. So we can't legally ask for photo ID when people apply for a license. The only requirement is that they are intending to carry out a business at the premises. However, I know that the police do check individuals, and if any criminality or anything else came up, they have the right to object. Thank you. I thought I got a loud enough voice. Just three questions. Appendix C refers at paragraph four to consultation period being 28 days. Is that working days, excluding weekends and bank holidays or a straight 28 days? Chair, that's a standard 28 day period. But it doesn't qualify as working days or anything like that. No. Okay, fine. I'm only comparing it with planning, which does, of course. So, yeah. Right. Okay. Second question. Is it worth making it clear that his calendar days were off the work he does? Sorry. For what you're saying, he does make sense to do that. Okay. My second question is where we refer in the document to outside organisations such as PubWatch, The Night Economy, and Ask Angela. I had to look that up because I didn't know what it was. But then I don't go into Pubs. I think we should put a link to those organisations in the document onto their websites or whatever information there is about them. Where they have websites we can certainly do. Yeah. Okay. And finally, paragraph 2.1 says, After consultation, the final document will come back to licensing committee and then to council. But in 11.1, it states that a final report will progress through cabinet in November and then to council in December. Can we just clarify what the process is? Is it coming back to licensing then to cabinet then to council or is licensing being bypassed? Licensing is certainly not being bypassed. We'd be hung out to drive for that. The licensing committee effectively is a consultation. So, they have their own meeting separate during the consultation period. At the end of the consultation, the final policy goes to cabinet for consideration and then onto council. I think those two paragraphs just need to be tightened up a bit. Yes. So, that was 2.1 and 11.1. Thank you. And going back to the earlier point, clarify the 28 days as well. Okay. Thank you. If onto comments. Anybody go? Oh, sorry. It's just on page 38, which is the cumulative impact policy. We haven't got one, but it says, it says we haven't got one, but it says it does not prevent a representation being made. I just wonder who would make that representation, would it be us as councils or, you know, other businesses in the area? Mr. Pen? Anyone can make that representation, Chair. The key is that they need evidence to back up their representation. That's against the individual application we're talking about there, rather than to put in a cumulative impact policy. That's a whole bigger issue. Long stuff. That's it. I'm on the line. Thank you for your chair. Just wanted to say it's good to see the point 12.7, which is a new section, minimizing waste. And none of it does it promote the minimizing of waste, and especially single use plastics, also gives some advice on how licensed premises can minimize waste. I just would like, it would be good if we could see that expanding into an advice leaflet to new licenses and existing licenses in terms of a more comprehensive way that they could reduce their waste impact. I think that would be a good idea. But on the whole, it's good to see that included within this revised document. Thank you. So that's your question. Can we do leaflets outside the policy? I know it's a comment. So it's a comment to say, great to see that included now. And a comment I'd like to see that expanded to the new licensees and even existing licensees have a kind of advice leaflet from the council. A little bit like we did with the waste. So it's not a question. It's a kind of aspiration, if you like. Okay. Mr. Payne? Oh, sorry. Just say that this is an amendment. This will be that if should this be adopted as policy, that will form part of all new applications. But I think it would be more advisory online rather than anything distributed. I know that we had questions on leaflets distributed about waste, about waste, about waste. So actually, this is a policy change which would need to be formally adopted. And so any new premises would have that information as part of the policy and any, you know, renewals of not renewals, any licenses which have to be reviewed, etc. And equally, you know, sort of like from an environmental perspective, you know, we, you know, placing some more responsibility on a colleague, you know, that that is something that, you know, where the ambition is to reduce waste. It's also in the commercial sector as well. So I think it's part of a much broader conversation, but absolutely should, you know, be considered within any changes to the policy that that committee wish to see. Can I ask a question that's, sorry, you go ahead. Well, I'm just going to say thank you for that response. And, you know, also we are a coastal city. So I'm sometimes really concerned about the use of single use plastic across the sea front. And, you know, how much of that gets into the estuary and pollutes the natural environment. So it's a welcome to comment. And it will be something that we could develop further as a concept. So thank you. Thank you. Can I just ask then, Mr Peng, how do the licensees know about the policy? Do we send them a letter, all licensees, a letter and say there's a new policy? This is how you access it? Or just do we rely on them to look for it? We certainly do contact licensees. They're part of the consultation process as well. So we contact them and tell them there's a consultation going on. And then when it's published, we contact them, we go to the pub watches and talk about it as well. And also it's a legal requirement that any application they make, they must have regard to the policy. Thank you. So what Council Jones was just saying about a link, when the policy goes on the website, we could have a link through to it, through it, to whatever leaflet or, you know, in technical terms, whatever information about the waste, we could highlight that even more if we wanted to. Certainly could. Okay. Thank you. You happy with that? Yeah, I'm really happy with it. And I think it's a positive step in the right direction and something that we can build on and, you know, be more informative to new commercial premises and even existing premises, particularly as a coastal city. I think it's, yeah, so really welcome that and look forward to developing it further. Yeah, thank you. Right. Do we have any more comments? Nope. Okay. Why am I surprised? Did you want to say something? Oh, well, sorry. Oh, sorry. It's nerves and thank you, Chair. I think sort of like, you know, there's a few sort of like groups of comments, you know, to sum up with