Agenda item

Antique and Modern Fireplaces

Amelia Byres, Senior Licensing Officer introduced the report as circulated with the agenda.  Mr Martin Canning based at Antique and Modern Fireplaces, 41-43 Great Norwood Street, Cheltenham had made an application to place a straight-sided and straight-bottomed ‘A’ board at the junction of Great Norwood Street and Suffolk Road.  The ‘A’ board had previously been granted consent, however, the applicant had failed to renew this consent and a new application had been submitted as a result.  Members were advised to bear in mind that the current Policy on Measures to Control Street Scene Activities in Cheltenham covering Street Trading, Objects on the Highway and Charitable Collections had been approved on 1 April 2013.  The ‘A’ board had previously been granted consent under the old Policy  The new application does not comply with the current adopted Policy in a number of ways: the premises has shop-front at street level; the premises is not situated along a side alleyway and/or on private land which was not a public thoroughfare/right of way; the application is for a directional ‘A’ board more than 120 metres away from the premises which is contrary to condition (d) of the standard conditions attached to ‘A’ boards; and there was less than 1.8 metres of footway along the line of the board between the edge of the object and either the kerb or other highway boundary.  She reiterated that the ‘A’ board had previously been licensed, however, due to an error on the applicant’s part, it had not been renewed in time and therefore it had been brought to the Committee to determine whether the application should be granted in the conservation area where the premises was located.

A Member queried whether any similar applications had been received from other traders in the area during the time the ‘A’ board had been licenced.  The Senior Licensing Officer advised that no other applications had been received and no other ‘A’ boards located along Great Norwood Street had been granted consent.  A Member questioned whether the pavement where the ‘A’ board had been located was wider than usual and confirmation was provided that this was the case.  In response to a query as to whether any complaints had been made in relation to the ‘A’ board during the three years since it had last been granted a licence, the Senior Licensing Officer confirmed that there had been no complaints, however, there had been a number of objections from responsible authorities to the current application, as set out in the report circulated with the agenda.  She confirmed that her records dated back to 2009 at which time Mr Canning had gone through the same application process and consent had been granted by the Licensing Committee.

Mr Canning explained that the ‘A’ board had been in the same location since 1962 and all of the businesses which had previously used the premises had found that it was vital for their trade due to the shop being located 200 yards off the main highway.  When the ‘A’ board had been stolen in the past, trade had fallen to an unsustainable level.  When the licence had last been considered, the Committee had made an exception and had granted consent for the ‘A’ board.  He indicated that there had been no objections to the original application in 2009 and failure to renew the licence in time had been a complete oversight on his part.  When his mistake had come to light, he had immediately telephoned the Senior Licensing Officer to apologise and had completed the relevant form.  He could guarantee that, if the application was refused, the shop would be forced to close within 12 months.

Members were invited to ask questions of Mr Canning, during which the following points were raised:

·        A Member questioned why the ‘A’ board was so important to a fireplace business as this was not the sort of shop which people would come across and make an impulse purchase.  Mr Canning explained that Cheltenham was a big tourist town and the business did attract a lot of passing trade.  Without the ‘A’ board, people would not necessarily see the shop.  He reiterated that, when he had taken over the premises 13 years ago, he had been advised by the previous owners that the ‘A’ board had been vital to their trade and when the sign had been stolen there had been a negative impact on the business.

·        A Member queried whether the ‘A’ board could be moved further down the road, closer to Mr Canning’s shop.  He indicated that the ‘A’ board had historically been located at the junction to Great Norwood Street and Suffolk Road where the pavement was wider so it did not obstruct the highway.  Originally the sign had been fastened to a lamppost but he had moved it in response to a request from an officer when the licence had originally been granted.

·        A Member raised concern that, if the ‘A’ board was granted consent, other surrounding businesses might also submit applications for similar signs given the importance which Mr Canning attributed to his sign in terms of generating trade.  Whilst he accepted that this was a possibility, Mr Canning explained that traditionally this had not happened and the other businesses were not located 200 yards from the main footfall.  When the ‘A’ board had originally been granted consent it had been made very clear that this was an exceptional circumstance.

·        In response to a query as to where the business was advertised, Mr Canning indicated that he advertised in the Yellow Pages and was currently in the process of getting a website built.

In summing up, Mr Canning explained that he was a local man and his business employed one full-time and three part-time members of staff, with all restoration work carried out by local craftsmen.  If the ‘A’ board was not granted consent this would severely restrict trade and would lead to the business closing down.  The application had previously been granted consent and he appealed to Members to pass the application before them.

Members had the following recommendations to vote on:

1.    that the application be approved because Members are satisfied that

the ‘A’ board complies with the new policy in respect of objects placed

     on the highway; or

2.    that the application be refused because it does not comply with the new policy in respect of objects on the highway

A Member proposed an amendment to recommendation 1 as follows: ‘that the application be approved as an exception to the new policy in respect of objects placed on the highway on the grounds of custom and practice’. 

Upon a vote it was (5 for and 4 against)

RESOLVED that the application be refused because it does not comply with the new policy in respect of objects placed on the highway.