The Deputy Chief Executive for Citizens and City Services had submitted a report to confirm the decision of the Committee on the 22 September 2025 in relation to the Cumulative Impact Assessment and determine the Special Saturation Policy.

 

Recommendation(s): That theLicensing & Gambling Acts Committeeresolves to:

 

1.    Reaffirm its decision of the 22 September 2025 to not renew the Cumulative Impact Assessment and Saturation Policy covering the City Centre and East Oxford areas, noting that the matter is a decision for Committee with no onwards requirement for a decision by full Council;

 

 

 

The Licensing & Gambling Acts Committee resolved to:

1.    Reaffirm its decision of the 22 September 2025 to not renew the Cumulative Impact Assessment and Saturation Policy covering the City Centre and East Oxford areas, noting that the matter is a decision for Committee with no onwards requirement for a decision by full Council;

2.    And to recommend that an updated CIA is brought to a future Committee for consideration.

 

 

The Director of Law, Governance and Strategy (Monitoring Officer) had submitted a report to?confirm the decision of the Committee on the 22 September 2025 in relation to the Cumulative Impact Assessment and determine the Special Saturation Policy. 

 

The Committee and Member Services Manager introduced the report and outlined the recommendation for Members to reaffirm their previous decision made in September. Relevant legal advice and reasoning for the report being returned to the Committee was also outlined. 

 

Councillor Clarkson joined the meeting.  

 

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.  

 

Councillor Taylor queried whether the Committee was permitted to consider matters beyond just the licensing objectives when reaching their decision. The Legal Advisor explained that the Committee must seek an evidence-based decision in relation to the licensing objectives and can consider information which they believe supports this. 

 
Councillor Muddiman requested data which had been updated since September 2025. The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer (KT) noted that since September, 14 new premises licenses had been issued, 8 of which were within the SSP areas. The Committee also heard that 1 was determined by a Sub-Committee, 9 were granted with agreed conditions, and 4 were granted as applied for; no applications had been refused in the period from September. Furthermore, 1 application for a minor variation, and 5 full variation applications were received, of which all were granted with 3 being in the SSP areas. The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer (KT) noted that 5 applications are currently pending.  

 

Councillor Muddiman asked whether data was available to compare the number of applications with and without the SSP for a similar duration of time. The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer (KT) clarified that the only data available for comparison was that of when the SSP was in place for the previously 3 years before it expired, 

 

Councillor Muddiman requested the officers’ view on whether there been an increase in the number of applications since the SSP expired, to which the Senior Licensing Compliance Officer (KT) noted the numbers of new applications having been steady and only a smaller number of variations to licenses having been requested.  

 

Councillor Ottino queried whether the conditions attached to recent applications had been generally from police, and whether there had been a lot of resistance from applicants to these. The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer (KT) confirmed they were mostly TVP agreed conditions and noted that positive conversations between the police and applicants had taken place.  

 

The Chair asked whether the licenses applied for in SSP areas since its expiry has increased the density of licence holders, or whether the density remains similar as people reapply for previously licensed premises which may have stopped operating.  The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer (KT) explained that of the 14 new premises applications received since September, only 8 have been within the city and none have been within East Oxford.  

Councillor Upton noted that an advantage of having an SSP in place is that it supports better and earlier engagement between applicants and relevant authorities. It was asked whether this has reduced since September, to which The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer (KT) noted that early engagement still takes place via pre-consultation conversations with the responsible authorities.  

 

Councillor Ottino requested evidence from the police about crime related to the SPP areas since September and asked whether any other complaints had been received. The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer (KT) noted only additional complaints about SIA door staff which are referred elsewhere. Furthermore, the Committee heard that the weekly reports received from the police have not shown an increase in relevant crime. 

 

Councillor Taylor requested officers’ opinion on whether there has been any real difference without the SSP in place to which The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer (KT) stated that there is no data to either confirm or reject the question. The Community Service Safety Manager noted that more analysis of data could be done to determine this question, however the Committee heard that there has been no significant expansion to the nighttime economy and trends would loosely suggest there is less crime at present, in comparison to historic periods. The Community Service Safety Manager reiterated that more analysis would need to be done to be sure of the impacts on public safety.  

