CITY OF WESTMINSTER CITY OF WESTMINSTER

							CITY OF WESTMINSTER LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO.1 TUESDAY 12 MARCH 2002 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS At a meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee held in the Council Chamber, Council House, Marylebone Road NW1 on Tuesday 12 March 2002 at 6.00pm PRESENT COUNCILLORS Duncan Sandys (Chairman) Cyril Nemeth Antony Mothersdale MEMBERSHIP There were no changes in membership. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. MINUTES RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 October 2001, having been previously circulated be signed as an accurate record. OXFORD STREET PITCH 1724 The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning and Transportation introduced by Ms. Sharon Bamborough of the City Standards and Licensing Division concerning an application from Ms. Danielle McKenna, the stall holder for Oxford Street Pitch no.1724 to vary her licence so as to add souvenirs and neckwear to her permitted commodities and delete fruit, ice cream and confectionary. In support of her application, Ms. McKenna had submitted a letter signed by seven members of the Committee of the West End Street Traders Association (WESTA). A letter had also been received from Mr. Wally Watson, the Committee Chairman of WESTA , expressing concern that the granting of this application might upset the balance of commodities permitted for sale in Oxford Street. He also stated that the changeover in commodities from fruit/veg/flowers to souvenirs was prohibited under the guidelines. However, it was pointed out that Guideline 4 does not prohibit this type of application. The guidelines require that any application to change commodities must be the subject of consultation with the West End Traders Association. Guideline 4 specifically states that special consideration must be given to requests to relinquish fruit and flowers

1. 1.1 2. 2.1 3. 3.1

4. 4.1

4.2

or to requests to change the authorised commodities to souvenirs or leather goods. 4.3 Ms. McKenna had taken over the pitch on 29 November 2001 following the sudden death of her father. She worked for her father on the pitch for some time before his death. She has one child with another due shortly and maintains that it will not be possible to continue to operate the stall with the present commodities as this means getting up at 4am to go to the market to buy fruit and vegetables to stock the stall. There is no statutory or policy requirement for this type of application to have planning consent. The market Manager has been consulted and he has raised no objection provided that the application receives special consideration as stated in the guidelines. Ward Member consultation is not required for this type of application. The applicant was represented by her solicitor, Mr. Cohen of Messrs Thomas, Boyd and White. He drew attention to the letters in the agenda papers submitted by Ms. McKenna and stated that, unless the Sub-Committee specifically required it, he would not be calling Ms. McKenna as she was eight months pregnant and extremely nervous of addressing an official body such as this. Also, as Mr. Watson was not present, he felt that there would be no need to cross-examine the applicant. Mr Cohen informed the Sub-Committee that his client was curently experiencing difficult circumstances. She had one child and was expecting another in a matter of days. She also had partial responsibility for the care of her brother who had Downs Syndrome. There had been occasions when she had been unable to trade and, in her present circumstances, it could reasonably be expected that these would occur again. The continued trading in fruit was proving difficult for her. In order to stock her stall, it was necessary for her to get up at 4am each morning and be present at the market by 6am in order to purchase her commodities. If for some reason she was unable to trade, the produce would deteriorate and become unfit for sale the following day. She needed a commodity that was non-perishable. It was Mr. Cohen’s view that the application could have been dealt with administratively had it not been for Mr. Watson’s letter. He drew attention to guideline 4, which did not say, as Mr. Watson had stated in his letter, that a change of commodities from fruit and vegetables to souvenirs or leather goods was prohibited, only that it should receive special consideration. It also stated that regard would be taken of the views of WESTA and whether that organisation supported the application. Mr. Cohen then drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to the text of the letter from Mr. Watson which appeared on page 16 of the agenda papers at Annex H. Mr. Watson had written this on WESTA headed paper but the views expressed were personal and did not reflect the views of the association. Mr. Cohen also questioned the validity of Mr.