regard to communication with with license holders, et cetera, and the updates. And I think that, you know, there's a lot of statutory work around that and they are consultees and very much a part of this development of the policy. I think with regard to waste, there is a wider conversation. I'm sure that Councillor Hyde would love not licensed premises who are selling packaging along the seafront and beachwatch groups would be very keen for that sort of change. So, you know, it's incumbent on us as Councillors to drive that one forward. I think sort of like some of the things that need to be noted were about the consultation period and the update on paragraphs which may have sort of duplicated but not have been sequential as well. So, I think there's an awful lot with with regard to sort of particular zones in the town that we need to be more mindful of and to take the point. You know, within the current licensing regime, we don't actually elude a great deal to exclusion zones and also that they may be variable over time. So, we have to be looking at, you know, the duration of PSPOs which are obviously separate but within sort of like within that sort of curtain that we have. And I just think I'd like to thank colleagues who really highlighted some really important matters with regard to CCTV, with regard to ensuring that drugs are contained if they're found at premises and the prevention of harm which is, you know, which has got to be very much at the centre of any policy that we bring forward. It's one of the, you know, it's one of the things that's really upon us as a responsible authority. So, we have to consult within this period because our policy will come out of date and a few things have kind of got in the way of driving this through sort of quickly. So, you know, thanks to colleagues and colleagues in licensing for the continuity with regard to this and the foresight to ensure that it is consulted upon thoroughly and done within the time scale to keep us, you know, ahead of that date in 2025. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. So, members, do we note the report with the additions which, Tim, can you just quickly run through? If you can. I've got the one about the CCTV as you've heard. You've got the reference to the display of notices when you're in an alcohol restricted zone. You've got the issue of spiking that you wanted covered by Councillor Faulkner hat, the informative line regarding the risk assessment for alcohol exclusion zone premises. Your request chair about the clarification of the 28 calendar days not working days, a link to the various websites, where possible to the organisations that you've referred to in the document. There was some clarification about the process for licensing and the cabinet report. There was an issue about waste that you want clarification and I think that's the block. Okay. So, committee, is it your wish that we note the report with those recommendations to cabinet? Great. Thank you very much. Okay, we move on now to item seven, the gambling policy. This is a slightly unusual set of circumstances and I would like to ask Mr Penn if he could just explain why we're at this particular juncture. Thank you, Chair. The Council has a statutory duty to undertake a review of the gambling policy every three years. The next one will be due at the beginning of 2025. These dates are set in statute and we can't change them. So even if we review the policy within that three-year period, we still have to do it at the end of that three-year period if you see what I mean. The government have just completed, just before they wound up parliament, a review of the gambling act and any changes will need to go through the parliamentary process. In turn, the gambling commission will need to then review its guidance to local authorities and originally they anticipated publication of that at the time the report was written in the autumn of this year but because of course there's a general election now that may well be delayed because changes to the act haven't gone through as of yet. In determining our policy, we must have regard to both of those documents, the Act and the gambling commission guidance and the timeline for consultation and getting revised policy through cabinet means that there'll be insufficient time to review this policy in full before the gambling commission publish their guidance. We're therefore proposing to re-adopt the current policy with just some minor updating and to carry out second reviews soon as we have those two documents with us. We've produced a draft document to that effect and we're just going to seek permission from cabinet to start consultation on that and when I say consultation it will be a reduced consultation in that we'll have all the statutory work people that we must have but we're not going out to wider consultation. The public are able to still comment if they wish through the consultation portal. Thank you. Thank you. Can I just ask you said if I mean obviously this is going to tide us over until we do the next review. So what date would this take us to? If we were to just leave the new one in place it would take us to 2028 but obviously the proposal is that we review it long before that as soon as we have the new sections of the act and any new guidance from the commission. Right. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Opening up. Any questions? Tony? Chair, with your indulgence it's not actually a question. It was more of a statement that might actually help assist this piece. The reason why I called it in was precisely what Adam had highlighted and I'm glad that update is given which has alleviated any concerns and issues that I had. So from us we're quite happy with how things are. We were quite deserted. I think Adam was just alleviated all the fears that we had which is why the reason we called it in. So from our point we're comfortable with it and we've got nothing further safe but I just wanted to say that now at the same time. Okay. Well that was why I asked Adam to do it because I thought it would help people. Anybody else got any questions on this one? No? Councillor Dine. Yeah. Just a bit clarification on the page one. It says the licensing policy 2025-27 but the version history number eight is here 2024-2027 and yeah is it a 25-27 or 24-20? Okay. Thank you. Mr Penn I've just got one question similar to the one I had previously about the procedural process and I'm sure you're going to say to me that it's licensing will have its chance at commenting and then it will go to cabinet and then it will go to council in the same way. So can we have the two policies aligned? Thank you. Okay. Anybody got any comments? No. So subject to that, do you know the report? Agreed. Thank you. Thank you. you you. a you. a you. a you.