Agenda item

Report of the Regeneration Group Manager – Property and City Centre Services

The Chair explained the procedure for hearing the case against the Officer decision.  As the appellant was not present the Officer would present the case and take questions from Members before the matter was debated by the Committee.  The Chair drew the Committee’s attention to the revised legal implications which had been circulated. The revised legal implications expanded upon those in the report and indicated that objections to the proposal based on competition should be disregarded. The Committee was advised that the recommendations set out in the report would need to be edited to reflect this revision if the Committee was to uphold them, following debate.

The Council’s Case

The Regeneration Group Manager – Property and City Centre Services, presented an appeal against the Council’s decision to allow Mr Chris Copner to trade from an ice-cream van in King’s Square from between 10 am and 6 pm Monday to Saturday and from 10 am to 4 pm on Sunday.

The Committee was advised that in April 2009 the City Council had adopted a new policy and process for Street Trading applications which had resulted in significant improvements in street trading activity both in the City Centre and the surrounding areas.

In accordance with the policy, there had been consultation on Mr Copner’s proposal with the relevant stakeholders resulting in the receipt of four representations from King’s Walk retailers, one from the Gloucester City Centre Community Partnership, one from the relevant Cabinet Member and one from Ward Councillor Pam Tracey.

Following evaluation of the proposal against the agreed criteria and taking into account the resultant consultation, the Regeneration Group Manager – Property and City Centre Services, had refused the application on the following grounds:-

(1)       The unit does not provide a service of benefit to the public which enhances the area, by introducing new products or adding vitality of the area as there are already a number of ice cream providers nearby.

(2)       The unit is not considered to be compatible with the character of the area in which it is proposed to be sited.

Mr Copner had appealed against the Officer’s decision on 19^th March 2012, pointing out that as he had not been asked to provide a detailed breakdown of the products he would be selling that the decision was unfair.  Mr Copner had submitted photographs to substantiate his belief that King’s Square was a suitable venue for his van and had asserted that his products would include specialist ice-cream products which were not widely available.

The Regeneration Group Manager – Property and City Centre Services, had responded to Mr Copner’s appeal by suggesting that he might consider becoming a mobile ice-cream trader, or that he might wish to look for another fixed location and re-submit his application in the future.  Mr Copner had also been advised to contact the Events Team and had been passed details of a promotional event in the City which he might wish to trade at.

The Regeneration Group Manager – Property and City Centre Services informed the Committee of the work which she had carried out, in liaison with local Councillors, to keep King’s Square free of vehicles and pointed out that the application, if granted, would mean that diesel fumes would be emanating from the parked van 7 days a week.

The Committee was advised to uphold the Officer’s decision and dismiss the appeal on the following grounds which had been revised in the light of the revised Legal Implications and was reminded to disregard any objections based on competition:-

(1)       The unit does not provide a service of benefit to the public which enhances the City Centre, by introducing new products or adding vitality to the City Centre.

(2)       The unit is not considered to be compatible with the character of the area in which it is proposed to be sited because it is a vehicle.

The following matters were clarified by the Regeneration Group Manager – Property and City Centre Services following questions from the Committee:-

• Mr Copner resided in Abergavenny, but this was irrelevant to Members’ consideration of the appeal
• The land in King’s Square was in the City Council’s ownership
• If Members wished to grant a licence it would be renewable annually

The Committee voted to debate the matter in public session.

Members were sympathetic towards Mr Copner’s business aspirations, but considered that it was undesirable to have a van emitting fumes 7 days a week.  Members also believed that if the licence was granted it would be a retrograde step in view of all the work which had been done by Officers and Members to keep King’s Square clear of vehicles. 

RESOLVED

That the appeal STAPP22 (Mr Copner) be dismissed for the following reasons:-

(1)       The unit does not provide a service of benefit to the public which enhances the City Centre, by introducing new products or adding vitality to the City Centre.

(2)       The unit is not considered to be compatible with the character of the area in which it is proposed to be sited because it is a vehicle.