Agenda item

The Licensing and Environmental Protection Manager gave a PowerPoint presentation on the review of the Council’s Street Trading Policy and other street activities, with contributions from the Team Manager – Active Lifestyle and Events and the Customer Services Officer. A copy of the slides is given in Appendix 3.

The review had been used as an opportunity for a broad consideration of activities which, while managed by different services within the Council, are perceived by the public to form part of street trading. These include street trading itself, which is managed by Licensing, street markets, which are managed by the Council’s Events Team and promotional pitches, which are managed by Highways. Promotional pitches are not regulated by the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, but are perceived by the public to be part of the street trading scene.

The refreshed Street Trading Policy before the Committee today would be taken forward through the Cabinet and informed by key stakeholders.

There had been six weeks of public consultation in May and June this year. There had been 50 responses to an online survey, which were included with an analysis in Annex C to the report. Key feedback from survey responses related to:

Street Trading

·  whether the management of street trading should be outsourced – 69.7% of respondents wanted the Council to continue to manage it

·  the look and feel of the stalls

·  enforcement, particularly out of office hours (with fewer officers being available at weekends) -  as part of the revised policy standard conditions would be tightened up

·  rotation of pitches and the length of consent tenure

Promotional Pitches

·  clarity about the management of promotional pitches on the highway

·  conflict between street trading and promotional pitches

·  alignment of application processing with existing processes in Licensing

·  further criteria to be developed on criteria for acceptable promotions

Street Markets

One of the ambitions in the Council’s Strategic Review is to increase the number of street markets in the City centre and to encourage events that attract different audiences into the City. However, event and street market organisers face significant challenges: if someone wants to hold an event in Milsom Street, for example, they need to apply to the Events Office, Highways, Parking, Licensing, and Planning, if there is a change of use. There are many separate processes that have to be completed.  It is hoped to streamline the application process for event organisers. City-wide planning applications for events and street markets would be developed.  At the same time, the number of events and street markets needed to be controlled: Bath is a World Heritage Site, and many visitors came to view and photograph the architecture, and want to be able to do so without obstructions blocking their view. Encouraging events is part of a larger piece of work that needed to be done in co-operation with Planning and Highways and other parts of the Council. It is estimated that it will take a year to develop a co-ordinated approach.

Members made comments and asked questions to which officers responded.

Q: Can you give examples of specific differences between the proposed policy and the existing policy.

A: One proposal is that instead of having street traders scattered around the City there should be a weekly or bi-weekly market, whose operation and look and feel could be managed; market day would be a specific event to attract people into Bath.

Q: The number of responses to the online survey seems low in relation to the number of people affected by street trading.

A: A lot of effort was put into publicity. Obtaining those 50 responses required a great deal of effort by officers; people cannot be forced to respond to consultations. The business representative organisations who responded carried out surveys of their own members, so there was a wider response base than at first appeared.

Q: Individual street stalls add vitality to life in the City. Some of them might be a bit shabby, but this could be dealt with by appropriate conditions and enforcement.

A: A question about whether people preferred individual street stalls or a market was included in the survey. There had been 33 responses, with 54.55% preferring individual street stalls as at present and 45.45% preferring a weekly or twice-weekly market, so there was not a clear mandate for either option.

Q: The exemption from the requirement to obtain a consent to set up a stall, referred to in the last bullet point on page 22, should be clarified; no business should be allowed to gain an unfair advantage.

A: Certain traders are exempt from the provisions of the statutory street trading regime, e.g. butchers, fishmongers and greengrocers, which have traditionally exhibited their wares on stalls in front of their shops.

Q: Up and down the country public space has passed into private hands through retail development. Is there not a danger that an extension of street trading could result in some streets could become effectively ‘sterilised’ retail areas where many ordinary activities are prevented from taking place?

A: Councils can decide whether or not to adopt Schedule 4 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. The Schedule was adopted by Bath City Council some years ago. The Council could ‘unadopt’ it if it wished. The Schedule applies to any street open to the public whether or not it has a pavement anywhere in Bath and North East Somerset.

Q: I am concerned to see a gulf between the views of BID and SouthGate and what is being proposed in the revised policy. This might be a reason for deferring a decision to allow further consultation and consideration. Is there more we can do to work together with them and have we looked at what is done in similar cities, like York?

A: We hope the working group that is to be established will improve communication. BID and SouthGate have staff out and about on the street and do liaise with us about specific issues, and it might be possible to develop this further. We have looked at York, Oxford, Cambridge, Cheltenham, Harrogate and Chester in an attempt to establish best practice. We believe that the revised policy is a reasonable balance between what we might like to do and what we are statutorily obliged to do. There is little scope for blue-skies thinking; the policy has to explain how we will apply the provisions of the legislation. The way in which the policy is enforced may help to narrow the gulf referred to.

Q: Are there sufficient resources for effective enforcement?

A: We need to be more creative about enforcement. There is a need for more in-street monitoring, and this could be done through working with partners. Conditions and design criteria for stalls need to be tightened up. The Council is limited in what it is allowed to do to restrict competition between stalls and shops.

Members strongly supported the introduction of a unified ‘one-stop shop’ application process for organisers of events and street markets.

The Environmental Protection and Licensing Manager informed the Committee that an update on the Street Trading Policy would be given at its October meeting.

At the conclusion of the discussion it was RESOLVED unanimously to approve recommendations 2.1-2.2 and 2.4-2.6:

2.1To note the contents of the report and the progress made with respect to the Street Trading Review;

2.2To note the responses received as a result of the consultation as given in Annex C and as summarised with officer comments in Annex D;

2.4To endorse the development of a city-wide planning application for events which includes markets and therefore related street trading activities;

2.5To endorse the proposal that no further action should be taken with respect to outsourcing the Council’s statutory functions under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982 (“The Act”) to a third-party organisation;

2.6To endorse the integration of the management of promotional pitches from Highways into the Licensing Authority to better align with Street Trading management principles and the introduction of a fee to cover the administration of applications for promotional pitches.

It was also RESOLVED by 4 votes in favour and 1 vote against with 2 abstentions to approve recommendation 2.3:

2.3To endorse the adoption of the revised Street Trading Policy provided at Annex E.