Agenda item

To approve changes to the Street Trading Guidance.

The Committee considered the following report copy attached to the official Minutes).

Mr Foord introduced this report and provided the background to street trading within the Chichester City. Since 1991 East Street and North Street had been prohibited streets for street trading purposes and as a result the only way that street trading could take place in these areas was by obtaining a street trading consent or by operating under a pedlar’s certificate.  These certificates were issued by the Police and enabled an individual pedlar to operate as a pedlar anywhere in the country.  The main applications received for street trading consents were from known market providers such as those who ran the Christmas, summer and local food fairs markets, as well as Chichester District Council for its farmers market.

He referred to a report to be considered by Cabinet later in the year concerning the wider provision of markets in the area following consideration by the Traders Market Task and Finish Group of current practices.  He advised that the amendment of the Street Trading Guidance would supplement that work.  He advised that the Council’s charging regime for street trading consents was limited to cost recovery under legislation unlike the private market operators. 

Each year four or five privately operated markets took place in East Street and North Street for which the Council received an income of approximately £2,000.  It was for the Committee to consider if a review of the current Street Trading Guidance and the current fees was deemed appropriate.  The Council had a challenging time dealing with pedlars and explained that one suggestion was to look at the restriction on the number of stall holders which was currently no less than 10 allowed to see if a smaller number of stalls could be permitted. 

Mr Bennett explained that the legislation regarding the Council’s charging powers was complex and that it was important that the charges were not considered to be an additional tax by charging more than the Council’s administrative costs.  With regard to the proposal to allow smaller groups of stall holders than 10, there were some concerns in respect of the Council’s enforcement powers.  There was a concern that by making the number of stall holders too low those persons acting improperly could use the lower number allowed as part of their defence.  The current limit made clear the definition between a large market and a group of pedlars. 

Mr Foord answered questions with particular reference to the income received by the Council for the farmers market as well as how the different types of market and street trading worked.  Mrs McKay added that the fee obtained by the Council for the traders market was a commercial fee.  Comment was made by the Chairman questioning whether the current operator of the general market for the traders market was pricing out the traders.  Mrs McKay responded that when the contract with the current operator of the general market expired the Council would go out to tender.  She advised that the current fee charged by the market operator to the stall holders was not known and the Council would not necessarily be aware of the fees to be charged to stallholders by the operator if the general market was moved to East Street and North Street.  Mr Bennett added that it was hoped that the proposed increase in the scale of charges would be absorbed by the agents running the markets and not passed on to the traders. 

In response to a question from a member, Mr Bennett referred to the issue of whether or not the minimum number of 10 stalls should be kept and the impact changes may have on any enforcement action taken by the Council.  It was difficult to recommend a suitable figure.  However, he advised that if the number was reduced by too much the less difference there would be between an individual pedlar and an approved trader, which could cause difficulties when taking enforcement action.  He confirmed that no applications for less than 10 stalls had ever been received by the Council.  He added that a request had been received from the Chichester Business Improvement District for the inclusion of Crane Street, Chichester as a consent street for the purposes of street trading. 

Mr Foord reported that this Council along with other councils was lobbying the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) on the revision of the Street Trading Controls legislation.  However, the DBI had issued a statement the previous week advising that this was not a priority and that it would not be considered until late 2016.  Mr Foord explained the difficulties encountered when observing pedlars who often only acted as pedlars whilst being observed and may well be stationery when not.

The Chairman reported that the Committee was not being asked to designate the number of stalls to be allowed, but was being asked to give officers authority to review the current Guidance and to look into the number of stalls that could be allowed. 

The Committee voted on paragraphs 5.1 to 5.6 of the report as follows:

5.1 – agreed

A recorded vote was taken on paragraph 5.1 as follows:-

For the recommendation (8): Mr Barrett, Mr Barrow, Mr Budge, Mr Elliott, Mr Macey, Mr Potter, Mr Ridd and Mr Wakeham.

Against the recommendation (2): Mr Connor and Ms Plant.

5.2 – agreed.

5.3 – agreed subject to the addition of … “commercial” markets held in the precinct…

5.4 – agreed

Mr Bennett added that this would be dependent on paragraph 5.1 and any changes to the minimum number of groups of stalls permitted to trade.

5.5 – agreed.

5.6 – agreed.

The Chairman thanked the officers concerned for the progress on this matter.

Resolved

That officers be authorised to revise the Street Trading Consent Guidance to provide for the recovery of costs as indicated at paragraphs 5.1 to 5.6 of the report and to permit street trading by smaller groups of stalls subject to the issue of a trading consent by the Licensing Team which reflects the other criteria of the Street Trading Consent Guidance.