From Teresa Pritchard, Leith Links Community Council, 25/11/24

To: Licensing Leads:

I just wanted to draw to your attention that there is a ‘Special’ Licensing sub-Committee meeting this Friday to consider a range of very recent large HMO applications in various parts of the city.  In Leith we have 3 on this list where 2 applications were only made on 6 November and the Council seems to have absolved the owner of advertising the proposal and delivered letters by hand to residents on Friday saying representations needed to be made to Licensing by 5pm on Tuesday 26 November.   This might have happened in relation to other applications, including one made as recently as 14 November (normally members of the public have 28 days from the date of application to make any representations).

This is the information about the premises being considered on Friday that I can glean from the HMO register version, latest today is at 18 November:

46 Marine Drive – K and S Mir – 70 people in 45 Rooms – applied 9/02/24 ref 521744 – status 18/11/24 ‘Consultees Outstanding’

14-15 Minto Street – Thrums Lodge Ltd/Javid – 20 people in 20 rooms – applied 12/11/24 ref 540747 – status 18/11/24 ‘Consultees Outstanding’

128 Old Dalkeith Road – Abidha Properties – no data on register re numbers – applied 23/08/24 ref 535537 – status 18/11/24 ‘Consultees Outstanding’

254-256 Ferry Rd – Kapoor & Co – 46 people in 21 rooms (!) – applied 6/11/24 ref – status 18/11/24 ‘Application Incomplete’

8-9 Hermitage Place – Kapoor & Co – 43 people in 19 rooms (!) – applied 6/11/24 ref 540443– status 18/11/24 ‘Application incomplete’

57 Constitution Place – K and S Mir – no data on the register but notice on outside said 16 people.  – applied 11/11/24 ref 541029 – status on 18/11/2024 ‘Application Received’

130 Constitution Place – K and S Mir – 60 people in 32 rooms – applied 20/8/2024 ref 5357479 – status on 18/11/24

27 York Place – no data on the HMO register, not even the identity of the applicant! – applied on 14/11/24 – ref   541034 - status on 18/11/2024 ‘Application Received’

12 Granville Terrace – Kapoor & Co – 28 people in 13 rooms – applied 6/11/24 ref 540447 – status on 18/11/2024 ‘Application Incomplete’

47 Leamington Terrace – Alep Logistics – 21 people in 12 rooms – applied 7/11/24 ref 540477 – status on 18/11/2024 ‘Consultees Outstanding’

6 Hampton Terrace – Priscilla Chiu – 34 people in 17 rooms – applied 1/11/24 ref 540284 - - status on 18/11/24 ‘Consultees Outstanding’

Might Licensing leads on other CC's be interested in being aware?   We have objected strongly about the process being followed in the cases in our area.   Copy Chair and Secretary

Best wishes

Teresa Perchard

For Leith Links Community Council

Roger Colkett of Tollcross CC sits on the EACC Members' Board. He has many years experience of dealing with licensing issues raised at his community council. He is about to submit (as a member) a paper to the Edinburgh Licensing Forum making a series of recommendations which he feels would benefit both sides to the licence application review process; those parties making an objection and those parties making a representation. His paper will be marked as an EACC Discussion Paper. You can find the full paper (for download) on this site EACC Papers >> Appendix. Here is some of what he has to say on recommended improvements:

Clarity and Accessibility:

The process of responding should be much more user-friendly, particularly for first-time respondents.

1. Until a better online system is available, each response received by the Licensing Department should prompt a routine reply, attaching copies of the relevant operating and layout plans (in the case of major variations both current and proposed).

2. Layout plans are sometimes on very large sheets, details of which can be difficult to decipher from the provided copy. Respondents should be made aware that originals can be viewed at the City Chambers.  If possible, respondents, if they need to, should be able to view originals at a local council office.

Fairness:

3. Before they speak to their response, the Convener should ask each respondent if they wish to make any points in addition to those included in their submitted response. If so, the additional points would be noted separately and the applicant would be given the opportunity to ask for the application to be continued to a later meeting to give time for any amendment required.

4. Having had to speak first without prior knowledge of the applicant’s argument, the respondent should be asked after the applicant has spoken whether they wish to say anything more.

5. In support of respondents having to speak first, I’ve heard it argued that the convention is compatible with the presumption that applications should be granted unless there is an exceptional reason to refuse.  If so, in the interest of fairness and logical consistency, when an application relates to premises in an area of overprovision (in which case the presumption is reversed with the default being to refuse), the applicant should be required to speak before the respondent.  Moreover, if the requirement for the respondent not to deviate from the submitted response were to stand, the same requirement should apply to the applicant’s published application in an area of overprovision.

Recognition:

6. When respondents want to say something after the applicant has spoken, the Board and its convener (recognising that respondents are usually seeking to contribute to the process, not to frustrate it) should politely ask them to be brief, thank them for their contribution, take on board the points made and if what they have said fails to comply with the law or the Board’s policy, clarify how and why that is the case.

