Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Bouchier, Councillor King and Councillor Miller.

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2010 attached.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2010 be received and approved and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

·         Mr Knight

·         Mr Garner

This report seeks approval for the designation of specified street trading designations.

Report of the Head of Licensing attached.

It was noted that the applicant had indicated they would not be attending the meeting.

The following representations were received:

·        Mr Knight – on behalf of the Kew Society

The Kew Society was opposed to the proposed extension of the ice cream van’s licensed trading hours because it was in a conservation area and therefore inappropriate.  The current level of litter and smells was already a nuisance.

The applicant had previously failed to obtain planning permission for a kiosk from which they would trade and there was concern that extending the hours would mean it was comparable to having a kiosk there permanently.  If permission was to be granted, the Kew Society would request that trade be limited to the sale of ice creams only.

Following questions to Mr Knight, the committee was advised that:

o       The Kew Society felt that extending the trading hours beyond the opening times of Kew Gardens, would result in a different clientele being attracted to the site.

o       Traffic was already caused by people stopping in the vehicles to purchase ice creams and hot food.  If trading was taking place in the rush hour, it could also attract commuters, tradespersons and potentially large commercial vehicles, resulting in further traffic congestion.

o       The ice cream van was not there year round and would mainly be at the site during the summer months.

o       There were no residential properties for around 50 yards either side of the ice cream van’s location.

·        Mr Garner – on behalf of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Mr Garner was a consultant architect at Kew and was speaking on behalf of management at the Gardens.  It was felt that the extension of trading hours would attract a different clientele.  This would then have an effect on litter and the levels of illegal parking in the area.

The current arrangements worked well and if permission was granted, it would have a wider impact on the conservation area.

Following questions to Mr Knight, the committee was advised that:

o       Kew Gardens currently opened to visitors at 10.00am.

o       The management at the Gardens did not object to there being an ice cream van outside the main gates as this promoted choice for visitors.

Following questions to officers, the meeting was advised that:

·        The application was for a further three hours trading in the morning. 

·        The vendor had been contacted and was aware of this committee meeting.

·        The applicant was already licensed to sell hot food.

·        The applicant had not been at the site on any of the days that officers visited.

·        The committee could decide to grant permission, grant permission with conditions or refuse; it was not able to vary the hours.

·        There was a standard condition on all street trading licenses which meant that sites had to be cleaned after use.

·        There had been complaints about the ice cream van being moved further along the yellow lines than it was allowed and seating being provided for customers.  Neither had been witnessed by officers visiting the site.

·        If the vendor was caught trading outside of permitted hours, they could be prosecuted.

·        Additional time for the preparation of goods would be dependant on conditions imposed in the original application, although the parking of a vehicle would be dependant on the parking regulations in effect at the site anyway.

Views expressed by individual members of the committee have been summarised below:

·        Could not see why commuters would want to stop at the site during the morning peak period.

·        If the application was to open at 7.00am, an additional market must have been identified.

·        Was an attempt to capture extra trade and was therefore contrary to the original permission to sell to patrons of Kew Gardens.

·        Extending the hours of trading would be to the detriment of the surrounding conservation area and Kew Gardens as a world heritage site.

·        It could potentially cause traffic problems with morning commuters parking at the site.

RESOLVED that permission be REFUSED because it would be harmful to the world heritage site and surrounding conservation area.  It would also cause additional traffic and parking issues at the site.

A scheme of delegation is required under the Licensing Act 2003 to devolve powers from the Licensing Committee to officers in respect of the new Minor Variation procedure.

Report of the Head of Licensing attached.

The aim of the change in legislation was to create a simpler, quicker and cheaper means for applicants to vary premises licences or club premises certificates.  It would also remove the need for avoiding the more expensive and time consuming committee route for determining some applications.  Licensing officers would be responsible for deciding which “responsible authorities” were to be consulted in respect of each application.  Officers would then be responsible for issuing a decision notice within 5 days of the 10 day advertising period expiring.

Officers would not be granting variations to licenses unless they complied with the tough requirements set out in the regulations.  Councillor involvement in this process would be very limited, much in the same way as it was for delegated decision making in planning applications.  For officers to determine opposed applications, a change would be required in the scheme of delegation and members were asked to approve such a change for minor variation applications.

The Minor Variation process would not carry a right of appeal, as a refused applicationcould then be followed up by a full variation application.  If permission for a variation had previously been refused, officers would not grant permission for a repeat application if there had been no change of circumstances.  Conditions on a licence that had been imposed by a committee would not normally be removed or altered under this process.

Members would be aware of applications because they would be published on the internet as full applications were currently published.

RESOLVED that the report be NOTED and the change to the scheme of delegation be approved.

This report seeks to update and remind members of recent and important amendments made to the Licensing Act 2003 by the following recent legislation:

Policing and Crime Act 2009

The Legislative Reform (Minor Variations to Premises Licences and Club Premises Certificates) Order 2009/1772

The Legislative Reform (Supervision of Alcohol Sales in Church and Village Halls etc.) Order 2009/1724

Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006

These changes are relevantto the committee’s functions.

Report of the Head of Licensing attached.

Officers reported that there was some concern over the new mandatory conditions being very difficult to enforce.  The Council was not obliged to inform all licence holders of the new mandatory conditions but would add them to any new licence issued and to those re-issued due to changes such as a change of DPS or transfers. 

If there were a change of government, it was felt that changes to these regulations would be unlikely.

RESOLVED that the report be NOTED.