Agenda item

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 may set a precedent for future Temporary Events Notices.

·           They had further concerns about smoking in the doorway and potential damage to the Arcade.

The Licensing Officer confirmed that Members could take the issue of ‘need’ into consideration when determining the application as this is a relevant consideration under the licensing policy.

The Legal representative reported that they had not discussed any conditions that could be applied with their clients. They confirmed that the Arcade was closed to the public from 18:30 onwards, although there was a team of 60 people on site until 11pm cleaning up and restocking.

In his final right of reply, the applicant explained that:

·           They did have a kitchenette inside but this was located in the VIP area and they wanted to cater for all customers;

·           They already had extensive cleaning processes in place;

·           He had no problem with putting a  barrier up to prevent people from damaging the Arcade;

·           They attracted a number of VIP’s to the venue which they felt showed the kind of establishment they were;

·           He reiterated that it would not set a precedent because if the development of the Arcade were to happen it may not be viable;

In their debate, Members felt that whether there was a need for it was irrelevant and Aqua Vitae was an integral part of the night time economy. They felt the only reasonable objection was on the grounds of damage or harm to the Arcade happening but they couldn’t see that happening and felt satisfied that the door staff were equipped to deal with any issues. Members felt that a couple of conditions should be applied regarding cleaning and access to the arcade entrance. The Chair reasoned that taking in to account the individual merits of the application and the fact it was a special one off event, which the policy allows for, they felt it would be acceptable to deviate from the policy and grant the application on this occasion.

The Members proceeded to vote on whether to apply conditions in relation to additional cleansing, provision for litter disposal arrangements and measures to keep customers away from the entrance of the Regent Arcade.

Upon a vote it was unanimously for.

They then voted on section 1.5.1 to approve, subject to the conditions above, the application for the 16^th-17^th November because Members are satisfied that the location is suitable for the proposed trading.

Upon a vote it was unanimously for.

Resolved That

The application be approved for the 16^th-17^th November because Members are satisfied that the location is suitable for the proposed trading.