London Borough of Camden late-night levy consultation – ALMR

London Borough of Camden late-night levy consultation – ALMR template response
1.-3. Personal details
4. Would you support the introduction of a late night levy in Camden where the income generated is
focused on reducing and preventing crime, anti-social behaviour and nuisance related to the late night
supply of alcohol?
No, particularly when it will be not be levied on all the businesses engaged in late night activity and
contributing towards any anti-social behaviour and disorder problems which may arise from it; the
consultation clearly notes that the main problems of late night noise and nuisance arise from late night
refreshment houses, which are not covered by the levy, and street drinking, the alcohol for which will
often be bought before midnight. Research by the Greater London Authority demonstrates that “an
increased density of licensed restaurants is associated with reduced rates of hospitalisation....lower
rates of violence and drink-driving”. If boroughs wish to reduce alcohol related harms, then they need to
provide a supportive regulatory framework which allows mixed-use bars and restaurants to flourish.
5. Camden will work in partnership with the Police to find the best ways to invest the levy receipts in
solutions for managing the Camden night time economy. Please tell us here about your preferences or
recommendations for how the police and council should spend the levy.
Camden should not introduce a levy. If it is introduced, however, the proceeds should be used to
support the continued operation of the partnership schemes which will be directly threatened by its
implementation, such as Pubwatch, Best Bar None, CILLA and the Camden Town Unlimited BID. These
schemes should be considered prime candidates not only for direct support but also for indirect support
in the form of exemptions and reductions to help alleviate the cost of the new tax for the pro-active
operators of businesses engaged in such schemes. Crucially, if the levy is introduced then those liable to
pay it must have oversight of and engagement with spending decisions.
6. If you answered no to Question 4 (if you do not support the introduction of a late night levy), what
do you think is the best way to pay for the work to tackle alcohol-related crime and anti-social
behaviour?
The wording of this question it implies not only that a paid for intervention is the only way to tackle
alcohol-related crime and anti-social behaviour but also that that contribution is not being made by
businesses at present. When the Council’s Cabinet met to approve reductions in NTE funding last
December it was felt that “a reduction in the level of generic and patrolling services targeting the NTE
…is reflective of the levels of risk that victims of ASB associated with the NTE generally face” – there is
no evidence to suggest that the risks have increased since this assessment and so question the necessity
and desirability of introducing a new tax to fund activity which the Council felt as recently as five months
ago was unnecessary. The Council should maintain its current voluntary best practice approach which is
delivering real results and crucially is focused on eliminating the source of the problems rather than
simply paying for any clean up. Camden is rightly held in high regard nationally for the management of
its night time economy and proactive partnership through BIDs, Purple Flag, Pubwatch and Best Bar
None has been key to this.
7. What are the key issues you feel the council and its partners should be addressing to improve the
late night economy for Camden?
All of the issues identified are crucial and none is deserving of greater emphasis or importance. The
results of residents’ surveys suggest that the two major concerns linked to the night-time economy are
anti-social behaviour and litter from late-night refreshment venues, which will not be subject to this tax.
The council should focus on addressing the concerns of residents and businesses but that it should do so
in a way which is fair rather than by imposing a blanket tax on late-night alcohol vendors who regularly
contribute money, staff and other resources to ensure a clean and convivial atmosphere throughout the
Borough.
8. Do you have any comments on the potential income that the levy may raise?
As the Council has not provided any information on the number of licensed premises licensed beyond
midnight or even an estimate of how many such premises are expected to pay the levy, it is impossible
to judge the estimated revenue receipts.
9. We are proposing to introduce the late night levy for premises that supply alcohol between
midnight to 6am. Do you think that this is the right time period for us to focus on?
No. No evidence has been presented to show that any problems, if they exist, persist throughout the
whole of the possible levy period, or that all businesses licensed beyond midnight share responsibility
for any such problems. Without evidence as to, at the very least, the volume of crimes in each hour,
making an informed judgment on the necessity, fairness and desirability of the new tax is impossible. If a
levy is introduced, it should start at a later time to avoid capturing traditional community local pubs,
restaurants and other low-impact premises which are frequently licensed beyond midnight.
10. If you think midnight to 6am is not the right time period for us to focus on, which of these do you
prefer?
Other – none. With no evidence provided as to the scale of any problems in any of the relevant hours t is
impossible to form a reliable judgement about which if any of the hours should be subject to a late-night
levy. Given this lack of evidence, the council should not be seeking to impose additional costs on
responsible businesses.
