Agenda item

6.1

The Committee considered the decision of the Cabinet Member for Community Services and Libraries, made on 27^th September 2016, to refuse the registration of The University Arms, 197 Brook Hill, Sheffield, S3 7HG, as an Asset of Community Value.

6.2

Signatories

The Lead Signatory to the call-in was Councillor Adam Hanrahan, and the other signatories were Councillors Sue Auckland, Steve Ayris, Penny Baker and Shaffaq Mohammed.

6.3

Reasons for the Call-in

The signatories had confirmed that they wished to further scrutinize the decision and the definition of ‘community’.

6.4

Attendees

·           Councillor Jack Scott (Cabinet Member for Community Services and Libraries)

·           Victoria Clayton (Planning and Highways Lawyer)

·           Dawn Shaw (Head of Libraries and Community Services)

·          

6.5

Councillor Adam Hanrahan, addressing the Committee as Lead Signatory, explained that a definition of ‘community’ was required so that there was more certainty for groups applying for Asset of Community Value (ACV) status.  He further remarked on the arbitrary nature of ACV status and wanted the Committee to discuss the definition of ‘community’ and refer the decision back for further consideration by the Cabinet Member. 

6.6

Dave Pickersgill, representing the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA), who had submitted the nomination for The University Arms to be given ACV status, then directed the Committee to the circulated letter from CAMRA which contained approximately 50 questions regarding the refusal to register The University Arms as an ACV.  It had been agreed prior to the meeting that these questions would be answered in writing. 

6.7

In response, Councillor Jack Scott indicated that the decision had been taken at the end of a long process and after careful consideration, but did concede that the legislation had been poorly drafted and that there was insufficient guidance available.  He added that he understood the importance of the beer industry to the local economy.  Councillor Scott went on to define “community” as “a distinct group of individuals or agencies who come together for a common interest”.  He also indicated that the questions posed by CAMRA would receive a written response and that he planned to send this by the end of the following week and that this response would be shared with the Policy and Improvement Officer for inclusion on the next meeting agenda.  Commenting on the main questions posed by CAMRA, Councillor Scott stated that he had read all the appropriate documentation prior to making his decision, adding that the Council’s approach, whilst it might be different from that of other authorities, had been supported by Counsel’s advice as being robust and proportionate.  He considered that The University Arms was a public house which was predominantly used by students and staff of the University and had seen no evidence to the contrary.  In conclusion, Councillor Scott expressed his willingness to meet with representatives of CAMRA in the near future to see if anything could be done to improve the process, adding that a possible way forward for The University Arms was for a further application to be submitted, which included additional evidence.

6.8

Questions from Members of the Committee

Members made various comments and asked a number of questions, to which responses were provided as follows:-

·                A review of the process of registering ACVs was ongoing.

·                The Sheffield Tap had been granted ACV status because the information supplied supported that decision.  In the case of The University Arms application, there had been an objection from the landowner, which had been supported by good evidence, whilst less robust information had been provided by the applicant.

·                The University Arms had stopped being a members club in January 2007.

·                In this case there was a lack of evidence, not an evidence of a lack of demand for what The University Arms was providing.  The decision had been based on the information submitted.

·                It should be borne in mind that the decision had been made on the statements and evidence provided, but any future application would be viewed with haste.

·                The Cabinet Member had deliberately not visited The University Arms in order to keep detached and maintain an objective approach.  It was thought that Council officers had also not attended The University Arms, as this was important to ensure a fair hearing.  However, site visits might be an area for consideration.

6.9

In summing up, Councillor Adam Hanrahan remarked that whilst the responses to Members’ questions had been useful, there had been no real answer to his request for a definition of ‘community’.  He went on to refer to the community of students who used The University Arms and pointed out the similarities between The Sheffield Tap and The Bath Hotel, which had both been granted ACV status.  Furthermore, The University Arms was included in the CAMRA Good Beer Guide.  He went on to emphasise that a proper definition of ‘community’ was required so that groups could work out what needed to be included in any application.  In conclusion, he requested that the decision be referred back to the Cabinet Member for reconsideration and so that a proper definition of ‘community’ could be determined.

6.10

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)       notes the contents of the report together with the comments made and the responses provided;

(b)       notes the decision of the Cabinet Member for Community Services and Libraries, taken on 27^th September 2016, to refuse the registration of The University Arms, 197 Brook Hill, Sheffield, S3 7HG, as an Asset of Community Value; and

(c)        recommends that no action be taken in relation to the called-in decision.

(NOTE 1: Prior to the passing of the above resolution, an alternative motion, moved by Councillor Adam Hanrahan and seconded by Councillor Sue Auckland, namely to ‘refer the decision back to the Cabinet Member for Community Services and Libraries for reconsideration and so that an appropriate definition of ‘community’ could be arrived at.’, was put to the vote and negatived.

NOTE 2: At this point, Councillor Mark Jones rejoined the meeting.)