Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
AGREED unanimously to refuse the application for street trading consent. In making their decision, the Committee have had regard to the council street trading policy. The Committee have also had regard to the licensing objectives, in particular the prevention of public nuisance which can include nuisance from noise, light, smells, litter or fumes to households and businesses in the vicinity of the proposed street trading site. The Committee considered the representations from the applicants, which in summary were that this would be a temporary arrangement to establish a business in the hope they will be in a position to move to a permanent premises within 12 months. The applicants indicated that this would not be a large commercial cooking venture and was simply to establish a reputation and a base. They indicated that they had fitted the shack with three extractor fans with carbon filters to address odour concerns, they would empty waste daily and predominantly they were aiming for deliveries and food orders. They indicated that there would be toilet facilities available in the shop if required. In relation to parking the applicants suggested that the lane could be used, and there were other areas to park nearby. The Committee also considered the representations from the responsible authority and residents, which overlapped and can be summarised as concern regarding odours, road safety, waste disposal, litter and noise. The residents also highlighted potential problems for disabled residents who live nearby. The Committee were of the view, in considering the location of the site that it was likely that nuisance would be caused to nearby residents from odours, noise from customers and traffic and there would also be concerns around road safety given the restricted parking available and the likelihood of vehicles arriving and leaving to collect food and take deliveries. The Committee noted that the applicants were of the view that this would be a small operation with limited customers, but the Committee also took into account that if the consent was granted there was no restrictions that could be placed on them in terms of the number of customers or equipment being used, and if the venture was successful it would inevitably lead to increased footfall, traffic and noise and would, because of the location likely result in problems with parking. Unfortunately, the Committee felt there was insufficient detail as to how the business would operate on the ground and how they would address and mitigate the concerns around road safety, parking and nuisance. On balance, whilst the Committee commends the applicants for their ambition in wanting to start a new business venture, they were of the view that the location, taking into account the street trading policy and the need to promote the licensing objectives, was simply not suitable for street trading and therefore took the view that the application should be refused. The meeting closed at 13:01 pm.
No apologies for absence were received.
No declarations of interest were received.
Decision as recorded
AGREED unanimously to refuse the application for street trading consent. In making their decision, the Committee have had regard to the council street trading policy. The Committee have also had regard to the licensing objectives, in particular the prevention of public nuisance which can include nuisance from noise, light, smells, litter or fumes to households and businesses in the vicinity of the proposed street trading site. The Committee considered the representations from the applicants, which in summary were that this would be a temporary arrangement to establish a business in the hope they will be in a position to move to a permanent premises within 12 months. The applicants indicated that this would not be a large commercial cooking venture and was simply to establish a reputation and a base. They indicated that they had fitted the shack with three extractor fans with carbon filters to address odour concerns, they would empty waste daily and predominantly they were aiming for deliveries and food orders. They indicated that there would be toilet facilities available in the shop if required. In relation to parking the applicants suggested that the lane could be used, and there were other areas to park nearby. The Committee also considered the representations from the responsible authority and residents, which overlapped and can be summarised as concern regarding odours, road safety, waste disposal, litter and noise. The residents also highlighted potential problems for disabled residents who live nearby. The Committee were of the view, in considering the location of the site that it was likely that nuisance would be caused to nearby residents from odours, noise from customers and traffic and there would also be concerns around road safety given the restricted parking available and the likelihood of vehicles arriving and leaving to collect food and take deliveries. The Committee noted that the applicants were of the view that this would be a small operation with limited customers, but the Committee also took into account that if the consent was granted there was no restrictions that could be placed on them in terms of the number of customers or equipment being used, and if the venture was successful it would inevitably lead to increased footfall, traffic and noise and would, because of the location likely result in problems with parking. Unfortunately, the Committee felt there was insufficient detail as to how the business would operate on the ground and how they would address and mitigate the concerns around road safety, parking and nuisance. On balance, whilst the Committee commends the applicants for their ambition in wanting to start a new business venture, they were of the view that the location, taking into account the street trading policy and the need to promote the licensing objectives, was simply not suitable for street trading and therefore took the view that the application should be refused. The meeting closed at 13:01 pm.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
The council hasn't recorded attendance for this meeting.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.