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

Watson’s contention that the variation would upset the balance of the market. He felt this was an exaggeration. If granted, the variation would increase the number of souvenir sellers from 13 to 14 and reduce the number of fruit and vegetable stalls from 11 to 10. He maintained that this was hardly upsetting the balance of the market. 4.8 Mr. Cohen then drew attention to a letter from Ms. McKenna on page 15 of the agenda papers at Annex G. This gave the names of seven Committee members who had signed a statement supporting the application. Mr. Cohen explained that Ms. McKenna felt compelled to take this action as Mr. Watson had refused to put her in contact with all of the Committee members. WESTA’s rules stated that applications to change commodities would be determined by a Committee of twelve members and a majority of seven votes to five would be necessary for a decision. Ms. McKenna had provided evidence that she had the support of seven members of the Committee, which she felt was evidence that the association did not object to her application. Mr. Cohen believed that Mr. Watson wrote solely out of self interest. He operated a souvenir stall from pitch number 1713, approximately six pitches away from the applicant. Also, he was not in attendance to present his views in person. In response to questions from Councillors, Ms. McKenna stated that she proposed to trade souvenirs and neckwear – including football scarves. However, her main commodity would be souvenirs. In response to a question on consultation with WESTA, Mr. Cohen stated that, while regard had to be given to the views of the association and whether or not it supported the application, in the final analysis, it was the Council which made the decision. The seven Committee members who had supported the application had not made their views known more formally because, when the applicant approached Mr. Watson for the names of the Committee members, he refused to give her all of them. Therefore it could be no surprise that there had been no formal support. In the circumstances, Ms. McKenna did all she could to ascertain the level of support she had within WESTA and to demonstrate this to the Council. The Sub-Committee understood that child-care problems were likely to cause difficulties to Ms. McKenna from time to time and, while a change of commoditiy might assist, there would still be difficulties even with souvenirs. They asked how she would cope with these. Mr. Cohen stated that, under the current legislation, the Council required the licence holder to trade personally, although provision was made for staff to be employed. It was easier to delegate to an employee the purchase of souvenirs from a wholesaler than the purchase of fruit from a market. Finally, Ms. McKenna confirmed that the Mr. P. McKenna referred to in her letter was her uncle but that he was a competing trader and would not be able to assist her.

4.9

4.10

4.11

At 18.53 hours, the Sub-Committee withdrew and returned at 19.55 hours to announce the decision.

RESOLVED: This is an application by Miss Danielle McKenna for a variation of her street trading licence. This licence allows her to trade from Pitch 1724, which is located in Oxford Street at the junction with North Audley Street, London W1. Miss McKenna wants to change the commodities that she is licensed to sell. She wants to delete fruit, ice cream and wrapped confectionery and to add souvenirs and neckwear. She will retain cold drinks, festive decorations and diaries. The street trading licence was transferred to Miss McKenna on 29 November 2001, following the sudden death of her father, Mr Danny McKenna. Her variation application was made on 9 January 2002. She has indicated that she needs to change what she is selling because, being a mother of a young child, and expecting another, she will find it impossible to go to the fruit market at 6am. She says that she needs to work as much as she can because she also needs to support her mother and her brother and she obviously wants to maintain the family business. Another factor appears to be the suggestion that there may not be sufficient demand for the sale of fruit in Oxford Street. Miss McKenna does indicate that her father was finding it hard to make ends meet selling fruit. Miss McKenna has submitted a list of seven members of the West End Street Traders Association who support her application. Two of the signatories trade very close to Miss McKenna in Oxford Street, but one of them, Peter McKenna, is her uncle. Most of the people who trade in the vicinity of her pitch have not expressed a view one way or another. Wally Watson, the Chairman of the West End Street Traders Association, has written to the Council expressing concern about the application. He refers the SubCommittee to the guidelines agreed between the Council and the West End Street Traders Association. These were revised with effect from 15 March 1999. The guidelines require that any application to change commodities must be the subject of consultation with the West End Street Traders Association. Moreover, they indicate that regard will be had to maintaining an appropriate balance of commodities traded in Oxford Street as a whole. Guideline 4 specifically states that "to assist in achieving this balance, special consideration would need to be given to requests to relinquish fruit and flowers or to requests to change the authorised commodities to souvenirs or leather goods". The guidelines do not prohibit a change of commodities from fruit to souvenirs. The Sub-Committee has to consider all the relevant circumstances, including the views expressed by the West End Street Traders Association, and has to decide the application on its merits. Mr Watson is clearly concerned about the application, but his letter seems to be submitted on a personal basis. The Sub-Committee noted that Mr Watson sold souvenirs from pitch 1713, which is fairly close to Miss McKenna’s pitch. Of greater concern is the fact that Mr Watson does not indicate whether the Association itself has actually been consulted about the application. In fact, no formal view from the Association has been submitted. That having been said, it is clear that