11. Certain licences can be exempted from paying the levy. We are not proposing to make any
exemptions, with one exception: an exemption is proposed to apply if the only time that a licence
authorises alcohol sales for consumption on the premises is between midnight and 6am on New
Year’s Day each year. Do you agree?
No. If Camden does introduce a late-night levy, reductions and exemptions should be used to alleviate
the impacts of the tax and encourage voluntary action to improve the area and tackle any problems
arising in the night time economy. Exemptions or at least reductions should be available to all
businesses which are members of best practice schemes, including Pubwatch, Best Bar None and the
Camden BID, to ensure that the levy does not jeopardise their funding and continued existence.
12. Do you think there should be exemptions for particular types of premises?
While we do not support the imposition of a levy on any business we agree that, if the problems postmidnight are sufficiently serious to warrant its imposition, then all businesses selling alcohol at that time
should be liable. The only exception to this should be those already engaged in BIDs and therefore
already contributing to town centre management and businesses which are licensed to sell alcohol after
midnight on New Year’s Eve.
13. If you have any comments on exempt categories of premises, please tell us here.
While we do not support the imposition of a levy on any business we agree that, if the problems postmidnight are sufficiently serious to warrant its imposition, then all businesses selling alcohol at that time
should be liable. The only exception to this should be those already engaged in BIDs and therefore
already contributing to town centre management and businesses which are licensed to sell alcohol after
midnight only on New Year’s Eve.
14. The council has not proposed to introduce any reductions in the late night levy contributions for
business which have signed up for best practice schemes. Do you agree?
No. If a levy is introduced the maximum possible discounts should be extended to businesses
participating in best practice schemes. Given the significant additional costs a levy will impose, and the
fact that this may undermine the viability of smaller businesses in particular, the Council should employ
all discretionary reductions or discounts which are available to them particularly where doing so is
targeted at responsible and pro-active businesses. Given the high costs of supporting a Business
Improvement District and the tangible improvements delivered by Camden Town Unlimited, if the
Council does not decide to exempt the BID, then it should certainly extend the maximum discount to
participants. Business-led best practice schemes such as Best Bar None, Pub and Club Watch are the
single most effective measure for addressing problems as they arise and seeking to deal with the causes
of harmful behaviour; a levy simply pays to clean up problems after they arise.
15. If you have any comments on reductions for business in best practice schemes, please tell us here.
See above.
16. The council has not proposed to introduce any reductions for premises in receipt of small business
rate relief. Do you agree with this proposal?
While we do not support the imposition of a levy on any business we agree that, if the problems postmidnight are sufficiently serious to warrant its imposition, then all businesses selling alcohol at that time
should be liable unless they are actively involved in a qualifying business-led best practice scheme.
17. If you have any comments on reductions for premises in receipt of small business rate relief,
please tell us here.
See above.
18. Do you support the proposal for the police and council to deliver a single programme for how the
levy should be spent?
Yes. The precise split of the revenue between the relevant parties is arguably less relevant than whether
a new tax should be imposed in the first instance and how any proceeds are to be spent. It is far from
desirable to raise the revenue through a levy; as noted above, a more collaborative partnership
approach may well have delivered more effective results without the need for a levy. We agree that the
most efficient and cost effective use of LNL revenues would be for the Council to develop a single
programme with the local police. We are concerned, however, that the proposal appears to be for the
Council and the Police to develop proposals between them and to tell the trade what their taxes will be
spent on and we strongly urge them to involve the businesses which operate in the Camden NTE and
will be funding a levy if it is introduced.
19. If you answered no to Question 18, how would you prefer the police and council to spend their
portions of the levy?
Not applicable.
20. If you are a business licensed for the supply of alcohol after midnight, are you likely to reduce your
licensed hours so that you are not liable for the levy?
[Yes/No – delete as applicable]
21. Have you any other comments to make regarding the introduction of the levy, or about the
indicative commencement between autumn 2015 and spring 2016?
The 2012 Regulations oblige the authority to “set out…the date on which the late night levy requirement
is first to apply”. An indicative date rather than a specific one is unhelpful for businesses and it appears
from the range of dates suggested in the consultation that the Council intends to introduce the levy at
some point in a six-month period spanning two financial years. The businesses which would be liable to
the levy if introduced are entitled to expect certainty and the Council ought to fix a specific date at
which it would introduce the levy subject to the results of this consultation and a vote of elected
councillors.