Agenda item

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 with these limits;

·           He showed the sub-committee a petition that had received 3000 signatures in support of his application.

 

Mr Morris offered the following responses to Members questions:

 

·           He had never been made aware of any complaints received, other than when he received the phone call from the Council;

·           He had never had any issues with people being unable to manoeuvre around the stall;

·           The van he used was kept at a warehouse in Tewkesbury Road, and this was where the flowers were delivered to, he explained that during the day the van was used to make deliveries;

·           Where possible, they made every attempt to ensure the van was out of the way of buses when they were loading and unloading;

·           He used heavy weights and poles to secure the stall and these were discretely hidden away, he had tried to get permanent anchors in the paving but this had not been possible;

·           He had had a discussion with Trapeze who were unhappy with the location of the stall several years ago but had not been approached directly since this incident 4-5 years ago;

·           In response to complaints about the buses, he advised that this was part and parcel of being located in a Regency Town.

·           Mr Morris explained that when some refurbishment had been taken place he had temporarily relocated to the prom and it had had a detrimental effect on his profits.

 

Councillor Chris Mason was then invited to speak in support of Mr Morris’s application;

 

·           He firstly wished to confirm that he had no interest in the Flower Man business but was acting in his capacity as a ward Councillor;

·           He confirmed that he had raised this issue locally and had only received positive comments from members of the public about the stall;

·           He felt that a mix of independent and large retailers was essential to Cheltenham’s retail offering and what drew people to the area;

·           He felt that it was a neat and colourful stall which was managed efficiently and actually drew people to the area, not act as a deterrent or a public nuisance;

·           He failed to see how the stall would hamper future development to the Regent Arcade;

·           He accepted that the licence had been breached on a handful of occasions but reasoned that these were minimal and had been rectified quickly by Mr Morris;

·           He noted that the online petition had received 2487 responses in addition to the 3000 hand written signatures.

 

Councillor Klara Sudbury also wished to speak in support of the application. She explained that:

 

·           She had always received a friendly and knowledgeable service from Mr Morris and his employees;

·           She reiterated Councillor Mason’s point that the area had a complete mix of small independent and large retailers as well as numerous cafes and restaurants and also felt this drew people to the area:

·           The location was perfect for the stall as customers could purchase flowers on their way home before they get on the bus;

·           The stall compliments nearby businesses such as the jewellers and chocolate shops as you could buy something for everyone along that stretch;

·           She felt the stall added a colourful offering to the street scene and did not block the view to the Arcade which could clearly be seen through the back of the stall;

·           She noted that the transport trials, the recent weather, Brexit  and an  increase in online shopping could all have had a potential effect on retailers and did not think Mr Morris’s stall could be blamed for struggling businesses;

·           She felt that the Council had a duty to support small traders.

 

Alex Rose the manager of Beards Jewellers, objecting to the application was invited to speak, he advised that:

 

·           They were a small family run business which had been in operation for 200 years and they employed local people;

·           Whilst they were delighted that the Flower Man had a presence in the town they did not feel that the location was appropriate and were asking that the licence be looked at in a different light;

·           He accepted that in the majority of cases the foot flow was probably not hindered by the stall, however, when the licence was breached there were issues for wheelchairs etc. to get past;

·           He noted that in the council’s street trading policy, when considering applications for the grant or renewal of a consent the committee must consider whether the street trading activity represents a risk to the public from the point of view of obstruction, which he felt it did;

·           He explained that shops in this area already paid high rates in an exceedingly difficult retail climate;

·           They were asking for a minimal change of the location so that it did not impact upon local retailers

·           Retailers had gone through a lot of grief as a result of the ordeal and had been portrayed badly in the media;

·           He felt that the council were in breach of their street trading policy as they had a duty to sustain established shopkeepers in the town;

·           He advised that whilst the relocation of the stall might not have a significant impact on their profit or loss they would not know unless it was trialled;

·           He summarised that the key issues they had were with the obstruction to the highway and the sustainability of local businesses.

 

Mr Rose offered the following responses to Members questions:

 

·           They had not changed their position with regards to the stall, but they had not been consulted when the previous licence had been issued and felt that their concerns had been ignored by the committee. The Licensing Officer advised that all consultation now happened through the BID, although it was understood that the BID were not in operation when the previous application had been made;

·           They felt that the proposed development to the Regent Arcade would be a positive addition to the town and felt the stall could hinder this;

·           He believed they were well informed as they had spoken with a number of local businesses, he did, however, accept that some businesses supported Mr Morris.

 

Before Members entered into debate, the Chair wished to remind the sub-committee that it was not a popularity competition, any decisions must be made on a sound legal basis and any considerations must be material.

 

In the debate that followed the Members noted the following if Morris were to relocate it could have an effect on other businesses. Most Members felt that they would be more concerned if Mr Morris were repeatedly breaching his licence, however, they felt satisfied  that he dealt with any complaints promptly. Similarly, the previous complaints had not been deemed serious enough to be brought before the licensing committee. One Member noted that there was a lot of competition for jewellers in the town and felt that the Flower Man may actually encourage people to go into Beards, not act as a deterrent. They agreed that the stall enhanced the area rather than be detrimental to it. They reasoned that the main issues were with accessibility but felt satisfied that there was enough space either side for pedestrians to get past. They also needed to take into account the fact that the area was approved for selling flowers in the street trading policy. The Chair also advised that the street trading policy was up for review and that all local businesses would be encouraged to take part in the consultation process.

 

However, one Member felt that as part of the Council’s place strategy they had a duty to grow the retail sector and felt that psychology the stall did act as a barrier to the Regent Arcade. They also felt that the development of Regent Arcade was highly significant and this could hinder that. The Member formally proposed that the licence be extended for 2-3 months until an alternative location is found. However, the advice from the legal and licensing officers was  that if Members were not satisfied with the location they should refuse the application as they had already tried to establish an alternative location.

 

The Members proceeded to vote on section 1.5.1 of the report to approve the application.

 

Upon a vote it was 4 in favour and 1 against.

 

Resolved That:

 

The application be approved because Members are satisfied that the location is suitable for the proposed trading.