Agenda item

Mr Mark Morris

Louis Krog, Licensing and Business Support Team Leader introduced the report as circulated with the agenda.  An application for the renewal of a street trading consent had been received from Mr Mark Morris in respect of his flower stall located on the Promenade at the junction with Ormond Place.

The officer reminded Members that they had considered this request in April and that there had been a written undertaking by Mr Morris and the relevant objectors to try and resolve the issues that had led to the objections being raised.  A compromise could not be reached and as a result the objectors had again raised objection to the renewal which were set out in the report.

He referred Members to the additional documentation supplied by Mr Morris which had been circulated at the start of the meeting. This documentation included reference to a petition signed by over 760 local people which had been supplied to Mr Krog. It also included a statement from the applicant that he had lowered the height of the flowers, turned the umbrella 90° and made the stall longer rather than wider so that there was a clear sight line straight through to the Regent Arcade. The officer reminded Members that in considering this matter they should be guided by the council policies and vote in the best interests of the Borough as a whole.

In response to questions from Members the officer made the following responses:

• he personally had not been involved in looking at alternative sites but he was aware that meetings had been held and various schemes considered.
• he confirmed that the objections were similar to the objections received against previous applications for renewal by Mr Morris. The difference in this case was that potential investment in the Regent Arcade appeared to be dependent on the flower stall being removed.
  
  

The chair advised Members that it was in his discretion to allow objectors to speak. Accordingly he advised that Mr Howard Barber would be speaking on behalf of the objectors for a maximum of three minutes. Mr Barber advised that he worked for the council as a public space designer and he was speaking impartially in his professional position.

A Member asked whether Mr Barber had a potential conflict of interest since the council had an interest in the Regent Arcade. The chair responded that Mr Barber was speaking to summarise the objectors’ position from a public space design viewpoint and therefore this was not a valid objection.

Mr Barber advised that he had done a lot of work looking at alternative options and had discussed these with Mr Morris. As the Promenade was 29 m wide, he felt it could easily accommodate the flower stall but Mr Morris had not been prepared to trial any alternative options. He acknowledged that the flower stall was a positive element of the street scene which he supported but he felt it compromised the street design in its current position.

Mr Morris was invited to speak in support of this application. He highlighted the petition and referred to many comments he had received in the local media and social media both positive and negative. He indicated that a flower stall had been in the same position for 80 years which was considerably longer than the Regent Arcade had been in place. Over the last 8 years his policy had always been to try and find solutions to any difficulties or objections. For example he had changed the colour scheme of the umbrellas to match that of Beards the jewellers.  He was not aware that ‘trials had failed’ as had been reported to this meeting.

Mr Morris advised that there were a number of reasons why the suggested site in the Promenade was not suitable and would be damaging to his business. These were set out in the letter he had circulated on page 2 of the additional information.

A Member referred to page 57/58 of the report and asked why Mr Morris had experimented with the stall but had abandoned the trial after only a few days. They asked whether he had been approached regarding trials of the Promenade site.

In response Mr Morris said he had arranged two meetings through his local councillor to discuss alternatives. He had been willing to trial a site in the Promenade providing the bike racks and the coffee stall were moved. He could not move any further up the Promenade as this would be damaging to his business. This had been demonstrated when the flower stall was moved on a temporary basis whilst the repaving work was being done and he had experienced a very considerable drop in turnover. The current position of his stall tied in with the footfall of people getting off the buses and turning right towards the Arcade.

A Member noted that he had turned the umbrella around by 90° and asked whether Mr Morris would keep it in that position. Another Member asked whether this could be made a condition of the renewal.

The officer advised that Members could make such a condition but they should be mindful that it must be achievable and there would be an expectation on officers to enforce it.

Mr Morris advised that he had to ensure the protection of his flower stock and his staff in adverse weather conditions. He had had to reposition the umbrella at the end of last year for this reason. He also had extra stock to protect at busy times such as Christmas, Mothers Day And Valentines Day. He advised that the umbrella had been designed to be the way it was currently positioned and he was prepared to instruct his staff that it should always be that way on a day in day out basis.

A Member referred to one objector who had commented that the stall was less tidy at the back and asked whether Mr Morris could do anything to improve this.

Mr Morris said he would be prepared to look at this. He didn't tend to keep flowers at the back of the stall as they would be vulnerable to bright sunlight in the mornings from the direction of the Regent Arcade. The 4 m by 3m he had requested did allow for extra cover and protection at the front and back of the stall.

Another Member asked whether Mr Morris could replace the water carriers with weights.

Mr Morris indicated that he had had discussions with Gloucestershire Highways and he had received a quote of £2000 for a more permanent fixture to weight the umbrella. If that was made a condition of the renewal he would satisfy it but it may take him up to six months to find the necessary funding.

Commenting on the application, a Member suggested that the current position was the worst possible place to have a flower stall as it was in a wind tunnel. The Promenade would be a much better position and asked whether the Regent Arcade could offer a pitch.

Mr Morris said in his view the Promenade was far more of a wind tunnel and his stall was more protected in its current position. There had never been a flower stall in the Regent Arcade and he considered the rent would be too prohibitive.

Members adjourned at 3.55 pm following a request by a Member that they could discuss the matter in private and the meeting reconvened at 4:25 p.m.

Members were advised that they had the following recommendations to determine:

1. The renewal application be granted because you consider the grant of this application does comply with the provision of the Street Scene policy and  is in the best interest of the borough as a whole; or

2. The application be refused because it does not comply with the provision of the Street Scene policy as the proposed location is deemed unsuitable; or

3. Subject to resolution 1.7.1, the renewal application be granted subject to the express condition that it will be revoked once the improvement work is due to start. 

4. Subject to resolution 1.7.3, delegate authority to the Licensing & Business Support Team Leader to draft the condition to be added to the consent.

The chair advised that Members were minded to grant the renewal but they wished to add some additional conditions and he went on to outline their rationale.

The committee accepted that there was a problem with sightlines if nothing was done but they believed a 3 m limit on the stall would be adequate to address the problem. The committee did not believe that the business of the borough would be compromised by the flower stall, in fact they felt the reverse in that the flower stall was an asset in that location which would be compromised if the renewal was not granted.

In response to a question from Mr Morris, the chair confirmed that they would allow a reasonable timeframe for the alternative weights to be put in place. 

Upon a vote it was resolved that:

The renewal application be granted because the committee consider the grant of this application does comply with the provision of the Street Scene policy and  is in the best interest of the borough as a whole subject to the following conditions;

1. The appearance of the rear of the stall (that being the side visible looking up Ormond Terrace towards the Promenade) be improved so that the back-of-house elements are less prominent – possibly enclosed by flower displays.

2. The width of the flower stall will not exceed 3 metres to retain a 3 metre clearance either side, in order to benefit pedestrian movement and lines of sight and will not be subject to concession for any reason including bad weather or seasonal trade.

3. The water containers currently used to secure the stall’s canopy must be replaced with purpose built & suitable weights.  The replacement of the water containers must be done in a reasonable time agreed in advance with the Licensing & Business Support Team Leader.

Voting:  For 8 with 1 abstention