Agenda item

Applicant: Jimmy Deane’s Fruit, Veg and Salad Ltd, represented by Charlene and Simon Deane

Objector: Cleo Newcombe-Jones, Project Co-ordinator – Waterways and Public Realm, B&NES

The parties confirmed that they understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Public Protection Officer summarised the application.

Charlene Deane stated the case for the applicant and was questioned by Members. She said that Jimmy Deane’s had had a stall in Bath since 2006. They had had to move their stall because of redevelopment around Marks and Spencer’s. They wanted a pitch from which they would not have to move again and wanted to be in a more central area. They had worked closely with the Metro Bank and Transport and Highways about the siting of the stall. There had been a lot of support from the public. She referred to the plan and said that there would be more than the required minimum of 2.6 metres around the pitch for pedestrians and access to retailers’ premises. They might need not as much space as they currently have. They had plans to invest in a new improved look for the stall.

A Member said that from the hatched area on the plan it might look as though they were applying to occupy the whole of New Orchard Street, but that he supposed that what they wanted was the ability to move the stall within this area, so that did not have to make a new application if they had to relocate because of future works, and that wherever they were located within this area there would be a 2.6 metre clearance around the pitch. Mrs Deane confirmed that this was the case.

Cleo Newcombe-Jones stated her case and was questioned by Members. In response to a question from the Team Leader (Legal) she explained that she was representing the Public Realm Team, not Highways. She said that in general the location was a good one, but the hatched plan showed a very wide area. She felt it would be better for a fixed location to be designated. The main concern was about the footway of 66cm around the stall and wondered whether it would be large enough for retailers to be able to put A-boards outside their premises. The footway might be further reduced by people queueing to be served at the stall. The narrowest point of the area is where there is likely to be the greatest footfall.

The Team Leader (Legal) asked how it could be consistent to base an objection on the impact of this application on retailers’ ability to place A-boards outside their premises when there were many examples of the A-board policy not being enforced against retailers who were in breach of it. Ms Newcombe-Jones said that she was unable to answer, as enforcement did not fall within her job description.

Following an adjournment the Sub-Committee RESOLVED to grant the application as detailed below.

Decision and reasons

Members have had to determine an application to create a Street Trading Pitch at New Orchard Street, Southgate, Bath. In determining the application members have taken into account the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, the Council’s Policy on Street Trading and the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Applicant

The applicant stated they are a small business that has been trading in Bath since 2006. The applicant stated they are consent holders in New Orchard Street trading 5 days per week over the last 8 years without issue. The applicant also stated they have relocated a number of times over the years to facilitate city centre redevelopment and most recently as a result of the M&S/Metro Bank construction works. The current application has been widely consulted on and is designed to future proof their presence in New Orchard Street so far as that is possible. It was stated that the proposed pitches will provide adequate pedestrian access on each side, will not have an adverse impact on shop based traders and new canopies and signage will improve the general appearance and bring vibrancy to the area.

Objectors

The objectors stated it will be impossible for the trader to comply with the Street Trading Conditions as they would inevitably cause danger, nuisance or inconvenience in that location. Further, the position of the stalls will not provide sufficient room to accommodate pedestrians, those traders wishing to use an A Board and have a detrimental effect on shop based trading whilst representing over development in the area. 

Members

In reaching a decision Members took account of the relevant representations and balanced the competing interests of the applicant, supporting representation and objectors. Whilst determining the matter on its merits Members were mindful that a pitch has been long established in close proximity to this application and there were no objections from the Highways Team or Environmental Services. These are the teams responsible for enforcement under the Highways Act and Street Trading Consent Conditions.

In terms of creating the pitches Members considered their Policy and found as follows. With adjustments having been made to the street furniture it was unlikely the pitches would cause danger, nuisance or inconvenience. Further, Members considered there would be safe access and egress of customers and staff from the pitches and premises in the immediate vicinity. Moreover, the nature of the goods sold will accord with the Policy, not impact on any proposed use of A Boards and bring vibrancy, interest and footfall to the area together with maintaining consumer choice in an otherwise fashion centric area of the city.

Accordingly, Members found it reasonable to create these pitches which provide over 2.66 meters on either side for A Boards and pedestrians to pass and repass and therefore grant the application as applied for. Authority is delegated to the licensing officer to grant the consent subject to the Standard Conditions.