Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the last meeting held on 24^th April were signed as a correct record.

Mr Mark Morris (18/01656/STA)

The Licensing Officer introduced the report which had been circulated with the agenda. He explained that an application had been received for the renewal of a street trading consent from Mr Mark Morris to sell fresh cut flowers from a stall on the corner of Ormond Place and Promenade.  He reported that a number of objections have been received in relation to this application and these were outlined in the accompanying background papers. There had also been a petition signed by a number of objectors and an e-petition on the council’s website in support of Mr Morris’s application. He advised that a meeting had been held with Mr Morris to discuss alternative locations for his stall, however, after careful consideration, Mr Morris decided he wished to stay at the current location and for the application to come before the sub-committee.

The Licensing officer advised that the sub-committee could:

·           Approve the application because Members are satisfied that the location is suitable for the proposed trading, or

·           Refuse the application because it does not comply with the provision of the adopted Street Trading Licensing Policy or for any other reason.

He wished to emphasise that it was not the sub-committees job to decide on an alternative location for Mr Morris but to determine the application before them and also reiterated that they were not bound by the committee’s previous decisions.

In response to Members questions, the Licensing Officer advised that:

·           If the sub-committee were minded to refuse the application, they could suggest Mr Morris make a re-submission for an alternative location;

·           Over the years they had received a handful of complaints about the stall and these were largely around the stall exceeding its permitted footprint. A written warning had been issued to Mr Morris in 2016. They had, however, received no complaints from members of the public;

·           The application does comply with the provisions of the Council’s adopted Street Trading Licensing Policy;

·           The width of the site is  9 metres across and Mr Morris’s stall occupies 3 metres in the centre, allowing 3 metres either side for pedestrians to get by;

·           There had been several breaches of the licence in instances where the stall had exceeded its permitted size, however, these had been dealt with on a case by case basis and these breaches had caused no material harm;

·           The licence was due to be renewed in August 2018.

Mr Morris was then invited to speak in support of his application. He explained that:

·           He had been trading in this location for 11 years;

·           He employed local people and sourced the majority of his flower’s locally;

·           Even with the scaffolding that was currently erected directly next to the stall, there was no issues with pedestrians getting past;

·           With regards to the breach of the licence, he had received a call from the local authority about the complaint and subsequently ensured the stall was within the permitted 12-18sqm the next day. He  advised that he now measured the site to ensure it complied  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

AquaVitae 10 Ormond Place Cheltenham (18/01920/TCAX)

The Licensing Officer introduced the report which had been circulated with the agenda he explained that an application to place tables and chairs on the highway had been received from Mr Paul Stephens in respect of aqua vitae located at 10 Ormond place, Cheltenham.  He advised that the applicant wished to place 16 chairs and 8 tables on the highway during the day and 32 chairs and 10 tables during the evening/night. The day time layout would be from 08:30 – 18:30 and the evening layout from 18:30 – 03:00. He confirmed that a picture of the proposed structure was included at appendix a and a location plan at appendix b.

He informed the sub-committee that an objection to the application had been received and this was outlined in the background papers. Similarly, the licensing position and information in respect of the Highways Act 1980 which had been referenced in the objection were included at section 5 of the report.

He reminded Members that Members must be mindful of the Probity in licensing guide and in particular, must vote in the best interest of the Borough as a whole and not vote on the basis of local ward interests.  They must also be aware of section 5.8 of the report with regards to emergency exits.

He reminded the sub-committee that they could:

·           Grant the consent because the application is compatible with the current Street Scene Policy and the provisions of the Highways Act 1980, or

·           Refuse the consent because the application falls outside the provisions of the current Street Scene Policy.

Following questioning from Members, the Licensing Officer advised that the sub-committee had the option to permit either just the day or just the night-time operation.

In attendance was the applicant, Mr Paul Stephens, the legal advisor for Aqua Vitae Mr Philip Jones, Scott Lahive the Manager of the Regent Arcade who was objecting to the application and Nick Harding the solicitor representing Canada Life and the Regent Arcade.

The Applicant Mr Paul Stephens was then invited to speak in support of his application. He advised that:

·           He had purchased the premises 12 months ago with a silent business partner;

·           When purchased, Aqua Vitae did have a licence to place table and chairs outside the premises:

·           He reported that they had made an application for a day and night time set up and wished to emphasise that the night time arrangements would only be in place when the Arcade was closed, if it were open they would keep the day time set up;

·           The windbreaks were to be used as a means of controlling customers and ensuring they were safe whilst on the premises;

·           They attracted a more mature client base, from the age of 21 upwards;

·           Their aim was to make the venue more cosmopolitan so people would also be able to have food and drinks outside during the day;

·           The opticians immediately opposite Aqua Vitae did not have a problem with the application;

·           The windbreaks would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Mr Paul Stephens (18/02006/STA)

The Licensing Officer introduced the report, he explained that an application had been made from Mr Paul Stephens for a street trading consent to sell hot dogs, burgers, chicken wraps and chips from a Gazebo. A picture of the gazebo was included at page 35 of the report and the location of the proposed trading unit at page 33. He confirmed that the proposed trading location is not one permitted by the licensing policy.

He reminded the sub-committee that they could:

·           Approved the application because Members are satisfied that the location is suitable for the proposed trading, or

·           Refuse the application because it does not comply with the provision of the adopted Street Trading Licensing Policy or for any other reason.

The applicant, Mr Paul Stephens, was invited to speak in support of his application. He explained that they had made an application for 3 potential dates, however, the 20^th October was now irrelevant as they would not have time to publicise the event. He advised that the event would consist of music and the sale of food and drinks in the area outside Aqua Vitae. He explained they also provided food and drinks to the emergency services and street pastors as a gesture of good will. He confirmed that it was a temporary event and this would not be a recurring event. They had submitted a TEN for a similar event race week in March this year which the emergency services had all said was a positive event, he did, however, accept that at the event they had made an error by putting the bar in the entrance to the Arcade. This had, however, been rectified the following evening.

 Following Members questions he explained that; 

·           The serving end would be if you were looking out from Trapeze towards the wedding shop;

·           The only people who have access to the food and drink are in a cordoned zone which would be monitored by door staff;

·           The tables and chairs would all be removed from the site and the set up would be taken off site every evening;

·           Following concerns about the amount of litter which would accumulate after 8 hours, he advised that as a matter of course they have extra bins and an additional refuse bin behind the stage. They would also have between 52-58 staff each night during race week, 15 of whom would be glass collecting and emptying bins.

The objectors, Mr Scott Lahive the Manager of the Regent Arcade and Nick Harding the solicitor representing Canada Life and the Regent Arcade noted their key concerns as:

·           Their concerns regarding the 1980’s Highways Act still stood;

·           They queried the need for an operation of this nature given the existing provisions in the vicinity;

·           They feared for the potential nuisance it could cause from the overspill of customers out of the controlled area;

·           They confirmed that as the application was from 7pm the arcade would still be open at that time;

·           They were also concerned that it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.