| Topic: | Licensing Cttee. decision - council collusion? | |
| Posted by: | Vanessa Smith | |
| Date/Time: | 17/05/16 13:28:00 |
Public highway, Church Street, Isleworth ◦Meeting of Licensing Panel, Friday, 13 May 2016 2:30 pm (Item 2.) Application for the grant of a Temporary Street Trading licence in respect of a market of 24 stalls on the public highway, Church Street, Isleworth. Decision: LICENSING ACT 2003 Section 34 - 36 Notification of decision following a Licensing Panel hearing to determine an application for the grant of a Temporary Street Trading Licence under the London Local Authorities Act 1990 (as amended). LOCATION: 24 stalls on the public highway, Church Street, Isleworth. TO: Church Street Resident Association, Isleworth Riverside Events. TAKE NOTICE: THATfollowing a hearing before the Licensing and General Purposes Sub Committee (the Licensing Panel) ON 13 May 2016 HOUNSLOW COUNCIL,as the Licensing Authority for the premises RESOLVED: That the application for a Temporary Street Trading Licence be GRANTED. Licensable activities: Placing of 24 stalls on the public highway in an area designated in the report, operating on the following dates: · 14 May 2016 - 10:00 to 14:00 – Saturday Market · 11 June 2016 - 11:00 to 16:00 – Isleworth Riverside Party and Market · 09 July 2016 - 10:00 to 14:00 – Saturday Market · 13 August 2016 - 10:00 to 14:00 – Saturday Market · 10 September 2016 - 10:00 to 14:00 – Saturday Market · 17 September 2016 - 12:00 to 16:00 – Dog Show and Food Market REASONS: The Licensing Panel carefully considered all the relevant information including: ·written and oral representations by all the parties ·the London Local Authorities Act 1990 (as amended) ·Hounslow Council’s Street Trading Policy ·the Human Rights Act 1998 There were thirty representations from local other persons. Eleven objected to the application on the grounds of disturbance and inconvenience to local residents and possible health and safety issues. No objections were received from responsible authorities. Nineteen representations were received in support of the application. The applicant, Ms Suzi Mutch, attended the hearing to speak to her application along with a number of other persons who supported the application. No objectors attended the hearing. All written representations submitted, both against and for the application, were read and fully considered in detail by the Panel. The Chair advised that the Panel would not discuss the road closure, which was not a licensing matter. Ms Mutch advised that the market was intended both as an opportunity to buy high quality produce in the local area and for neighbours to meet and socialise. She and her partner had considerable experience in event organisation and were fully aware of, and compliant with, health and safety considerations. The venue had been chosen after careful consideration and elimination of less suitable alternatives. Volunteer marshals helped with parking and would “walk through” vehicles that needed to pass. In response to questions from the Panel, Ms Mutch advised that the venue was a no through road and that Park Road would be unaffected. Syon Park had at least 200 parking spaces of their own and would not be affected. The market only occupied 12 parking spaces outside the London Apprentice and would not affect West Middlesex Hospital although she would speak to the hospital authorities if required. Three volunteers had first aid certificates and at least one would always be present. West Middlesex Hospital, with its A & E department, was close by. A full risk assessment had been conducted and a welcome pack was sent to all stallholders showing how to get in and out of the area, vehicle access etc. Organisers ensured that experienced traders worked closely with newcomers and worked continuously to ensure public safety. There was as yet no written explanation of access but the applicant was working with the relevant Council officers to produce a written plan for the marshals to work to. All food stalls had all necessary certification and licences. A waiting list for trader applicants would be produced as there was a strict limit of 24 stalls. Successful applicants paid a three months’ deposit. The Panel asked questions on behalf of absent objectors and received the following responses: Slipway access (page 20). Ms Mutch advised that access to the slipway would be easier on market days as stalls could be moved on request; normally such access was blocked by parked cars which would not be present. The unfenced two metre drop was permanent and not a feature of the market. Ms Stevens (page 22) asked about clearing up. Volunteers cleared litter etc using Council bags and the management of the London Apprentice allowed their bins to be used. All work was voluntary and after paying overheads the remaining proceeds were to be charitable donations; there were no profits. The market was transparently run, books were kept and could be made available to the Council if necessary. Mr Martin (page 23) said that “road closed” signs had previously been left in place until 7pm. Ms Mutch denied that had occurred, stating that the market had ended at 2 pm and an hour was allowed for clean-up – the road reopened at 3pm. Ms Connolly (page 24) and Ms Shaw (page 36) both referred to market attendees being asked to sign a petition in favour of the permanent closure of Church Street. Ms Mutch accepted this had happened and said that the 400 signatures collected proved the scheme’s popularity; however she acknowledged that using the market as an opportunity to gain support for the road closure may have been wrong and agreed that there would not be a repeat. The Panel noted her statement that there would be no further repetition. Mr and Mrs Cook (page 25) said that the road would be blocked for emergency vehicles and was not a through route for cyclists when the market was in operation, as the road closure allowed. Ms Mutch advised that the market was laid out to permit the passage of prams, wheelchairs and cyclists. She believed that police cars and ambulances could get through but acknowledged that space would have to be made for a fire engine, however she did not believe it would be a problem to do so as stalls could be moved quickly with the help of the volunteer marshals. Ms Schmitt (page 34) was concerned that the market was using the name of “Inspiring Isleworth” to campaign to keep Church Street closed. Ms Mutch stated that Inspiring Isleworth, which was established to bring different parts of the community together, was eager to work with other community groups such as Church Street Resident Association. She had learned a lot and was happy to share her knowledge with other groups and said that Inspiring Isleworth saw the market operation as a model for other areas. Having fully considered the written and oral representations from the applicant and the written representations from the other persons, the Panel discussed the matter and decided to grant the application in full, subject to standard conditions. The Panel felt that the standard conditions were appropriate to safeguard and promote public safety. The Panel felt that any possible health and safety issues were satisfactorily addressed. The Panel noted that the applicant had volunteered that a welcome pack would be provided to the listed traders before each event took place. Right to Appeal There is no right of appeal by any party in relation to the determination of a Temporary Street Trading Licence application. |