seven members of the committee established by the West End Street Traders Association to determine what the views of the Association would be, have signed an informal document in support of the application. There have been no objections to the application from any shops in the vicinity of the pitch and no objections have been received from any individual traders. No objections have been raised by the Licensing Inspectors. The Sub-Committee is sympathetic to the situation that Miss McKenna finds herself in. She has inherited the pitch and wants to ensure that it is viable. The SubCommittee has to balance her interests against the interests of the people trading in Oxford Street as a whole. There are 35 licensed pitches in Oxford Street. 11 are licensed to sell fruit and vegetables. 13 are licensed to sell souvenirs. The Council does not want to lose fruit and vegetable pitches and considers that 13 souvenir pitches in Oxford Street is very close to the maximum number that can be tolerated. However, the Sub-Committee has given consideration to the unique circumstances in which Miss McKenna finds herself. She has become the main breadwinner in her family and has made out a clear case for needing to change the commodities on her licence. There are no objections to the application. Consequently, it is considered that this variation application can be justified without harming the existing balance too much. This decision is based on the specific circumstances that apply in this case and the balance that exists in Oxford Street on the date that this application has been determined. This decision does alter the balance between fruit and vegetable pitches on the one hand and souvenir pitches on the other. It may well be that the Council could not tolerate any further loss of fruit and vegetable pitches or increase in souvenir pitches in the future. The SubCommittee wants it to be clearly noted that this decision does not create any kind of precedent in respect of future applications. Accordingly, THE DECISION IS: That the application made by Miss Danielle McKenna to vary the street trading licence in respect of pitch 1724 in Oxford Street be GRANTED. 5. CITY OF WESTMINSTER ACT 1999 – ISOLATED STREET TRADING PITCHES – VARIATION The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning and Transportation introduced by Ms. Sharon Bamborough of the City Standards and Licensing Division. The report concerned a recommendation by Council officers to alter the size and designations of certain isolated street trading pitches. On 25 July 1990, the Council designated a number of streets or parts of streets to be “licence streets”, which enabled the areas so designated to be used for licensed street trading. As a result of a recent survey carried out by officers, it has been recommended that the designations in terms of the descriptions and sizes of pitches should be varied. The proposals are considered to be inconsequential and are essentially a tidying up exercise. Details of the pitches involved , the

5.1

5.2

proposals for variation and the reasons are set out on pages 27 and 28 of the agenda papers at Annex B. 5.3 Statutory Consultation has been carried out. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, the West End Street Traders Association and the relevant Ward Councillors have been consulted on the proposals and no adverse representations have been received. Also, the licence holders who would be affected by the proposed variation of pitch designations have been consulted individually and no adverse representations have been received. In the case of occupied pitches, the proposed amendments have been welcomed by individual licence holders. Ms. Bamborough informed the Sub-Committee that officers did not wish to proceed with the proposals concerning Pitch numbers 1012 and 1798 and had asked for these to be withdrawn from the schedule. After a question had been raised about the width of pitch number 938, the Sub-Committee asked for this to be withdrawn also.

5.4

At 18.53 hours, the Sub-Committee withdrew and re-convened at 19.55 hours to announce the decision. RESOLVED: This report is recommending the Sub-Committee to vary a number of designating resolutions pursuant to section 5 of the City of Westminster Act 1999. The purpose of the variation proposals is to improve the regulation of the street trading activities and to improve the street environment. The necessary consultation has taken place in accordance with the requirements contained in section 6 of the Act and no adverse representations have been received. The proposed variations are set out in Annex B to the report. Officers have reported that they do not want to proceed with the variation proposals in respect of pitch numbers 1012 and 1798. The Sub-Committee is not happy to proceed with the proposals in respect of pitch 938 because it is not clear why the width of the pitch is being enlarged. THE DECISION IS THAT: 1. With the exception of Pitch numbers 938, 1012 and 1798, the Sub-Committee resolves to vary the various designating resolutions that have been made in respect of the pitches identified in the first column of Annex B of the report. The specific variations are set out in the third column of Annex B. The effective date for the coming into force of this resolution shall be Monday, 18 March 2002.

2.

6. 6.1

TERMINATION OF MEETING The Meeting ended at 20.15 hours.

Signed…………………………………………………Date……………………….