Connect to us on social media and join in the conversation
Agenda item
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 - Application for Street Trading Consent.
Minutes:
The Acting Chair welcomed all those in attendance and introductions were
made.
Mr Lee Morgan (Licensing Manager) referred to the apology for absence
received from the Principal Engineer and explained that arrangements had been
made for a colleague from the Highways Team (Rachel Hurn) to attend in his
place, as Highways were the key consultee in response to the application. He requested that a short adjournment be
granted to 10.30 a.m. to allow Ms Hurn sufficient time to arrive for the
meeting.
All parties were in agreement with the request and the meeting adjourned
at 10.05 a.m.
The meeting reconvened at 10.30 a.m. and Ms Hurn (Assistant
Engineer) was introduced to Members.
The Legal Advisor to the Sub Committee outlined the procedure for the meeting, including
the order of representations and the opportunities for all parties to ask
questions.
Mr
Lee Morgan (Licensing Manager) presented the report and outlined the
application submitted by Miss Anneke Alosery for the grant of a Street Trading
consent for a catering trailer located at the Old Telephone Exchange, Bridge
Street, Abercarn, NP11 4SE, between the hours of 7am to 7pm for the provision
of hot food, hot beverages and soft drinks.
The Sub Committee were referred to the
representations received from Highways as an appropriate body, who had
expressed concerns around public safety due to the lack of parking provision in
the vicinity of the site and the potential for unlawful parking and traffic
obstruction in the area. Members noted
the aerial and street view of the premises as set out in the meeting papers,
with colour copies tabled at the meeting.
No other adverse comments were received from other
appropriate bodies during the 14 day period; however Environmental Health were
unable to make observations on the application as there was no catering unit to
inspect at the time of application.
The Sub Committee were referred to the information
supplied by Miss Alosery in support of the application as set out in the
meeting papers. As part of her appeal,
the applicant had supplied a short video file showing traffic movement and
parked vehicles in the vicinity of the traffic lights at Bridge Street, which
was then played to the Sub Committee by the Licensing Manager.
Members were referred to the Council’s Street
Trading Policy as set out in the agenda papers, and in particular paragraph
15.2 (c) which states that “the location
of the proposed street trading activity should not present a substantial risk
to the public in terms of road safety, obstruction and fire hazard”.
Attention was drawn to the determination process as
set out in the Street Trading Policy and to the way in which the Sub Committee
would deal with the application. Members
were directed to the recommendation set out in the Licensing Manager’s report,
which recommended the refusal of the application for the Street Trading
consent, following the concerns raised in respect of public safety. However, the Sub Committee were reminded that
this was purely a recommendation and that they should take into account all the
information before them when making their decision.
It was also noted that that determination of the
matter rests with the Taxi and General Sub Committee and that there are no
further rights of appeal.
All
parties present were afforded the opportunity to ask questions of the Licensing
Manager. In response to a Member’s
query, the applicant confirmed that the entrance on the other side of the road leads
to the yard for a builders merchant, and that the pavement also runs along that
side of the road (and not the side of the road next to the premises).
A Member asked if Licensing could provide a
definition or examples of “substantial risk”. The Licensing Manager explained
that the only concerns received had been from Highways regarding the potential
impact on public safety if the application were to be granted, but that there
was nothing in the policy to define “substantial risk”. The Sub Committee sought further information
on how applications can be assessed as presenting a “substantial risk” and the
Licensing Manager explained that this is based on the level/types of concerns
received from consultees.
Representations
were then invited from Highways as the Appropriate Body.
Ms
Rachel Hurn (Assistant Engineer) referred to the representation from her
colleague (Dean Smith) as set out in the meeting papers and explained that she
fully agreed with his assessment of the situation. Members were advised that there is no parking
at the site and that it is located within the confines of a traffic light
control junction, so is likely to create parking issues. She explained that the Council already
receive complaints about problem parking from a nearby premises and that
granting the application would most likely exacerbate the existing
situation. She also explained that the
traffic lights are motion controlled and so this may cause the signalling
system to become more irregular and create traffic build-ups if extra vehicle
movement is detected in the area.