Convenience:

7. Of course, it’s difficult to anticipate how long the assessment of each application will take, and one doesn’t want the relevant application to be dealt with before the respondent is due to appear.  However, all applications for which responses have been submitted could be brought to the earliest possible point in the meeting and arranged in ascending order of complexity and/or likely controversy, ideally with allocated timeslots, so that unpaid volunteer respondents would have had as little of their time wasted as possible.

End/KR

Chaired by Roger Colkett, Tollcross CC:

First, thanks to all who attended at least for part of the time (one or two people had technology problems):

Elspeth Wills of Old Town CC; John Loudon of Cramond and Barnton CC; Douglas Tharby of Leith Harbour and New Haven CC; Charlotte Encombe of Leith Central CC; Keith Giblett of Queensferry and District CC; Joan Carter of Southside CC; Sally Millar of Leith Links CC. Thanks too to Ken Robertson, Secretary of the Edinburgh Association of Community Councils (EACC), for setting up the meeting and hosting it on Teams.

As always, given the diversity of the different communities represented, there were different priorities; for example in outer areas of the city in contrast to the areas of overprovision in the city centre and parts of Leith, there can be a lack of provision of some types of licensed premises.

There was pretty general consensus during the meeting that the availability of information on CEC’s website regarding both existing and applied-for Licences is woefully inadequate. Why could it not be at least as good as that provided for Planning?  

There was understandable confusion, though, about the scope of liquor licensing, civic licensing and tables & chairs permits. To most people, all these matters are the responsibility of the City Council and one shouldn’t have to understand the details of how one’s local authority is organised in order to make a complaint or raise an issue. (Perhaps one day Scottish local government will be adequately funded and then perhaps people would simply have to submit their concerns to a single page on the website or a single dedicated phone number with the council having a group of council officers tasked with distributing enquiries or complaints to the appropriate department.)

In the meantime, I think more Community Councillors need to familiarise themselves as best they can with The Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 (as amended)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2005/16/contents

and with the Edinburgh Licensing Board’s Licensing Policy

https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/24379/alcohol-licensing-policy-november-2018

I’m afraid we ran out of time at the meeting but one of the things I wanted to draw people’s attention to is the link on the EACC’s website to Alcohol Focus Scotland’s toolkit –

Go to http://www.edinburghcommunitycouncils.org.uk/index.php/licensing

And click on the link on the RH side of the page.

I think a lot of Community Councillors would benefit from familiarising themselves with this very useful resource.

I can assure you that, as a member of the Licensing Forum, I shall do all I can to encourage the Licensing Board to recognise the inadequacy of the Licensing section of the City Council’s website and the need to provide more information on both current and applied for licences.

Realistically, though, don’t hold your breath waiting for a useful response!

Report: 6 Jun 2023: Edinburgh's Alcohol Profile Map

Alcohol Focus Scotland (AFS) is the national charity working to reduce and prevent alcohol harm. AFS campaigns on minimum pricing and on alcohol availability and licensing, with a special focus on the dangers of marketing exposure to children and young people.

AFS offers practical guidance for community groups in support of effective action to curb alcohol harm, crime and violence in their locality. If you would like to know more, go to:

Working To Reduce Alcohol Harm | Alcohol Focus Scotland (alcohol-focus-scotland.org.uk)

In the meantime, AFS publishes regular Local Alcohol Profiles, mapping ‘Alcohol harm in your area’.

Here is the latest report for Edinburgh.

Edinburgh LAP May 2023 (alcohol-focus-scotland.org.uk)

End/KR

24 January 2023

Alcohol Focus Scotland (AFS) wants the help of every Community Council to get alcohol onto the live agenda of City of Edinburgh Council. (This is part of an AFS country-wide endeavour.)

AFS has produced alcohol harm fact sheets for each local area. For Edinburgh you can find this at:

https://www.alcohol-focus-scotland.org.uk/media/440130/edinburgh-city.pdf

Alcohol use and misuse is a 'here-and-now' issue for all our communities.

AFS offers first-hand guidance on how to approach the jeopardy threatened by alcohol abuse and licensing evasion.

Here are some of the questions AFS poses of council authorities.

• Would you agree that action on alcohol is a priority issue that cuts across many sectors?
• How would you reduce the impact of alcohol on health, families and communities in your area?
• What steps will you take to find out about the impact of alcohol locally?

In turn, they are legitimate questions for Community Councils. 

[Follow AFS on Twitter @AlcoholFocus.]

KR

The City of Edinburgh Council regulates certain activities under the following Acts;

• The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982
• Housing (Scotland) Act 2006

The Edinburgh Licensing Board is responsible for issuing licenses for the sale of alcohol and gambling purposes, under the following Acts:

• Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005
• Gambling (Scotland) Act 2005

Each Local Authority under The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 has the option of licensing a number of different activities if they fall within their jurisdiction. In addition, there are certain activities for which a licence is a mandatory requirement. For simplicity, The City of Edinburgh Council and Edinburgh Licensing Board respectfully, has categorised each Licence-type into the following groups; Alcohol/Gambling (for which Edinburgh Licensing Board are responsible), Taxi and Private Hire, Animal Licences’, Shop/Trader Licences’, Leisure/Entertainment/Parades and HMO.