The Panel shall receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Knowles and Gosling.

The Panel are asked to declare any interests that they may have.

No declarations of interest were made.

The Panel are asked to clarify the motion that was agreed under the item “Hackney Carriage Livery”. It is the understanding of officers that this motion, which agreed to amend the current RBWM hackney carriage livery, was intended to apply only to new hackney carriages being licenced by RBWM for the first time, and not to existing RBWM hackney carriages, for which the existing livery requirements will remain in place.

The Panel are then asked to approve the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 13 February 2024 as a true and accurate record.

Councillor Brar, the Chair introduced this item by asking the Panel to clarify the motion that had been put forward and voted on at the last meeting, as outlined in the agenda.

Amanda Gregory, Assistant Director of Housing & Public Protection, asked for further clarity around the motion. She said that the motion should apply to licenses and not the individual vehicle itself. The only clarification point of the motion was whether the new livery that was to be introduced, applied to all existing vehicles or just new ones. Amanda Gregory then also clarified that the decision had been made by the Licensing Panel to delegate authority to her as an officer to make the decision however this was in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member and the Chair. Oran Norris-Browne, Democratic Services Team Leader, then also explained this, to which the Chair agreed.

Councillor Wilson said that his understanding was that the phasing in of the new livery would be for all new drivers’ hackney carriage license and any new vehicles from now on. However, the option would also be available for existing drivers to change their livery if they so wished.

Councillor Douglas confirmed that his understanding was exactly the same as Councillor Wilsons’. He asked if the delegation that had been made in the previous meeting was correct. Both the Chair and Oran Norris-Browne confirmed that this was acceptable and was not in need of change.

Councillor K Singh stated that what had been said by Councillors Wilson and Douglas was also his understanding and asked if it was the officer’s understanding too. Amanda Gregory confirmed that if that was what the Panel intended, then she would go ahead and implement that. However, she wished to make it very clear to the Panel that if this was the route they wished to take, then this would mean that different liveries would be present on hackney carriages in the borough for potentially a number of years to come, such as 10 or 15 years.

Councillor Douglas questioned the timings of this and enquired as to whether a mandatory time frame could be introduced in the future. Amanda Gregory said that this could be something that they could consider and additionally she wanted to ensure that the Panel were completely aware of the potential time scales. Councillor Wilson agreed with this interpretation.

The Panel confirmed their understanding of the motion being that the phasing in of the new livery would be for all new drivers’ hackney carriage licenses and any new vehicles from now on. However, the option would also be available for existing drivers to change their livery if they so wished.

The Panel then considered the full minutes of the last meeting.

AGREED: That the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 13 February 2024 were a true and accurate record.

The Panel are asked to note the minutes of the Sub Committee that was held on 7 February 2024.

The Panel noted the minutes.

The Licensing Panel are to note the report and:

i)               Recommend to Full Council that the RBWM Gambling Act 2005 Statement of Principles 2025 - 2028 be adopted as RBWM policy with effect from 31 January 2025.

Greg Nelson, Trading Standards & Licensing Manager, introduced the report to the Panel by saying that the borough were responsible for possessing and publishing a policy which set out the principles that the borough would apply, when exercising its functions under the Gambling Act 2005. A review was required every 3 years, with the new policy due to come into effect on 31 January 2025. The Licensing Panel were asked to recommend this to Full Council, for adoption. Greg Nelson then outlined the various appendices that were within the report and also placed on record his thanks to the Public Health team. He then read out the recommendation of the report that were being put forward to the Licensing Panel.

The Chair thanked Greg Nelson for his introduction and then invited John Baldwin to address the Panel as a registered speaker for 3 minutes.

Councillor Baskerville asked why gambling was seen to cause more harm to ethnic minorities and what the precise figures were for this. Greg Nelson replied by saying that he did not have those specific figures but agreed that certain areas of society were certainly more prone to gambling than others. Certain areas within the borough had also been identified as having higher proportions of certain members of society and if a gambling premises was to open in these areas, then further steps would need to be taken. Extra steps that would be taken included the monitoring of regular persons who were losing large quantities of money, which could lead to ‘problem gambling’.

Councillor Baskerville then said that he believed that the number of gambling premises within the borough stood at around 70 and asked what the trend was in terms of the number of these. Greg Nelson replied by saying that the numbers were decreasing slightly and were looking to decrease further still in years to come, due to a move to online gambling.

Councillor Story asked for clarity around paragraph 1.12.2 on page 47, as it said, “the lottery” and no more. Greg Nelson confirmed that this was an error and that it should not be taken into account.

Councillor W. DaCosta firstly noted that although it was great that statutory consultees had been consulted, he appeared to not be able to find any trace of their evidence within the report. He said that it would be very useful if these could be included, to see what the responses were. Secondly, he said that in recent times he had campaigned with the likes of Dr Katie Simpson, who was one of the GP’s at Dedworth Medical Centre. At the site of the old Blockbusters, now stood a William Hill betting shop, which now saw a cluster of betting shops exist in that singular area. He asked if she could be involved in discussion in the future on how best they could potentially work together. Thirdly, in terms of the report’s Eqia, he felt that it was slightly lacking, a cut and paste job, and had not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.