 

Councillor Ottino requested more information relating to the complaints about SIA door staff and whether the police required more door staff without the SSP in place. The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer (ET) explained that data on this is held with the SIA, and the Licensing Authority could not comment.  

 

Councillor Rehman noted that evidence does not demonstrate an influx of applications since the expiry of the SSP or an increase in issues relating to the protection of the public. On this basis, it was asked whether having the SSP as an extra layer could be advisable in order to support the licensing objectives.  

 

Councillor Mundy joined the meeting. 

 

The Community Service Safety Manager provided a summary of how matters relating to the SSP have changed over time, and a summary of why it was a useful tool when first introduced. The Committee understood that officer opinion remains objective and must be supported by the data, therefore it is for Members to determine whether they believe the SSP could be a useful tool. The Community Service Safety Manager also reminded the Committee of upcoming changes due to Local Government Reorganisation.  

 
Councillor Rehman sought to clarify whether officers believed that an SSP is a helpful tool for achieving the licensing objectives. The Community Service Safety Manager reiterated that when new, the SSP had an obvious impact as it was used to deny applications more regularly. However, in the present day, relationships between the Licensing Authority and applicants have matured and good conversations regularly occur with responsible licence holders; as such, the impact of the SSP may now be less than it once was but it can still retain some benefits, especially for new applicants. 

 

Councillor Rawle sought to clarify that in the past year, the officers’ recommendations in the report still stand and that the other responsible authorities still maintain the same views. The Community Service Safety Manager confirmed this. 

 

The Chair sought to clarify that if the Committee resolved to reaffirm their previous decision from September, whether a CIA to consider new data could still be commissioned without the need to introduce a new SSP. The Legal Advisor confirmed that a CIA could take place without the need for an SSP to be implemented, either by officer decision, or a request from the Committee. The Legal Advisor reminded Members of the prerequisite requirement for a CIA to be completed ahead of an SSP being implemented, a summary of the licensing objectives was provided, and the distinction between the two SSP areas was emphasized.  

 

Councillor Ottino queried why the maps produced within the CIA remain the same and requested specific information in relation to some examples, including The Black Swan venue on Crown Street. It was also asked whether the scope of areas to be considered within the CIA could be expanded and changed in the future. The Community Service Safety Manager explained that the reports are driven by evidence led analysis methods and data from a variety of sources including the police; using this, the CIA and SSP is then formulated. 

 

Councillor Mundy sought to clarify how the CIA and SSP is applied to licence variations. The Community Service Safety Manager confirmed that each application is considered on a case-by-case basis and there are no automatic or blanket requirements required by having an SSP in place; the Committee and Sub-Committees have discretion,  

 

The Chair invited the Committee to debate the recommendation in the report.  

 

Councillor Taylor expressed his view that the previous decision should be reaffirmed but requested that new data be brought forward via a new CIA assessment to a future Committee.  

 

The Legal Advisor clarified that the previous SSP had expired. Should the Committee vote not to reaffirm their previous decision, then they were able to return to the existing Cumulative Impact Assessment as part of their decision making to inform whether they consider there is a need for an SSP in order to uphold the licensing objectives.  

 

Councillor Muddiman asked whether the Committee could vote to adopt a new SSP within this meeting.  The Committee and Member Services Manager clarified that a new SSP would be required to come to a future meeting for consideration. The Committee was advised to first consider their determination regarding the recommendation in the report.  

 

Councillor Clarkson expressed her view that the previous decision be reaffirmed, noting that Oxford city is now a different place to that which it was when an SSP was first required and introduced. Councillor Clarkson noted her view that restrictive policy should not be in place when not required.  

 

Councillor Rehman expressed his view that the previous decision should not be reaffirmed and also recommended that more data be brought forward for the Committee’s consideration. Councillor Rehman emphasised the importance of public safety ahead of business prosperity and recognized an SSP as an additional layer of support for this.  

 

Councillor Rawle noted that although not present at the previous meeting of the Committee, she would have been minded to support the officers’ recommendation and therefore, recognised the SSP as an enabling policy for the Council to meet its licensing objectives. Councillor Rawle noted that there is not sufficient evidence to support the removal of a tool, which is helpful.  

