Agenda item

CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE STREET TRADING POLICY

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF HOUSING & PUBLIC PROTECTION

To consider proposed amendments to the Street Trading Policy.

Decision:

Note: Prior to the consideration of this item, Councillor Jim McNally made a Declarable Interest, in view of his role as Chairman of a Community interest company in Baldock responsible for community events. He chose to remain in the meeting for the duration of the Committee’s debate and vote on the item.

RESOLVED:

(1) That the results of the public consultation be noted, and the proposed policy amendments be supported;

(2) That it be determined that the proposed amendments are minor, in so far as they do not amend the licensing principles or main focus of the existing policy;

(3) That the Executive Member for Housing and Environmental Health be recommended to approve the Street Trading Policy amendments under Delegated Powers; and

(4) That officers be requested to continue to investigate the available options, in conjunction with Hertfordshire County Council, in respect of the regulation of tables/chairs and ‘A’ boards.

REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that the Council has in place a robust and up to date Street Trading Policy.

Minutes:

[Note: Prior to the consideration of this item, Councillor Jim McNally made a Declarable Interest, in view of his role as Chairman of a Community interest company in Baldock responsible for community events. He chose to remain in the meeting for the duration of the Committee’s debate and vote on the item.]

Generic comments on Street Trading, Street Collections, House to House Collections and Sex Establishment Policies

The Licensing Manager advised that each of the above four policies before the Committee were existing policies where the review date had passed. This did not mean that the policies had expired, it just left the Council vulnerable upon challenge through the courts for not keeping the policies under review and ensuring that they were fit for purpose. All four policies had served their intended purpose well and only needed some amending, rather than complete re-writes.

The Licensing Manager explained that the Council’s Constitution provided for the Cabinet to adopt all new policies, with the exception of the statutory Licensing Act 2003 and Gambling Act 2005 policies, which were reserved by statute for Full Council. Executive Members had authority under the Constitution to make minor amendments to existing policies, however, the Constitution was silent on the definition of ‘minor’. Fortunately, each of the existing policies included definitions of minor amendments which, in essence, were any amendments that were not significant, with each policy clearly defining ‘significant’

The Licensing Manager commented that, in addition to considering the content of each amended policy, the Committee would need to determine whether or not it believed the amendments fitted the criteria of ‘minor’ amendments. If the Committee believed that the amendments were minor then it could recommend adoption to the Executive Member; if the Committee believed the amendments to be anything other than minor than the recommendation for adoption should be forwarded to Cabinet. It was officers’ opinion that all of the amendments were minor and the Executive Member, Councillor Lovewell, was in attendance at the meeting to listen to the debate in anticipation of the Committee recommending that he would be the appropriate decision-maker.

The Licensing Manager stated that, for each of the four policies, it was proposed not to have a fixed review date, not least due to constantly changing local circumstances and legislative developments. Instead, if the Committee was in support of the proposal, it was intended to give the responsibility for review of the policies to the Executive Member, who could either determine that they remained fit for purpose, make minor amendments in line with the policy definitions of ‘minor’, or request a full public consultation, with onward recommendation to Cabinet (via the Licensing and Appeals Committee).

Street Trading Policy

The Licensing Manager presented a report of the Head of Housing and Public Protection summarising the responses to the public consultation regarding the Council’s proposed Street Trading Policy, and requesting the Committee to make a recommendation to the Executive Member for Housing and Environmental Health regarding the Policy. The following appendices were submitted with the report:

Appendix A – Schedule of consultation responses;

Appendix B – External consultation responses; and

Appendix C – Street Trading Policy (incorporating the proposed amendments).

The Licensing Manager advised that, as officers had attended each Area Committee to enable each Committee to provide a consultation response, he would not re-visit the specific definitions of street trading and the history of its adoption by the Council. It was clear from discussions at Area Committees, particularly Letchworth and Hitchin, that the proliferation of ‘A’ Boards and tables/chairs was of concern to Members. It was important to note that the regulation of these matters fell ordinarily to the Highways Authority under section VIIA of the Highways Act 1980 and was therefore outside of the Street Trading Policy. Historically, officers had been in dialogue with the Highways Authority about a way forward, and it was the intention to continue with these discussions. Any progress on this matter would be subject to a separate report outside of the Street Trading Policy.

Addressing the main amendments to the Policy, the Licensing Manager stated that Hertfordshire Highways was a statutory consultee for street trading and had recently updated their guidance to specify that, for highway safety reasons, only certain lay-by configurations would be appropriate for street trading. To assist potential applicants, the lay-by configuration had been included within the Policy as a requirement for obtaining a consent.

The Licensing Manager explained that, in order to ensure maximum flexibility, it was proposed to continue with no prohibited streets, the reason being that a prohibited street was prohibited at all times, even if the street was subject to a formal road closure. By continuing with a Schedule of streets where an application would be ordinarily refused due to the unsuitably of that street, the Council retained the opportunity of granting an application where that road had been temporarily closed.

The Licensing Manager commented that, with ever decreasing resources and increasing workloads, the Council needed to find smarter ways of working to simplify the application process for applicants who were often volunteers with no previous experience of regulatory requirements. For that reason, it was proposed to remove the requirement to submit a separate street trading application when using Council land, the reason being that the application for Council land consent could incorporate the street trading permission, therefore reducing the number of applications to be submitted and processed.

The Licensing Manager advised that, similarly, the Council currently issued quarterly consents, subject to payment of the quarterly fee, for annual consents, effectively multiplying the administrative process fourfold. It was therefore proposed to issue an annual consent, with the caveat that it was automatically revoked if each quarterly payment was not met, with an encouragement for applicants to complete direct debit mandates.

The Licensing Manager stated that there was often a cross-over between Council departments within regulatory services, and street trading was no exception. Whilst the Licensing Team could give permission for street trading to take place, colleagues in Environmental Health had separate responsibilities in respect of food businesses and health and safety issues. To avoid the conflict of permission being given by one arm of the Council, only for another arm to potentially prevent trading due to other statutory requirements, it was felt appropriate and sensible to encompass Environmental Health’s reasonable requirements as consent conditions, thus making the whole process more transparent for applicants.

The Licensing Manager referred to his opening remarks about the definition of ‘minor’, and advised that Paragraphs 8.17 – 8.20 of the report dealt with the definition of minor for the purposes of this Policy. To assist Members in their deliberations, all proposed amendments had been highlighted in red text.

The Licensing Manager and Head of Housing and Public Protection answered a number of Members’ questions regarding the proposed Policy.

In response to a Members’ request, the Licensing Manager undertook to design a common application form for Town Centre Organisations with annual consents to supply to community organisations to use when applying for Street Trading activities.

In relation to the ‘A’ Boards, tables and chairs issue, the Licensing Manager noted that Hitchin and Letchworth Garden City Members wished there to be firmer enforcement of The Highways Act regulations. However, he further noted that, following on from the Baldock Town centre regeneration scheme a few years ago, the use of ‘A’ Boards, tables and chairs in the street had been encouraged, and so Baldock Members would not wish to see a blanket enforcement policy employed across the whole District.