Issue - meetings

To consider approval of the draft Pavement Licensing Policy for adoption and consultation with the proposed fee, and to consider approval for minor amendments to the Policy to be approved by the Deputy Chief Executive and the Chair of the Licensing Committee.

The Principal Licensing Officer presented the draft Pavement Policy prior to it undergoing a four-week consultation period by relevant stakeholders.

The Principal Licensing Officer explained in June 2020, the Government announced relaxations to planning and licensing laws to assist the recovery of the hospitality industry from the pandemic. The legislation was initially temporary, but had been extended a number of times with the last extension expiring in September 2024. Pavement Licensing had also been delegated to the district/borough level away from the highways authority.

Amendments to the policy included the following:

-       Removal of irrelevant sections

-       Addition of section on enforcement

-       Changes to the duration of licences

-       Higher statutory fee caps of £500 for a new application, and £350 for a renewal

The Principal Licensing Officer advised the Committee that as part of an initial stakeholder consultation, Surrey Police and the Staines Business Improvement District had suggested a no glassware condition as part of the policy. This was not a condition that existed in other Surrey Licensing Authorities, and no evidence had been provided to demonstrate a need for the suggested condition.

The Committee debated the statutory fees being set at the maximum level. Some members of the Committee felt the maximum charge would be a burden on small businesses, and suggested a tiered charge or charge per chair. The Principal Licensing Officer advised the Committee that the maximum charge did not cover the cost to the Council to provide the service, and lower charges would be subsidised by taxpayers. Some members of the Committee noted the lowered cost set to assist businesses during the pandemic, and felt the maximum charge reflected the true cost of the service.

The Committee considered the request for a no glassware condition to be added to the policy. The Committee acknowledged there was no evidence behind the request and felt that glass was more climate friendly compared to plastic alternatives. It was proposed by Councillor Bateson and seconded by Councillor Lee that option one of the report, excluding the glass condition, be considered.

The Principal Licensing Officer advised the Committee that following legal advice, the recommendation would need to be reworded to “Agree the policy as proposed for consultation and recommend to Council an additional delegation in the Office Scheme of Delegations that minor amendments to the policy be approved by the Senior Environmental Health Manager.” The Committee requested any amendments be done in consultation with the Chair of the Licensing Committee, and this was agreed.

The Committee resolved to agree the policy as proposed for consultation and to recommend to Council an additional delegation in the Office Scheme of Delegations that minor amendments to the policy be approved by the Senior Environmental Health Manager in consultation with the Chair of the Licensing Committee.