 

Councillor Ottino clarified that the SSP has not been in place for a year since it expired and suggested that a review with a broader scope of evidence should take place. Councillor Ottino expressed his preference to reaffirm the previous decision of the Committee.  

 

Councillor Jupp emphasised his view that the Committee is entitled to have regard to other factors other than licensing objectives, including political party policies, but that it must also remain open-minded. In relation to the CIA as it is, Councillor Jupp echoed Councillor Ottino’s comments, noting that it is out of date and contains incomprehensible maps. The Committee heard that he did not believe the policy to be fit for purpose, and any future review via a CIA must be reflective of the challenges on the ground. Councillor Jupp also echoed Councillor Taylor and Councillor Clarkson’s comments and supported waiting for the collection and analysis of further data and that restrictive policies should be avoided where possible. Councillor Jupp queried whether it is possible for the Committee to vote on the SSP areas separately, if the decision were not reaffirmed. The Legal Advisor and Committee and Member Services Manager confirmed this but also noted it would be contingent on the outcome of the vote on the recommendation.  

 

Councillor Taylor asked whether the Committee could consider factors other than just the licensing objectives when reaching their determination. The Legal Advisor emphasised that any decision taken by the Committee must be evidence-based and considerate of whether an SSP would support the licensing objectives, however, should Members feel that other factors are relevant to this consideration, then they may also be considered. The Committee heard that evidence should not be disregarded when a decision is being reached. 

 

Councillor Muddiman expressed her view that based on the evidence, there has been no increase in the number of licenses issued without an SSP for around a year and there is no suggestion that not having an SSP in place has a negative impact on the nighttime economy. Taking into account the context of the SSP over time, as noted by officers during this meeting, Councillor Muddiman recognised the stable and cooperative relationships that are now in place between licence holders and the Licensing Authority, but also the use of the SSP as a tool for engaging with new applicants. Councillor Muddiman noted her disagreement with the previous decision of the Committee and expressed her wish that it not be reaffirmed; she also requested more data to be presented to a future Committee.  

 
Councillor Mundy supported Councillor Muddiman’s comments and emphasised that the licensing objectives should be the Committee’s primary concern, as well as noting that the policy should support a healthy nighttime economy. As such, he expressed a preference not to reaffirm the Committee’s previous decision. Councillor Mundy discouraged the Committee from considering political considerations when voting on the recommendation.  

 

The Chair focused on the evidence presented to the Committee within the CIA and referenced here awareness of residents who experience negative impacts from the nighttime economy. The Committee heard that she viewed the SSP to be a useful tool and would not be voting to reaffirm the previous decision of the Committee. The Chair also requested that additional data be brought back to inform any future policy with consideration for the licensing objectives.  

 

Councillor Upton recognised arguments on both sides of the debate and acknowledged the historic use and value of the SSP whilst also supporting the idea that unnecessarily restrictive policies should not be pursued. Councillor Upton expressed her preference that the decision from the previous Committee be reaffirmed and requested that future discussions address the matter of the need arise.  

 

Councillor Miles proposed an additional recommendation to also bring a new CIA to the next meeting of the Committee to allow a review of the evidence.   

 

When put to a vote on the first recommendation, 9 Members voted in favour, and 2 Members voted against, and 2 Members abstained. The recommendation was agreed. 

 

Councillor Taylor proposed that the Committee reaffirm?its decision of the 22 September 2025 to not renew the Cumulative Impact Assessment and Saturation Policy covering the City Centre and East Oxford areas, noting that the matter is a decision for Committee with?no?onwards requirement for a decision by full Council; Councillor Lygo seconded.  

 

When put to a vote on the second recommendation, 7 Members voted in favour, and 6 Members voted against. The recommendation was agreed.  

 

The Licensing & Gambling Acts Committee resolved to:

1.    Reaffirm its decision of the 22 September 2025 to not renew the Cumulative Impact Assessment and Saturation Policy covering the City Centre and East Oxford areas, noting that the matter is a decision for Committee with no onwards requirement for a decision by full Council;

2.    And to recommend that an updated CIA is brought to a future Committee for consideration.