Agenda and minutes

Venue: Pittville Room - Municipal Offices

Contact: Sophie McGough, Democracy Officer 

No. Item




There were no apologies.




There were no declarations of interest.



To approve the minutes of the licensing sub committee meeting held on 3rd April 2019.


Members noted that the minutes from the meeting on 3rd April 2019 had comments  attributed to Members which was not standard practice with committee minutes. A grammatical error was also noted. The Democracy Officer agreed to amend the minutes as discussed.


Subject to the agreed changes the minutes of the last meeting on 3rd April 2019 were approved and signed as a correct record.


Review of Street Trading Consent pdf icon PDF 68 KB

Miss Melissa Jane McDonnell



Mr Wayne Parker was in attendance as a representative for the applicant, Miss McDonnell.


The Licensing Team Leader introduced the report, he explained that the application was for the review of a street trading consent in respect of Miss Melissa Jane McDonnell who was trading from Bence's car park on Sherborne Place.


He confirmed that the consent was issued on 05.09.2018 and Miss McDonnell had an arrangement with the council to pay her consent fee on a monthly basis.  However, Miss McDonnell had failed to pay her consent fee on a number of occasions resulting in her consent being suspended and requiring officer resource to chase payments. He highlighted that it is a condition of the consent that the monthly fee must be paid on time following receipt of the monthly invoice.  In light of the repeated failure by the consent holder to do so, officers had referred the consent to the "Miscellaneous" sub-committee for a review.


He advised the committee that their options were not limited to those outlined at section 1.4.1 of the report.


Following a question from Members he confirmed that the fees for November, December and January had been paid in February and that the fees for March and April had been paid on the 24th April. He advised that the most recent invoice for May was currently 3 days overdue.

Mr Wayne Parker explained that he regularly worked on the van and hoped to take over the business although he had experienced a number of family issues recently which had prevented him from doing so. He explained that they were a small business and trade had been slow recently due to an increase in healthy eating and also the business’ location which was situated on a one way street and tucked behind a building. He explained that the business had experienced a number of issues recently that had resulted in cash flow problems as their van had been broken in to and gas bottles stolen and they had been let down by their delivery driver. He explained that since they had started doing deliveries trade had picked up and they wouldn’t be able to operate without it. He questioned whether the rates could be decreased as they also had to pay a percentage to Bence’s as it was their car park.

The Chair explained that it was not at the Committee’s discretion to amend the fee as this was set in law by the Council each year.

In response to Members questions, Mr Parker explained that:

·         From a business point of view if they couldn’t do deliveries he would have to sell the van and close the business. However, he wished to keep the business in operation because they had an agreement with Bence’s.

·         He highlighted that the issues would be rectified once they had a delivery driver and they had been exploring the option of paying extra to Just Eat so that they could use their delivery drivers. 

·         He advised that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.


Application for permission to place an object on the Highway - 'A' Board pdf icon PDF 79 KB

Cheltenham Nails Ltd, 2A Regent Street, Cheltenham

Additional documents:


The applicant was not present, however, the committee agreed to proceed and determine the application in her absence given she had confirmed that she was aware of the hearing and had stated to officers that she would be in attendance.


The Licensing Team Leader introduced the report, he explained that Miss My Dung Pham based at Cheltenham Nails Ltd, 2A Regent Street, Cheltenham had made an application to place an advertising board outside the address. He advised that the proposed advertising board was 860mm (h) x 575mm (w) and would be displayed at the times as outlined at paragraph 1.2 of the officers report.


He highlighted that the size of the advertising board did not comply with the standard sizes recommended in the Council’s policy in that the width exceeds the policy stipulation. He advised that the width of the footpath available is in excess of 3 meters. He also confirmed that  A boards were not permitted on premises with a shopfront at street level. He confirmed that no objections had been received.


He noted that as per the Council’s policy, all new applications for ‘A’ boards/display stands are considered by the Licensing Committee and that the Committee must determine the application with a view to promoting the Council’s adopted policy. The officer recommendation is that this application be refused.


Members noted that an A board was already being displayed outside of the premises. The Licensing Team Leader highlighted that the A board displayed was different to what had been applied for. He also confirmed that the nearby premises displaying A boards were subject to enforcement action, although this was not a material consideration to this application.


In the debate Members made the following comments:

·         This area was often congested with pedestrians and they saw no real need for the board given the premises location. They acknowledged that the policy states A boards are not permitted on premises with street frontage.

  • One Member had concerns about enforcement of A boards across the town and requested that at next month’s full licensing committee they look at the councils A board enforcement policy.
  • They felt the A board was a hazard for those who were visually impaired. 


Vote on section 1.7.1 of the report to approve the application because Members are satisfied that the location is suitable notwithstanding the policy requirements


0 in favour

5 against



The application be refused because it does not comply with the provision of the Street Scene policy.



Review of Sexual Entertainment Venue Licensing Policy pdf icon PDF 57 KB


Report of the Licensing Team Leader


The Licensing Team Leader introduced the report, he explained that the Council’s Sexual Entertainment Venue (SEV) policy statement was due to be reviewed and that sexual entertainment falls within the remit of the Miscellaneous Licensing Sub-committee. As such, it was within the remit of this committee to take a lead on the review of this policy.


He noted that in order to facilitate the review, and taking into account the sensitivities around the licensing of sexual entertainment venues, the committee had recommended that the review of the policy also include the ability for key stakeholders to provide an insight and view on the licensing and regulation of sexual entertainment in the town. The reports therefore sought endorsement from the Miscellaneous Licensing Sub-committee of this approach.


The Licensing Team Leader confirmed that the key stakeholders they intended to engage with included performers, operators, police and those who had expressed views against such venues in past. The review would also be subject to wider consultation. Following a query from Members, he confirmed that interested religious groups would be consulted as part of the wider consultation to be undertaken on the policy.

Members suggested that female Members of the licencing committee should also sit on the panel. The Chair and Licensing Team Leader confirmed that they intended to have as much diversity as possible on the panel.

The committee endorsed the approach as outlined in the officer’s report.     





The Chair informed the committee that One Legal had looked in to what powers exist for dealing with objects on the highway and had advised that the County Council as the highways authority could delegate powers to the borough so that they could remove objects form the highway. They reasoned that this needed further discussions and for a policy to be developed around this.