The Chairman opened the meeting and introductions were made. The Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee outlined the procedure for the meeting and reported that Members had previously familiarised themselves with the report of the Licensing Manager, the application and plan of the premises together with the written submissions from the Responsible Authority and Residents who had objected to the application. The Chair invited the Licensing Manager to present the report. The Licensing Manager presented the report and outlined the procedure for new applications under the Street Trading Policy. The application before the committee was for a new application for Mr Nathan Vaughan and Ms Maryanne Benjamin trading as ‘Bit on the side’ at 51 St Mary Street, Risca. The Sub Committee were referred to the plans, objections within the appendices and the recommendations within the report at 3.1 of the report. The Sub Committee would hear from Environmental Health as Responsible Authority and Residents objecting. The Officer confirmed that the decision rests with the Sub Committee and that there was no right of appeal. The Chair thanked the Officer and all parties present, were invited to ask questions and provide the committee with their representations. The Chair sought clarification from the Licensing Manager as to whether planning permission would be required for the Shack. The Officer confirmed that the policy advises that the applicant would need to seek confirmation from the planning department as to whether planning would be required for any changes such as sale of food on a permanent basis and advised that it would require A3 planning permission. The applicant confirmed that A3 planning would be required if the business was operating from inside his premises but as the shack was outside it only required a street trading license. The applicant addressed the committee and confirmed that the business was going to be operating on a small scale with plans to build up a customer base and the long-term plan was to move to open a café once they had sufficient funds and that the business was operating successfully. Details of work undertaken within the shack were provided to reduce Odours. Members raised a number of questions to the applicant on the proposals for the shack including the potential nuisances and the concerns raised by all parties within the report. The applicant provided responses to all questions raised by the Members and addressed all concerns. The Environmental Health Officer presented their representations within the report and confirmed that whilst the applicant had proposed to reduce the hours to 9am to 2pm it did not alleviate the concerns raised in 5.4 of the report. The main concern was the location of the shack within close proximity to residential areas and that there was nothing within the application to promote the licensing objectives particularly the prevention of public nuisance. The applicant provided confirmation of the measures he had put in place which included installation of extractor fans with carbon filters to prevent the grease and cooking odours. The committee was advised that CCTV was in operation connected to his business and if there were ever any situations of anti-social behavior either himself or his employees would be on hand to deal with any situation but suggested that there would be no anti-social behavior. The Chair invited the residents individually to present their objections. The residents addressed the committee and collectively expressed concerns about odours, road safety, problems with parking as the street they live in was resident permit holders only and waste disposal related to the proposed business. It was also highlighted potential problems for disabled residents living nearby. There were no questions for the residents, the Chair invited all parties to sum up. All parties confirmed they had nothing further to add. The Chair thanked all parties for their submissions and handed over to the Legal Advisor to explain the procedure. The Legal Advisor informed all parties present that the Sub Committee would retire to consider the representations made and all other parties left the meeting. The Sub Committee reconvened, and all parties were present to receive the Decision of the committee. The decision of the Taxi and General Sub Committee (“Sub Committee”) regarding the hearing held on 11th September in respect of Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 Application for Grant of Street Trading Consent. After taking account, the information given to them by all parties, have AGREED unanimously to refuse the application for street trading consent. In making their decision, the Committee have had regard to the council street trading policy. The Committee have also had regard to the licensing objectives, in particular the prevention of public nuisance which can include nuisance from noise, light, smells, litter or fumes to households and businesses in the vicinity of the proposed street trading site. The Committee considered the representations from the applicants, which in summary were that this would be a temporary arrangement to establish a business in the hope they will be in a position to move to a permanent premises within 12 months. The applicants indicated that this would not be a large commercial cooking venture and was simply to establish a reputation and a base. They indicated that they had fitted the shack with three extractor fans with carbon filters to address odour concerns, they would empty waste daily and predominantly they were aiming for deliveries and food orders. They indicated that there would be toilet facilities available in the shop if required. In relation to parking the applicants suggested that the lane could be used, and there were other areas to park nearby. The Committee also considered the representations from the responsible authority and residents, which overlapped and can be summarised as concern regarding odours, road safety, waste disposal, litter and noise. The residents also highlighted potential problems for disabled residents who live nearby. The Committee were of the view, in considering the location of the site that it was likely that nuisance would be caused to nearby residents from odours, noise from customers and traffic and there would also be concerns around road safety given the restricted parking available and the likelihood of vehicles arriving and leaving to collect food and take deliveries. The Committee noted that the applicants were of the view that this would be a small operation with limited customers, but the Committee also took into account that if the consent was granted there was no restrictions that could be placed on them in terms of the number of customers or equipment being used, and if the venture was successful it would inevitably lead to increased footfall, traffic and noise and would, because of the location likely result in problems with parking. Unfortunately, the Committee felt there was insufficient detail as to how the business would operate on the ground and how they would address and mitigate the concerns around road safety, parking and nuisance. On balance, whilst the Committee commends the applicants for their ambition in wanting to start a new business venture, they were of the view that the location, taking into account the street trading policy and the need to promote the licensing objectives, was simply not suitable for street trading and therefore took the view that the application should be refused. The meeting closed at 13:01 pm.