Licensing Service Peer Challenge Report

June 2021

Background

1. Reading Borough Council (RBC) requested that the Local Government Association undertake a Licensing Service Peer Challenge at the Council and with partners. The work was commissioned by James Crosbie, Assistant Director for Planning, Transport & Regulatory Services. He was seeking an external view on the Licensing Service at RBC. He intends to use the findings of this peer challenge as a marker on the Service’s improvement journey. The specific scope was asking for answers to eight questions on the working and outcomes of licensing. They were:
   i). Is the information provided to Committee presented in a balanced way, in line with the key licensing objectives or adopted policies and does this enable members to make their decision based on the relevant issues?
   ii). Does the way officers present each case support appropriate decision making and reinforce the process as being about legitimate licensing considerations?
   iii). Does the way members debate the application, ensure the decision is considered alongside key licensing considerations as well as legal advice provided at the time of the Committee?
   iv). Does the training provided to members support them in making the correct decisions?
   v). Does the interaction with the applicant/licensee ensure that balance and fairness is maintained and seen to be maintained? Does this interaction ensure a continued focus on core licensing considerations?
   vi). Is the overall “tone” of the Committee meeting consistent with the values and aspirations of the Council?
   vii). Does the process reflect positively the committee’s community and cultural awareness and competency in decision making?
   viii). Does the process support positively the business community’s needs of the service?

2. A peer challenge is designed to help an authority and its partners assess current achievements, areas for development and capacity to improve. The peer challenge is not an inspection. Instead it offers a supportive approach, undertaken by friends – albeit ‘critical friends’ – with no surprises. All information is collected on a non-attributable basis in order to promote an open and honest dialogue and the feedback from the peer challenge team is given in good faith assuming the Council wishes to improve its own functioning.
3. The members of the peer challenge team were:
   • Janie Berry, Director of Governance, Monitoring Officer, City of York Council
   • John Garforth, Trading Standards and Licensing Manager, Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council
   • Sharon Bamborough, Head of Licensing Partnership for Sevenoaks, Tunbridge Wells, Maidstone Councils and the London Borough of Bexley
   • Katherine Klat – Manchester Metropolitan University, 2nd Year Geography, LGA Work Experience Shadow
   • Marcus Coulson, Challenge Manager, Local Government Association
4. The dates of the review were 15th – 17th June 2021. The timetable for the work was a series of interviews that took place via MS Teams designed to enable members of the peer team to talk to a range of internal and external stakeholders. These activities included interviews and discussions with councillors, officers and partners.
5. The peer challenge team would like to thank councillors, officers and partners for their open and constructive responses during the challenge process. All information was collected on a non-attributable basis. The team was made very welcome and would in particular like to thank Assistant Director James Crosbie for his invaluable assistance for his support to the team in planning and undertaking this peer challenge which was well planned and delivered.
6. Prior to the interview process the team considered online recordings of licensing hearings and some written documentation. During the review the peer team had twenty-three meetings with at least forty-six different people. The peer challenge team have spent about 158 hours with Reading Borough Council and its documentation, the equivalent of 22.5 working days.
7. Our feedback to the Council on the last day of the challenge gave an overview of the key messages. This report builds on the initial findings and gives an account of the peer challenge.

Context

8. The current committee and decision arrangements for the licensing function have been in place since changes were introduced under the Licensing Act 2003. As recovery from the pandemic and the phased lifting of lockdown continues, it is essential for the Council to review the way it supports businesses as part of its Recovery Plans.
9. Licensing has a significant interface with businesses across the town and, as was seen during the pandemic, has the opportunity to engage with businesses in a proactive and positive way to help them thrive, rather than focussing on the enforcement of noncompliance through the Committee system.
   10. Reading’s business community is diverse and in certain areas of the town, there is a high level of transitory businesses which have found it difficult to establish themselves.

11.A thriving night time economy has supported the licensed community, but it has also come with challenges around antisocial behaviour which have a cumulative impact and increased pressure on stretched resources for the Council and its partners.
12.Many of the town’s licensed business owners and taxi trade operators and staff are from the different Black and Minority Ethnic Communities in the Borough, who national research indicates have been disproportionally impacted by the pandemic.
13.The Council has a strong track record of working with the licensed community and enforcement has been generally welcomed.
14.In a post pandemic environment, the Council welcomes an external peer review of the licensing arrangements to ensure best practice.
15.A number of people the peer challenge team spoke to experience a very good service from the Licensing Service with particular staff being praised for their skills, knowledge and commitment to delivering a good service for the people of Reading.
16.One person with whom the peer challenge team spoke summed up the situation in the following very thoughtful way, “There is no reason why Reading with a sizeable economy and an ambitious regeneration programme as well as the Reading Festival, cannot have an aspirational and highly regarded professional licensing function delivered by members and officers that is cost neutral”. The peer team concur with this view.
17.Reading Borough Council as a whole is in a difficult financial position with significant reductions in resources having already been made. There is rising demand in both the Adult Social Care and Children’s Services departments in the People Portfolio. Together these account for well over fifty percent of the Council’s spending. This situation, however, is neither unusual nor unique for a council in England and Wales at the present time.