All
parties were afforded the opportunity to ask questions, and in a response to a
query on how the traffic lights detect car movement, Ms Hurn explained that
induction loops are built into the road which activate when they sense a
vehicle and send a signal to the lights.
If vehicles are parked in the loop area for an extended length of time,
this will cut out the signal and the lights will run on fixed time, meaning
that they become less efficient and could lead to a build up of traffic. In addition, a parked vehicle outside the
proposed street trading location could prevent the free-flow of traffic and
cause obstruction, particularly as it is also on a bus route. Ms Hurn also confirmed that the traffic
lights are on a 3-way junction that was installed several years due to a new
housing development in the area and the need to improve visibility for traffic
emerging from a blind corner.
Ms Hurn was asked how Highways define substantial
risk, and she explained that street trading applications are assessed by a
suitably qualified member of staff. In
this particular instance, the risk would be on the basis that there could be a
certain volume of customers arriving by car and parking up to collect their
food.
Representations were then invited from the applicant, Miss Anneke
Alosery.
Miss
Alosery addressed the Sub Committee and was supported in her representations by
the site landlord, Mr Imrhan Hussain.
Miss Alosery replayed the video clip shown earlier
to the Sub Committee and explained that there would be nowhere for customers to
park outside the site in any event, particularly given the traffic queuing up
from the lights which would block the entrance to the premises. Additionally, there is a lamppost just off
the entrance which would impede any attempts to park at the site.
The applicant explained that the sole intention of
her catering unit is to attract customers on foot from neighbouring businesses
and factories, as there are no other local facilities providing hot or cold
food in the area.
Miss Alosery and Mr Hussain referred to a
prevalence of parking problems and traffic issues already in existence along
Bridge Street. By way of a Powerpoint
presentation, the applicant presented a diary log of traffic movement along
Bridge Street to illustrate these problems.
This log included photographs of the Bridge Street area taken across 5
days selected at random and at various times of day, and highlighted numerous
vehicle obstructions, hazards and risks in the area, together with damage
caused to grass verges near the highway as a result of staff parking at
neighbouring businesses. Particular
reference was made to pavement parking attributed to one business, and
obstructive parking on the highway next to another local trader caused by
visitors and trade deliveries to the premises.
Miss Alosery suggested that many of the issues
referenced by Highways are being caused by existing businesses in the area, and
explained that she was willing to put up signage (as illustrated in the report)
to discourage similar inappropriate parking around her business. It was added that as many surrounding
businesses have their own car parks, these staff would not need to travel to
Miss Alosery’s catering unit by car. Mr
Hussain also highlighted the instances of pavement parking and illegal parking
and stated that although there are parking enforcement officers who patrol the
area, they are not tackling the established businesses who are causing the
parking problems.
Mr Hussain explained that as site landlord, he
would expect the no parking rule to be enforced, that the signage proposed by
Miss Alosery will act as a deterrent, together with the use of CCTV, and that
customers will come to understand that they are only able to access the site on
foot.
In conclusion, Mr Hussain read out a summary of the
observations set out in the Powerpoint presentation. He stated that the Highways Principal
Engineer had not taken into consideration the on-going and current parking
obstruction, various illegal parking, hazards around existing trading sites,
pavement parking by local businesses and the other issues highlighted in the
representation from the applicant. He
asked that Highways reconsider their stance and take into account the written
representations of the applicant, which included over 20 bullet points to
correct the concerns around parking obstructions and current serious
hazards. The Sub Committee were asked to
note that Highways were the only Appropriate Body objecting to the application
and that their reasons for concern were already in existence through other
traders. It was also reiterated that the
applicant would not tolerate parking outside the premises.
All parties were afforded the opportunity to ask
questions. In response to queries from
the Sub Committee on how the business would be advertised, Miss Alosery
explained that she had already canvassed local businesses who agreed with the
need for a food takeaway service in the area.
It was explained that Miss Alosery would be delivering flyers to
surrounding businesses to advertise her catering service but that she was not
intending to advertise more widely, either near to the neighbouring bypass or
through social media. Miss Alosery
stated that she was willing to amend the name of her catering unit to “The
Great Foodini Walk In & Go” to reflect the nature of the business, and
explained that she would be offering a call and collect service, but would not
tolerate illegal parking in any form.
