The Licensing Committee of Southwark Council had two substantive items on the agenda for their meeting. Firstly they were scheduled to decide whether to adopt the council's new statement of gambling policy, which would set out the council's approach to the licensing of gambling premises between 2025 and 2028. Secondly, they were scheduled to decide on a protocol for whether or not the committee's licensing sub-committee hearings should continue to take place remotely, or whether they should return to being held in person.

Renewal of the Statement of Gambling Licensing Policy 2025-2028

A report¹ included in the meeting pack recommends adopting the draft statement of gambling licensing policy for 2025-2028.

The report notes that the council has a statutory duty under the Gambling Act 2005 to publish a statement describing the principles it will use when making licensing decisions about gambling businesses in the borough. The new policy is intended to be substantially the same as the council's existing policy, because there have been no significant recent changes to gambling legislation or statutory guidance.

The proposed policy is organised around the three licensing objectives for gambling set out in the Gambling Act:

• Preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime
• Ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way
• Protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling

The policy details the specific considerations that the council will use to ensure that these objectives are met when deciding whether to approve applications for gambling licences. In particular, it lists the factors that the council will consider when deciding whether a person lives sufficiently close to a proposed gambling establishment to be entitled to object to the application.

The policy also makes a distinction between 'disorder' and 'nuisance'. The policy notes that disorder is more serious and disruptive than nuisance, and states that the council will only consider evidence of disorder when making licensing decisions.

The report notes that two responses were received during the consultation period, one from a responsible authority and one from a person who appears to the authority to represent the interests of persons carrying on a gambling business. These responses, and the council officer's recommendations on how to deal with them are included in an appendix to the report. The officer's recommendations are that some of the changes suggested in the consultation responses should be incorporated into the draft policy, while others should not be.

The report also contains advice from the council's Assistant Chief Executive for Governance and Assurance about the legal requirements that must be met when creating a gambling licensing policy.

A final appendix to the report describes the results of an equality impact assessment² that was carried out on the proposed policy. The assessment describes the potential impact of the policy on different protected groups, and identifies any mitigating actions that could be taken to reduce any negative impacts.

The report concludes by recommending that the committee approve the proposed statement of gambling policy for 2025-2028.

Remote Licensing Sub-Committee Hearings

The committee were also scheduled to discuss a report³ about how licensing sub-committees should be run.

The report notes that during the coronavirus pandemic, licensing sub-committees were held remotely because of emergency legislation. This legislation expired in 2021, and a subsequent legal case, Hertfordshire County Council and others v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, concluded that local authority meetings held under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 must be held in person. However, a later case, Walk Safe Security Ltd v Lewisham London Borough Council, found that this does not apply to meetings held by licensing sub-committees, and that these may be held remotely.

The report goes on to note that, although remote hearings are now lawful, it is important to have a written protocol in place to ensure that they are fair to all parties. The report then lists four different options for how licensing sub-committee meetings could be run. These are:

• Option A: All licensing sub-committees return to in person hearings.
• Option B: All licensing sub-committees are remote hearings.
• Option C: There is a combination of remote and in person hearings.
• Option D: Hybrid arrangements for licensing sub-committees, where those who are unable to attend in person can attend remotely.

The report concludes by recommending that the committee approve a combination of remote and in person hearings (options C and D). This would allow for all reviews under the Licensing Act to be held in person, with most other licensing applications dealt with remotely. The report argues that this option would allow for the most efficient use of council resources, while also ensuring that hearings are fair to all parties.

The report also recommends adopting a set of draft guidance notes on how remote hearings should be run. These notes cover topics such as how participants should join the meeting, what technology should be used, and how the meeting should be run. The report argues that adopting these guidance notes would help to ensure that remote hearings are run smoothly and fairly.