Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Bouchier, Councillor Morgan and Councillor Urquhart.

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

Agenda item 5; Schedule 4

Councillor Stanier declared a personal interest by virtue of the application being in her ward.

Agenda item 5; Schedule 5

Councillor Acton declared a prejudicial interest by virtue of having previous involvement in the matter in his capacity as Cabinet Member for Environment and left the room during discussion of this item.

Councillor Bennett declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of having previously expressed an opinion on the matter and left the room during discussion of this item.

Councillor Khosa declared a personal interest by virtue of knowing one of the objectors.  He had not discussed the matter with them.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 27 October 2009 - attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 October be received and approved and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

Agenda item 5; Schedule 5

Mr Peter Sloan

This report outlines street trading designations and variations that are sought.  Consideration is to be given to the approval or not, of these changes.

Report of the Head of Licensing attached.

RESOLVED that the applications in the following schedules be aPPROVED without amendments:

• Schedule I
• Schedule II
• Schedule III
• Schedule IV

RESOLVED that the application in schedule V be rejected.

The committee received representations on schedule V:

Mr Sloan

Mr Sloan was a solicitor acting on behalf of the applicant, Mr Vella.  Mr Sloan stated that the Transport and Highways Department had raised no objection on traffic issues and that the objection was based around the area already being a designated loading bay.

Mr Vella was not seeking to change the layout of the yellow lines, but to designate one part of the loading bay as a street trading area.  He stated that there was a large amount of illegal parking at this spot during the summer months and questioned whether there was any need for a weekend loading bay at this location.

Mr Sloan also stated that there was no mention in the letters of objection of the loading bay and a necessity to keep it in its current state.

Following questions from members of the committee, Mr Sloan advised the meeting that:

• Mr Vella was not aware of the necessity for a street trading licence at this location.
• As Mr Vella had been trading at this spot for a number of years, there was no reason to expect the Council to contact him to inform him he was trading illegally.
• The application was to only allow trading in the area on Saturdays and Sundays; the applicant felt that there wasn’t a need for a loading bay at weekends.
• Should the committee have concerns over noise, or other forms of pollution, it could impose conditions on the applicant and use of the area as a trading spot.

The Principal Engineer for Traffic Management stated that the double yellow lines were in place to enable access to the loading bay and area behind the rising bollard.  Parking enforcement officers were enforcing this, although this was sometimes difficult because the signage in the area had been removed on a number of occasions.  New signs were again in place.  The double yellow lines also maintained sight lines to vehicles exiting the area where the rising bollard was located.

The Licensing and Litigation Solicitor said that there were a number of conditions that should be met when granting street trading licenses.  One of these was that the highways authority’s agreement was necessary and as its refusal had been maintained, the application would be illegal, as it had not complied with the criteria to allow designation in section24(4) and 24(5) of the London Local Authorities Act 1990. Another was that an applicant’s previous conduct should be taken into account, and in this case, Council letters advising the applicant was trading illegally in this area had been ignored.

The following summarised views were expressed by members of the committee:

• The loading bay was for the use of all the businesses in the area and not just one person.
• To allow the application would be illegal, as it had not complied with the criteria to allow designation in section24(4) and 24(5) of the London Local Authorities Act 1990.
• The applicant had not complied with the Council’s repeated requests throughout the regulatory process.

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reasons:

1.            The Applicant had not complied with the street trading process in the Borough;

2.            The Applicant had not complied with Traffic Regulation;

3.            The Applicant had not complied with Highways Regulations; and

4.            The Designating Resolution could not progress as it did not comply with the London Local Authorities Act 1990 (as amended)in terms of Highways Authority consent (and prior breach of the 1990 Act).

[Agenda item 5; Schedule 4

Councillor Stanier declared a personal interest by virtue of the application being in her ward.

Agenda item 5; Schedule 5

Councillor Acton declared a prejudicial interest by virtue of having previous involvement in the matter in his capacity as Cabinet Member for Environment and left the room during discussion of this item.

Councillor Bennett declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of having previously expressed an opinion on the matter and left the room during discussion of this item.

• Councillor Khosa declared a personal interest by virtue of knowing one of the objectors.  He had not discussed the matter with them.]

This report outlines changes to the status of elected members of a licensing authority in respect of their role as an interested party under the Licensing Act 2003.

Report of the Head of Licensing attached.

The changes enabled members to be interested parties without reference to the normal vicinity test.  It was noted that this was comparable to the planning process where officers could determine what was frivolous, or vexatious correspondence from members of the Council. Officers could still take matters of concern to the committee, should they feel that that was a better route by which to make this determination.

The Standards Committee would be establishing a new protocol.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.