The Licensing Manager asked why Miss Alosery had
applied for a Street Trading Consent in that particular area and if amenities
such as electric and water would be supplied.
Miss Alosery explained that she had chosen the site as it is gated and
would provide a secure location for the static trailer. Mr Hussain added that water and electrics
would be supplied to the trailer and there would be no need for a generator.
The Licensing Manager asked if there was any
particular reason why the trailer could not be located elsewhere or if Miss
Alosery had approached neighbouring businesses to operate the unit from their
car park. Miss Alosery confirmed that
she hadn’t done so but that this could be an option.
A Member referred to the no parking notices
proposed by Miss Alosery and asked how she intended to deal with any instances
of unauthorised parking. Miss Alosery
explained that in these cases, she would go out and tackle the problem directly
with the vehicle driver. The Legal
Advisor to the Sub Committee suggested that there might be opportunity for cars
to slip in and park up if the entrance is clear, and Miss Alosery stated that
hopefully the cars would drive off elsewhere once they see the signage.
Ms Hurn asked about arrangements for deliveries to
the catering unit. Miss Alosery
explained that bollards would be in place in the day but that access would be
made available for delivery drivers. Ms
Hurn asked the Sub Committee to note that no pop-up signage is permitted on the
highway as it is classed as an illegal obstruction. However, she confirmed that parking signage on
fencing would be acceptable.
Ms Hurn referred to the parking issues highlighted
by Miss Alosery and acknowledged the extent of illegal parking across the
county borough. However, she explained
that there were concerns that the particular siting of the trailer at the Old
Telephone Exchange could lead to safety issues and exacerbate existing traffic
problems.
All parties were then afforded the opportunity to
sum up before the Taxi and General Sub Committee retired to make its decision.
The Licensing Manager highlighted the report
recommendation and rationale and referred the Sub Committee to the
considerations set out in the report requiring determination.
Ms Hurn reiterated her view that the granting of
the application would place additional strain on existing traffic and parking
problems in the area, due to the nature of the business.
Mr Hussain refuted the view of Highways that the
granting of the Street Trading Consent would add to the problems in the
area. He stated that there was a need
for the Council to address existing issues, and there would be no impact on
public safety as there is no need for pedestrians to walk on the left-hand side
of the road.
The Sub Committee retired at 11.46 a.m. to make its
decision and reconvened at 12.34 p.m.
Following consideration of the application for a
Street Trading consent for a catering trailer located at The Old Telephone
Exchange, Bridge Street, Abercarn, and having regard to the Licensing Manager’s
report and all the representations made, the Taxi and General Sub Committee, by
a majority decision of 2-1, RESOLVED that the application be refused.
In making their decision, the majority of the Sub
Committee were satisfied that there would be a substantial risk to the public
via obstruction of the highway if the site were approved. It was accepted by all parties that the area
in which the site is located suffers from poor parking practices of vehicle
operators using the highway.
Whilst the Sub Committee accepted that the
applicant’s intention would be to seek walking trade from surrounding
businesses, the majority determined that the frequency of customers driving to
and parking to use the food van would largely be outside of the applicant’s
control. The majority accepted that the
“run in run out” nature of the intended catering business would make it more
probable that customers would park inappropriately.
The Sub Committee considered the particular traffic
conditions at the site and took into account the fact that the highway is used
regularly by public buses and comprises a 3-junction roadway controlled by
traffic lights to regulate a narrow stretch of highway under a railway bridge
that comprises a blind corner.
The majority of the Committee were of the view that
even sporadic or infrequent inappropriate parking of customers of the van had
significant potential to interfere with the flow of traffic that is currently
highly regulated due to the inherent difficulties with such section of
highway. It was noted however that the
Committee Member against refusal was not satisfied that the influx from this
business would pose substantial risk.
The applicant was reminded that there is no further
right of appeal and that written confirmation of the decision would be sent out
following the meeting.
Supporting documents: