Connect to us on social media and join in the conversation
Agenda item
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 - Application For Street Trading Consent - CC Tasties, 2 Glan Y Avon Lane, Pengam.
Minutes:
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.
Mrs
Kathryn Hopkins (Senior Licensing Officer) presented the report and outlined
the application submitted by Ms Cara Gregory (trading as CC Tasties)
for the grant of a Street Trading Consent for a catering trailer located at 2 Glan y Avon Lane, Fleur De Lis, Pengam,
NP12 3WA.
The
Officer asked the Members to note a typographical error in the report, with the
actual trading hours the applicant had sought consent for being Monday to
Sunday between 07:30 to 16:00. Members
were also advised that the applicant had submitted photographs in support of
the application earlier that morning, which detailed the proposed location for
the street trading catering trailer.
These photographs had been emailed to Members and objectors, with the
applicant present to answer any questions on these later in the meeting.
During the 14-day consultation period,
representations were received from Caerphilly County Boroughs Highways
Department in its capacity as an appropriate body, who objected to the
application on the basis of concerns regarding public safety in relation to obstructive parking access for
emergency vehicles and historic problems from unlawful parking within the area. Representations
were also received from two local businesses in objection to the application, who
raised concerns regarding
potential detriment to the local community if the application were to be granted. Full
details of the representations were appended to the Officer’s report. Members were also referred to photographs of the proposed trading location
as appended to the report. 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 referred to the recommendation set out in the Licensing Manager’s report,
which recommended the refusal of the application, following concerns raised in respect of the promotion of public
safety, protection of local amenity and prevention of public nuisance. Members were reminded that this was only a
recommendation, and in reaching their decision they should take into account
Paragraph 18.5 of the Council’s Street Trading Policy as listed in Section 5.11
of the report. It was also noted that
there were no further comments received from other consultees other than those
mentioned in the report.
All parties present were afforded the opportunity
to ask questions of the Senior Licensing Officer and none were received.
Representations were then invited from Highways as
the Appropriate Body. Mr Dean Smith (CCBC
Principal Engineer, Traffic Management) referred to his representation and
shared a street view of Glan y Avon Lane for ease of
reference. He stated there had been a
longstanding concern with obstructive car parking on the lane in contravention
of the double yellow lines at the location.
These complaints were in relation to the former business owner (a car
repair shop) that operated from this site.
It was noted that the lane is the sole means of access to the local
health centre, a nursing home and a number of residential and businesses
properties. Previously there have been a
number of complaints regarding obstructive parking that has impeded access for
ambulances attending the nursing home and health centre, and Mr Smith believed
that there was an increased likelihood of the street trading customers
inappropriately using the health centre car park if the application were be
granted.
Members’
attention was drawn to a serious vehicle collision involving a pedestrian in
2019 on Ford Road which was highlighted on the street view map directly
adjacent to Glan Y Avon Lane. The Principal Engineer therefore advised the
Members that the reason for the Highways objection to this application was due
to the lack of parking in the immediate area to the proposed business which
could cause a public safety issue.
All parties present were afforded the opportunity
to ask questions of the Principal Engineer.
Mr Todd Rawson
(Legal Advisor to the Sub Committee) sought clarification on whether the Principal
Engineer had received the photographs submitted by the applicant on the day of
the meeting circulated by the Licensing Manager to all parties, which outlined
the street trading location and the proposed additional parking spaces that
would be made available. Mr Smith
confirmed he had received and considered the photographs but gave a detailed
overview of his concerns around the lack of parking provision, combined with
the potential for a high volume of vehicles in the lane and the likelihood of
reverse driving manoeuvres in close proximity to a main junction. Mr Smith maintained that he could not support
the application, as in his opinion, even with the additional spaces there was
still not adequate parking for the nature of the intended business type.
In response to a
Member’s queries, Mr Smith explained that he was unable to confirm whether the
parking arrangements at the site had contributed to the collision in 2019, and
he also provided clarification on civil parking enforcement and the number of
penalty notices issued around the site (10 since 2020)
Representations were then invited from the two
local businesses who had submitted representations in objection to the
application.
Mr T.
Davies (representing a local business in the area) advised Members he had the
same concerns as the Highways Department.
He was concerned that the proposed street trading location would
increase an already problematic parking situation within the village. He could not see the benefit to having yet
another fast-food premises as there were already 8 such establishments located
with Cefn Fforest village
within close proximity to each other. He
believed the safety concerns outweighed the need for this type of business.
There were no
questions for Mr Davies and Mr Maskell (also
representing a local business) was invited to make his representation. Mr Maskell
explained that he shared many of the same concerns already raised relating to
the increase in traffic and parking issues if the application were to be granted
There were no questions for Mr Maskell
and the applicant (Ms Cara Gregory) was then invited to make her
representations.
Ms
Gregory advised the Sub Committee that with regards to the concerns around the
parking issue, she intended to remove a large fence and create a further six
parking spaces in the area proposed to site the catering trailer. She was also willing to put up signs to ask
customers not to park on the yellow lines and park behind the Fleur De Lis
Institute if there were no parking spaces available outside the trailer. She also added that other businesses in the
area have customer parking behind their premises, but this is rarely used. Ms
Gregory stated there has always been an issue with parking in the area, but
that she would be the only business providing her customers with six car
parking spaces.
All
parties present were afforded the opportunity to ask questions of the
applicant.
Mr Davies advised
the Members that the car park behind the Fleur De Lis Institute is never used
by customers. He queried how Ms Gregory
would be able to encourage customers to use this car park when other local
businesses had been unsuccessful in doing so.