Findings

18.Whilst the Licensing Service at RBC is delivering the core business, and doing it well, the perception of the way some hearings are conducted can occasionally over-shadow the decisions that are made. It is important that all those in the service recognise this and begin to assess and discuss how this can be effectively addressed.
19.From information heard and seen by the peer team there is a clear link between the strength and depth of engagement from an applicant or partner with the Licensing Service and the belief that they do a good job. In simple terms the more someone understands licensing and the people who deliver it, the more they see them delivering a good service.
20.The peer team found it refreshing to hear that there were a number of key partners who felt that the Reading Borough Council Licensing Service was either the best, or one of the best, they had ever worked with. This was typically due to the knowledge, skills and commitment of the individuals they dealt with. It was summed up by two individuals as:
“I’ve never had such an effective working relationship with a local authority”
&
“Clear and honest licensing and contracting, unlike other Councils”
21.The Licensing Service have adapted their approach to enforcement during the pandemic to be more engaging and to reflect the fact that this type of economic activity has been hit hard by lockdown. They are looking to the future with a
view to helping the local economy recover post Covid-19.
22.It was useful to hear about the demands upon the Licensing Service. In that there are over one hundred diverse cultures and communities in Reading “with all human life represented”.
23.The fact that a small number of members sit on a large number of licensing hearings is starting to create some adverse perceptions. It was also made known that there is a lack of clarity related to Lead Members and when they have a conflict of interest in some hearings. Both issues need to be addressed.

Recommendations

24.There is an opportunity to have clearer priorities for the role of the Licensing Service. Members need to be clearer on the balance between enforcement and compliance priorities and ensure the Council’s enforcement policy is up to date.
25.The Council should introduce a comprehensive approach to Member and officer training for licensing that is fit for purpose, suiting the needs of the learners and includes the issues of:

• safeguarding
• domestic abuse
• unconscious bias
• cultural awareness
• conflicts of interest

When introduced and implemented the outcome of this training should be to create a cohort of licensing members that have up-to-date skills and the necessary awareness of diversity issues to deliver a more thoughtful licensing function. This would be a service that is confident it is complying with best practice and addresses some of the negative perceptions that can occur from some of the present practice. RBC should also consider commissioning training in licensing issues that is designed as an active learning approach that facilitates participants understanding in a real life and concrete manner. This would deliver better outcomes than two hour briefings on licensing law.

26.RBC should find a way to create a remuneration package for elected members that supports attendance at training and involvement at licensing committee where all members of the licensing cohort rotate through regularly. At the moment there is unused capacity in the licensing member cohort and therefore an opportunity to involve everyone in the business of the service. This could be done through an Independent Remuneration Panel and it would be prudent to ensure this is not extra money for the service but would sit within present spending parameters.
27.Furthermore, and connected to the issues above, consideration should be given to the backgrounds of those on the licensing committee, to ensure that there is a greater level of representation for the communities they serve.
28.The peer team encourage the Monitoring Officer to continue the ongoing work to simplify and review the officer Scheme of Delegation and streamline the licensing committee structure. It is simply not necessary to have the number of committees as presently exist.
29.Whilst it is a key improvement to provide a comprehensive member training programme it is also important to provide training for officers. This should enable them to facilitate a professional and efficient service for a Council that is well placed with significant advantages. As the service requires members and officers to work well together it should be possible to deliver some of this as ‘team development’ work with all those involved being trained together, rather than separately. Understanding the dynamic between member, officers and applicants is key to the Service’s effective functioning.
30.As with all organisations the staff of RBC are its most valuable resource. With this in mind it should consider how to build resilience into the Licensing Service so that it is future-proofed to ensure that expertise doesn’t ‘walk out the door’ and reduce the quality of service provision. The training and development suggested above should address some, but not all of this issue.
31.The Council supports some community groups with ambitious plans for activities, one example is the Reading Caribbean Community Group Carnival. This often takes the form of staff working with applicants to explain how the system works and what needs to happen to have a licence successfully granted and retained. There needs to be greater clarity about how the Council chooses to support these community groups that is reinforced by a narrative from members. There needs to be clarity from members for those staff who provide the support and those who work in the licensing function on the boundaries between these roles.
32.There is a need to provide clearer guidance for applicants, many of whom have English as a second language, in respect of the application process, key department contacts, Safety Advisory Group (SAG) process and links to key organisations and websites. This would help all aspects of the community to feel they are able to effectively apply for licences.
33.RBC should develop internal relationships with other Council departments to support businesses including: planning, regeneration, business support and economy in order to support business applications. RBC needs to determine how integrated the role of the licensing function is with these other key services so that service users can experience comprehensive advice and support and
thus are able to maximise the full service offer from RBC. This is especially important for first time applicants who have no understanding of the various permissions and forms they need to comply with. If a guide could be produced to signpost them to the various services that would be welcomed. This is especially important as RBC is seeking to proactively support its community and economy, in its broadest sense, recover from the pandemic.
34.In addition to the above points RBC could implement a mediation and application management system to discuss and deal with the process of applications and objections. Again this would seek to support individuals from diverse backgrounds to be successful in their applications.
35.With increased training, improved information to prospective applicants and some explanation and mediation of applications it is important to also develop a media and communications strategy for highlighting and promoting the service and linking with other communications teams, such as the Police. The purpose would be to promote a wider understanding amongst the public in general and the licensing community in particular concerning the reasons for licences being approved or withdrawn. This is directly linked with RBC’s attitude towards enforcement. RBC needs to have greater clarity on its approach to enforcement and have regular meetings with the police to discuss their partnership, communication and stance on priorities going forward. This communications strategy should share learning as to what not to do thus promoting the Licensing Committee’s role in protecting public safety.
36.There is also an opportunity for RBC to review the structure of the licensing
team to ensure officers are doing the role they should be and ensuring management are given the time to manage. In particular paying attention to developing policy, planning for service improvements and having financial oversight of income generation and fee setting. It was reported to the peer team that with reductions in staff over recent times officers were too busy ‘doing the day job’ to consider more strategic issues, that if addressed would make the work of the licensing function more effective. The question the peer team raise as a result is, “Is the service structured sufficiently to meet the anticipated demands of the immediate future?”.
37.The Council may wish to review the present Covid-19 stance on office closures in order to increase the number of new taxi licence applications and the related testing procedures. With offices being open to applicants it would be possible to better address these two key areas for the licensed taxi trade.
38.There was an issue around safeguarding that was brought to the attention of the peer team. Our view is that officers should review their convictions policy to ensure it is in line with the Department for Transport Statutory Guidance. Particular attention should be paid to mid-level sexual offending where, at present, a licence may be granted after a period of time which goes against the statutory guidance. In addition, it is concerning that there is some reluctance to revoke licences, on occasion, due to drivers being arrested for sexual offences due to the risk of challenge via claims against the Council. Public safety should be the paramount consideration. Officers should develop a protocol with the Police in relation to information sharing and Data Protection Agreement.

Your questions and our answers

The following section lists the eight questions that Reading Borough Council wanted some comment, and hopefully assurance on about its licensing practice. These are listed here with the answers from the peer challenge team.
i). Is the information provided to Committee presented in a balanced way, in line with the key licensing objectives or adopted policies and does this enable members to make their decision based on the relevant issues?
From evidence we have seen the information provided to members allows them to make appropriate decisions.
ii). Does the way officers present each case support appropriate decision making and reinforce the process as being about legitimate licensing considerations?
From the limited evidence we have seen and heard the decisions made by members appear balanced and sound.
iii). Does the way members debate the application, ensure the decision is considered alongside key licensing considerations as well as legal advice provided at the time of the Committee?
We haven’t seen enough evidence to answer this, however good practice would suggest that in the event of complex applications members do attend a pre-briefing with legal advisers.
iv). Does the training provided to members support them in making the correct decisions?
There is a need for a comprehensive training programme for both members and officers to ensure efficient and accurate delivery of the service.
v). Does the interaction with the applicant/licensee ensure that balance and fairness is maintained and seen to be maintained? Does this interaction ensure a continued focus on core licensing considerations?
There is a need for greater support to new applicants including increased cultural awareness by members and officers.
vi). Is the overall “tone” of the Committee meeting consistent with the values and aspirations of the Council?
In general yes, but there has been some evidence to suggest that at times questioning of applicants/licence holders is perceived to be ‘aggressive’ or ‘feisty’. There was a reported tendency by some members to digress onto irrelevant issues which does not help the hearing achieve its goals.
vii). Does the process reflect positively the committee’s community and cultural awareness and competency in decision making?
Reading Council needs to be mindful of the functioning of the committee and the perceptions of how it is delivered.
More could be done to broaden the diversity of members engaged in the licensing function.
viii). Does the process support positively the business community’s needs of the service?
In general the answer is yes. However there could be more information provided to new applicants to enable them to understand the licensing processes.
In addition to anticipate the potential for turnover of businesses post-Covid-19, develop a more strategic and collaborative approach with other Council services to proactively support individuals, businesses and organisations to recover and grow.

Marcus Coulson, on behalf of the Peer Challenge Team.
June 2021

Contact details

For more information about this Licensing Service Peer Challenge at Reading Borough Council please contact:
Marcus Coulson
Programme Manager
Local Government Association
Email: marcus.coulson@local.gov.uk
Tel: 07766 252 853
For more information on LGA peer challenges or the work of the Local Government Association please see our website Peer challenges | Local Government Association