Report of the Director of Early Intervention and Support (enclosed).
Minutes:
The Director of Early Intervention and Support submitted a report for the General Licensing Sub-Committee to consider the appeal against the refusal of a Street Trading Consent Application. Members were to determine whether to uphold the decision to refuse the application for a street trading consent or issue the consent with the usual conditions.
In accordance with the Street Trading Policy introduced in February 2017, there was an informal appeals process to the General Licensing Sub-Committee in the absence of any appeal procedure within the legislation.
The applicant attended the meeting along with his representative to make his representations to the Sub-Committee.
In February 2016, the applicant changed his vehicle and failed to ensure that he obtained a new consent to reflect the new vehicle identification. Street Trading Consents cannot be transferred or the vehicle details updated, a new consent must be issued. When the applicant made his renewal in May 2016, he failed to provide the updated details of the vehicle on his application form and therefore the consent was renewed for the old vehicle. Consequently, the applicant was trading without a valid consent which is a criminal offence.
The vehicle to which the original consent applied was the subject of an investigation following an allegation of smoking in the vehicle. This prompted a PACE interview that took place on 9 May 2017. At this interview the applicant admitted that he had no involvement in this incident having sold the vehicle in question and subsequently acknowledged that he had been trading without a valid consent. The applicant was advised that he could not trade until he made an application for a new consent for the new vehicle. The applicant had held a consent since 2014 (initially in partnership with his brother, and then as a sole trader), he was therefore aware of the conditions of the consent and the need to have a valid consent in order to trade.
The applicant made a new application on 30 May 2017, which was therefore subject to a vehicle inspection. When arranging the vehicle inspection with the Environmental Health Officer, the applicant admitted to trading since he submitted his application, knowing that he did not had a valid consent. He offered to pay an additional fee to cover the extra time between the date of his application and the date when his consent would be issued.
Officers wrote to the applicant, having made the decision that under the circumstances his application for consent should be refused. The applicant appealed the decision of the Council to refuse his consent application by email on 4 July 2017.
Members noted previous occasions when the applicant had come to the attention of Officers. A warning letter was sent to the applicant in June 2015 as a result of complaints received by Environmental Health. The complaints were regarding the applicant parking his vehicle on double yellow lines and pedestrian crossings and becoming abusive when asked to move. The applicant was also involved in a lengthy dispute with another consent holder beginning in July 2015. Due to numerous complaints from both parties, they were offered mediation by Chorley Council in October 2015. This was agreed by both parties; however the applicant did not attend the arranged session.
Members requested reassurance from the applicant that he understood that licences were issued for use throughout the borough and not designated to a particular area. With regards to parking, it was reiterated to the applicant that there were certain laws and restrictions that must be adhered to.
The applicant’s representative advised the Sub-Committee that this had arisen from a misunderstanding on the licence. He informed Members that the applicant’s vehicle was a company vehicle and therefore not owned by himself. It was reiterated to Member’s that the applicant did not obtain the vehicle at the time of the smoking incident as the vehicle was back with the company. He stated that the applicant had built up his business over the last four years but following his suspension, had subsequently been out of work for six weeks with no income.
After careful consideration, the Sub-Committee RESOLVED to refuse to allow the appeal against the refusal to grant the street trading consent for the following reasons;
1. The applicant knowingly traded without a valid street trading consent which is an offence
2. He had failed to return the consent in relation to the old vehicle as requested by officers.
Members considered the allegations in 2015 to be closed since there had been no further complaints since the warning letter from the Council so this was not part of the reasons for the decision. Members noted that the Environmental Health Officer accepted that the smoking offence was not committed by the applicant so this was not part of the reasons for the decision.