Agenda item - , Appeal Against Revocation of Street Trading Licence: Zone B

Report of the Head of Planning and Public Protection (copy attached)

53.1    The Legal Adviser to the Panel, Mr reminded the Panel that for the purposes of this hearing they were sitting as a Panel under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.

53.2    The Panel considered a report of the Head of Planning and Public Protection requesting that they hear and determine an appeal against the officer decision to revoke Jamie Patrick English’s Street Trading Consent. The Panel took the decision that it was not necessary for this hearing to take place in closed session.

53.3    The Licensing Officer Ms Cornell explained that under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 the Council had designated consent streets and prohibited streets for the purpose of selling, offering or exposing for sale any article in the streets. Street trading consents were granted for a period of 12 months from 1 April every year but could be revoked at any time. It was an offence for a person to engage in street trading as defined in the 1982 Act without a valid consent.

53.4    Ms Cornell explained that complaints had been received regarding street trading in John Street, Brighton. In response to those complaints a letter had been sent reminding the trader, Mr English of the relevant permit conditions. Subsequently three further breaches of the street trading consent had been witnessed and in consequence a formal warning letter had been sent on 29 March 2011.

53.5    Three further breaches of street trading consent Condition B had been witnessed and a warning of revocation letter had been sent on 12 May 2011, requesting confirmation that this condition would be complied with. On 14 July 2011 following further breaches which had been witnessed a letter confirming revocation of the street trading consent had been sent.

53.6    Mr English stated that whilst he recognised that conditions of his consent had been breached he had experienced extreme problems in moving his van each day having found it blocked in. Due to the building works being carried out in the vicinity of Edward Street/John Street where he generally tried to park when he moved from his “space” he was then unable to re-park which meant that he lost business, as a small trader he needed to be able to park and trade from his van every day. In answer to further questions Mr English explained that he towed the van to its location each day but was then unable to move the vehicle if he then found himself blocked in by a window cleaning van, it was the same van which had consistently blocked his vehicle in. When he had taken up this matter with the driver of the vehicle concerned they had refused to move.

53.7    Mr English explained that as he had only been trading for 6/7 months and taken out loans in order to fund his business and had a young family to feed. If he was unable to continue to trade he would be reduced to living on benefits. He explained that if some flexibility could be adopted in terms of the hours of operation of his licence then he would be able to arrive earlier/leave later for example. He was anxious to overcome any problems which had arisen in relation to his business and to move forward in a positive way.

53.8    Councillors Gilbey and Marsh sought confirmation regarding the circumstances surrounding such vehicles. It was explained that they were treated as a moving pitch and should not be parked on the public highway overnight, this applied to vehicles such as ice cream vans too. It was explained in answer to further questions that such vehicles could not be parked on the public highway.

53.9    Councillor Cobb, the Chair enquired why as Mr English could trade anywhere with zone, why he chose to trade in this part of the zone. Mr English explained that as a consequence of the restrictions in place due to the major building works taking place on the Amex site, this had limited the locations from which it was possible to trade, it had also become apparent that there was little trade after 5.00pm. In answer to further questions Mr English explained that the camber of the road limited the direction in which he could park his vehicle. He explained that as a small business which had only recently begun trading he was unable to pay for additional parking for his towing vehicle.

53.10  Discussions took place in relation to whether there was any flexibility in relation to the hours of operation of the consent. It was agreed that further discussion would be possible in relation to this matter.

53.11  The Chair stated that having considered all the representations that had been made, the Panel had agreed that the decision made by licensing officers was correct in the legal sense and Mr English’s actions did contravene the Street Trading Consent, Paragraph B. the steps that the licensing officers had taken leading to revocation were reasonable and proportionate.

53.12  In order to support the licence holders own personal circumstances, the Panel had decided to overturn the decision to revoke on this particular occasion. The Panel commended the Licensing officers to carry out an intensive review of Mr English’s trading patterns to ensure that no further breaches took place. If there were any further breaches the Panel would be very sympathetic to an immediate revocation without further warning.

53.13  RESOLVED – That the Street Trading Consent, Area B referred to above, be not revoked subject the Panel’s directions as set out in Paragraph 53.—above. It should be noted however, that should further breaches take place following further officer input that the Panel would be very sympathetic to immediate revocation without the need for further warnings being issued.

            Note: The Legal Adviser to the Panel confirmed that notification of the Panel’s decision would be received in writing.