Agenda item - Deputations from members of the public.

A list of deputations received by the due date of the 12 March 2009 will be circulated separately as part of an addendum at the meeting.

65.1       The Mayor reported that one Deputation had been received and invited Mr. Chavasse, as the spokesperson for the deputation to come forward and address the council.

65.2       Mr. Chavasse thanked the Mayor and stated:

“Our city-wide deputation flowered from deep-rooted frustrations, although this is not the place to detail its growth.  We have been and wish to be positive and we understand that it is now recognised that there are pavement obstruction problems which will benefit from scrutiny.  It may not be for us but rather for you to question how an exercise of delegated authority has brought that about but it is central to our presence in your Chamber to emphasise that it is revisited with a consultative open mind.  A better process and régime are urgent needs and there is much experience to draw on.

From our own scrutiny it is clear that there is a range of alternative approaches.  Many authorities refuse to licence obstructions because that is what they are.  Our contribution to your papers gives a glimpse into best regulatory practice: based on significant cross-authority research two salient factors have emerged.

Firstly, that the crucial element for practical and legal reasons is the required amount of genuine free passage space to ensure an object is not an obstruction.  Thus a well considered norm for free space around an object seems to be a well defined two metres, which in general meets the special needs of vulnerable and disabled groups and free safe passage for all.  Our research shows that two metres solves most of the problems across our city but if fait accompli the proposed tweak régime of an unsafe 1.3 metres will not.  Problems at pavement edges and other danger points also require specific attention.  With a well defined and more easily enforced two metres most objects now placed on our most dangerously congested pavements would no longer be highway obstructions because they would be located strictly within the private forecourts and not adjacent to a danger point.

Secondly perceptive authorities recognise that obstructions and even some objects, though historically championed, can actually divert local trade and blight visitor footfall.  To be a favoured place to be and visit and to maximise the economic benefits of that over-arching policy, and the more so now, our streets must encourage trade for all.  The strong opinion that many pavement obstructions deter trade, discourage visitors and reduce community viability is already evidenced as the disabled, elderly people, family groups and visitors avoid or are excluded from hostile, cluttered areas.  Thoughtful businesses consider that their neighbours obstructions and sometimes their turf wars harm trade.  As potential local customers we agree.

Moreover highway authorities that work alongside robust planning, city centre and destination management are those that combine real control of obstructions with sensitivity to street scenes, conservation and visitor attractions.  They have the best methods of assessment and control.  Some assess streets by area, by carriageway and obstruction categories, in order to develop a sound basis for controls and their legality which presents a significant challenge to our elementary system for similar street patterns.  Some have also polarised attitudes to objects on private forecourts.

Leading authorities, and we would wish to be one, can demonstrate that they do not place uncertain commercial advantage over safe, free passage and do not adopt a low free space denominator that does so.  It is evident that our city’s tweaking of a one size fits all low denominator just does not measure up to best practice and might have illegal aspects.  Hence we ask that new licences should be conditional upon the results of the democratic processes now in train which may also relieve pressures on our council of a legal nature.

We are here to help, Mr Mayor, not to hinder.”

65.3       Councillor Mrs Theobald stated, “Thank you very much for this deputation which contains interesting information on control of placements on the highway.  As you may be aware changes are currently being proposed to the licensing system which aims to increase accessibility and introduce additional controls over traders’ placements on the highway in line with the Disabled Discrimination Act requirements.  These proposals will be placed before a Licensing Committee shortly and the council believes they are a necessary improvement.  However, as a result of the consultation on these changes Members and officers are proposing a more lengthy review over the coming year which will look into greater depth at the opinions and options of this subject and will include representations from all interested parties.  This review will result in recommendations for future changes to the licensing system.”

65.4       The Mayor thanked Mr. Chavasse for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation.  He explained that the concerns had been noted and the deputation would now be referred to the Licensing Committee for consideration.  The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.