Ms Gregory
explained she would add signage directing customers where to park and also ask
her customers to move if they were parked inappropriately. Mr Davies reiterated
his concerns that existing local businesses are already unable to encourage
customers to park around the rear of premises and he remained unconvinced that
Ms Gregory would be able to control where customers choose to park.
Mr Lee Morgan
(Licensing Manager) asked Ms Gregory why she wished to use this particular
location for a street trading consent.
Ms Gregory explained she and her partner had previously run the car
repair business from this site, and therefore it was in her best interests
financially to set up the catering trailer in this location.
Mr
Morgan referred to the street view of the proposed location shared earlier in
the meeting along with the photographs submitted by the applicant, and asked Ms
Gregory if she accepted that the proposed location was within 30meters of a
junction, which is contrary to the Council’s Street Trading Policy. Ms Gregory stated there were other businesses
just as close to the junction as her proposed business. Mr Morgan advised all parties that as street
trading is semi-permanent in nature then additional requirements are needed for
a business of this type.
Mr
Morgan advised Ms Gregory that only the photographs she had submitted that day
had been circulated to all interested parties and not her written submission
which had accompanied the photographs.
Therefore, he encouraged Ms Gregory to use the time to elaborate on
anything further she wished to say in support of her application.
Ms Gregory
reiterated her earlier representations, advising Members she would add extra
car parking spaces and add signage on her property to ask customers to park
appropriately and if required to move to the car park behind the Institute.
Mr Maskell sought clarification on how
electricity and water would be provided to the catering trailer. Ms Gregory explained that this would be
supplied from the existing garage and that she had the appropriate permissions
in place to extend these utilities from the garage to catering trailer.
Mr Smith referred
to the proposal by Ms Gregory to add signage around customer parking and
highlighted that the Highways Department would not permit any signage being
erected on a public highway, as only approved traffic signs are permitted. He was concerned that customers would have
already parked and caused a possible obstruction before Ms Gregory could advise
them where they are required to park. He
also did not believe that customers would park any distance away in his
experience with the nature of the business proposed. Ms Gregory responded to these concerns and
reiterated that she would be providing more parking for her business than any other
business on the High Street, and also
that she would make every attempt to encourage customers to park in
designated parking spaces.
In response to a
Member’s query, Mr Lee Morgan explained that in the case of Street Trading
applications, only certain agencies (such as the Police and Highways) are
designated as Appropriate Bodies and so other agencies such as the Fire Service
and Ambulance Service would not be consultees.
He added that it is also a matter for each Appropriate Body on whether
they wish to comment or not on a specific application.
All parties were afforded the opportunity to sum up before the Taxi and
General Sub Committee retired to make its decision.
The Senior Licensing Officer asked the Sub
Committee to refer to the Council’s Street Trading Policy and all the
information they had heard today when making their decision.
The Principal Engineer advised Members that having
heard the representations from the applicant and their intention to create
additional parking, this would still not alleviate the existing or potential
additional parking issues and combined with the close proximity of the proposed
location to the neighbouring junction, the Highways Department remained unable
to support the application.
Both local business representatives summed up and
reiterated the concerns of the Highways Department with regards to insufficient
parking around the proposed street trading location.
The applicant reiterated to Members that she did
not wish to cause parking issues and would do her best to alleviate any
problems. She also stated that she
wished to work closely with other local traders by using them as possible
suppliers for her catering business and would therefore increase business in
the area.
The
Sub Committee retired at 11.15 a.m. to make its decision and reconvened at
11.43 a.m.
Following
consideration of the application for the grant of a Street Trading Consent for
a catering trailer located at 2 Glan Y Avon Lane,
Fleur De Lis, Pengam NP12 3WA, and having regard for
the Licensing Manager’s report and all the representations made, the Taxi and
General Sub Committee unanimously
RESOLVED
that for the reasons set out at the meeting, the application for the Street
Trading Consent be REFUSED.
In
making their decision, the Sub Committee disregarded the information relating
to the potential adverse economic impact on existing high street food
businesses, which is not a relevant consideration under the Council’s Street
Trading Policy;
The Sub Committee
gave significant weight to the relevant site being well within 50 metres from a
highway junction and 250 metres from the boundary of a nursing home. The Street Trading Policy indicates that
sites located within such parameters are not normally granted a licence. In this instance, the Sub Committee formed
the view that there was nothing exceptional within the application that would
lead them to disregard the normal policy position.
The Sub Committee
accepted the Applicant’s evidence about installing potentially 6 car parking
areas on of the land but formed the view that this would not be adequate to
allay its concerns in regard to obstruction of the highway and normal flow of
traffic. The Sub Committee gave significant
weight to the evidence provided by Highways and the reversal manoeuvres by
vehicles in using such on-site car parking places and the proximity to the
highway junction, and it was sufficiently clear that this had potential to
significantly affect the flow of traffic.
The Sub Committee
took into account the particular problems of the locality in terms of the
obstruction of ambulances and the number of Civil Parking Notices issued since
April 2019 in the immediate area. When viewed together the Sub Committee
reached the decision that this site is not appropriate for a grant of the
consent, given the effect on public safety that would arise from the issues
raised by Highways.
The applicant was
reminded that there is no right
of appeal of the Sub Committee’s decision.
The
Chair thanked all parties for their attendance and the meeting closed at 11.47 a.m.
Supporting documents:
- Report, item 3. PDF 241 KB
- Appendix 1, item 3. PDF 147 KB
- Appendix 2, item 3. PDF 18 KB
- Appendix 3, item 3. PDF 172 KB
- Appendix 4, item 3. PDF 270 KB
- Appendix 5, item 3. PDF 1 MB