Council and democracy

To receive additional items that the Chair is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency, in accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There were no items of Urgent Business.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chair asked all parties if they had any requests, and it was noted that there were no requests.

The Licensing Officer presented the report on pages 5 – 50 of the Agenda.

All parties were provided the chance to ask questions of the Licensing Officer. There were none from the applicant and the resident objector.

Members sought clarification on the application as it was not for a licence and enquired if the starting point was to grant the application. This was confirmed by the Legal Adviser, who commented the starting point of the application would be to grant, unless after hearing from all parties, Members were persuaded not too.

Councillor Maney commented that 2.5 of the report referred to the Council’s Street Trading Policy which in turn provided considerations under the Prevention of public nuisance, he queried if Licensing Officers had an opinion on this. The Licensing Officer explained that with all applications the Licensing Team did not have a personal opinion however it had been looked at by the Environmental team and they had not raised any concerns.

Councillor Maney went on to enquire if the Council considered there were sufficient traders existing in the locality as was mentioned within the Street Trading Policy.  The Licensing Officer commented she wasn’t able to advise any further than was in the policy and it was not something that Officers would advise applicants on.

Councillor Coxhall addressed the Sub-Committee as a witness for the applicant, he stated he had advised the applicant to apply to the Planning and Licensing Committees as the correct route of procedure. He continued by commenting the location was close to a number of car parks and the application was not offering any seating, so wouldn’t affect other businesses in the area. Councillor Coxshall stated he felt it was a good use of old taxi and there was nothing like this which had been done before.

The Sub-Committee adjourned at 7.37pm for ten minutes due to technical difficulties and returned at 7.38pm.

Ms Piper, the resident representative was then given the opportunity to explain her objections to the applicant, during which she raised several concerns, including the car parks were owned by the local Church, parking was already a problem in the proximity and as a business owner the application was right on her doorstep and she felt it potentially threaten her business. 

There were no questions for the Resident representative from either party.

Mr Hedges was then provided with the opportunity to present his case, during which he and his wife explained the taxi would be place in position and would offer grab and go hot drinks and cold food. Mr Hedges continued to explain like many within the taxi trade, since the start of Covid-19 he had not had much work, so thought a new use for his black cab.

The Sub-Committee heard how Mr Hedges was looking to offer a grab and go service, with no seating being provided, it was explained there were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.