None

None.

Report of the Head of Environmental Development attached.

The Sub Committee is asked to determine an application to renew a street trading consent.

The Head of Environmental Development submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended).

Miss de Jesus Neves did not attend the meeting and did not give any reason for her absence. Licensing officers confirmed that the date and time of the hearing had been sent to her, along with a copy of the report; but there had been no further contact from her.

Resolved: that consideration of this case will be deferred to a future date after Easter (exact details to be agreed), and that Miss de Jesus Neves will be advised of the fresh date when it is known. She will also be advised that, if she fails to attend on that occasion, the case will be heard and a decision made in her absence.

Report of the Head of Environmental Development attached.

The Sub Committee is asked to determine an application to renew a street trading consent.

The Head of Environmental development submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended). Dawn Cox (Licensing Officer) presented the report to the Sub Committee

Mr Irvin (Applicant) attended the meeting and presented his case. He apologised for his past errors and undertook not to overlook regulations and conditions on his licence in future.

The Sub Committee resolved that its deliberations on this case should be taken in private, on the grounds that the discussions would focus on the financial and business dealings of the applicant.

Mr Irvin and Licensing officers withdrew whilst the Sub Committee considered the case.

Having taken all submissions into account, both written and oral, the Sub Committee were satisfied that the evidence showed that Mr Irvin had breached condition 11 of his consent on at least three separate occasions during the last year by using free standing displays separate to his stall. As well as breaching the conditions of his consent his use of separate displays was also contrary to the following objectives of the Street Trading Policy:

Public Safety - risk of obstruction and hazard to public.

Appearance of the stall or vehicle - not smart and in excess of approved dimension.

Highway - risk of obstruction and danger to highway users.

The Sub Committee was mindful that only a year ago Mr Irvin had been before it because of similar problems and he had at that time given an undertaking to comply with the requirements of his consent in relation to the size and nature of displays. At that hearing his consent had been renewed for an initial period of 3 months. The Sub Committee found it significant that Mr Irwin had apparently traded for that period without complaint and had therefore shown himself capable of trading within the conditions of his licence.  

Given this the Sub Committee found that Mr Irvin's consent should be renewed for a further 12 months, but that the Head of Environmental Development should be authorised to revoke the consent without further reference to the Sub Committee in the event of any future substantiated breach of condition.

The Sub Committee wished to make clear to Mr Irvin that he must comply with the conditions of his consent and that his consent may be revoked in the event of any further breach of conditions during the coming year.

Decision:

The Application for renewal of street trading consent is granted for a period of 12 months with delegation to the Head of Environmental Development to revoke Mr Irvin's consent without further reference to the Sub Committee in the event of any future substantiated breach of condition. The consent is granted subject to the Oxford City Council general conditions applicable to street trading consents. 

Report of the Head of Environmental Development attached.

The Sub Committee is asked to determine an application to renew a street trading consent.

The Head of Environmental Development submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended). Samantha Howell (Licensing Officer) presented the report to the Sub Committee.

Mr Karrouchi (Applicant) accompanied by Mr Hussain, attended the meeting and presented their case. Mr Bird and Mr Fletcher (Interested Parties, Oriel College) also attended and outlined their concerns and objections to the Sub Committee.

The Sub Committee resolved that its deliberations on this case should be taken in private, on the grounds that the discussions would focus on the financial and business dealings of the applicants.

Licensing Officers and Mr Hussain and Mr Karrouchi withdrew whilst the Sub Committee considered the case.

Having taken all evidence into account, both written and oral, the Sub Committee were satisfied that the evidence showed there had been a number of breaches of the conditions attached to consent no. 11/00026/STREET during the last year, specifically:

Condition 11 - not positioned in allocated space.

Condition 18 - unauthorised staff.

Condition 7   - noise nuisance.

Condition 8   - waste disposal.

The breaches of condition were also contrary to objective (c) The Avoidance of Public Nuisance and (h) No Highway obstruction of the Council's Street Trading Policy.

Whilst the Applicant appeared to have taken steps to remedy the breaches regarding unauthorised staff and waste disposal the problems of noise nuisance and the vehicle not always being positioned in its allocated space continued to result in complaints.

The Sub Committee understood the Applicant's explanation that occasionally the allocated space was occupied by unauthorised vehicles. However, the Sub Committee has no control over unauthorised parking and whilst it was no doubt frustrating to the Applicant it was not a defence to trading outside his allocated space. Any trading which took place outside that space would not be covered by the Consent and would therefore be unlawful and could be subject to enforcement action.   

The Sub Committee found that the primary causes of the Objector's complaints were noise nuisance from the Applicant's generator and the continuance of noise after the end of authorised trading hours.

In order to address the cause of the nuisance the Sub Committee found it necessary to attach the following further conditions to the renewed consent:

1.      Any generator used by the Consent holder shall be a 'quiet' generator approved in writing by the Licensing Authority.

2.      All materials shall be cleared away and the allocated space vacated no later than 30 minutes after the end of operational hours.

3.      Clear signs shall be displayed at the point of sale reminding customers to remain quiet and respect local residents.

The Sub Committee wished to remind the Applicant that even once renewed the Consent could be referred back to the Sub Committee at any time if conditions continued to be breached with the possibility of revocation of the Consent. 

Decision:

The Application for renewal of street trading consent is granted for a period of 12 months. The consent is granted subject to the Oxford City Council general conditions applicable to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Minutes of the last meeting of the Sub Committee, held on 12^th July 2011 are attached.

Resolved to confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 12^th July 2011.

If the Sub Committee wishes to exclude the press and the public from the meeting during consideration of any aspects of the preceding agenda items it will be necessary for the Sub Committee to pass a resolution in accordance with the provisions of Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 specifying the grounds on which their presence could involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as described in specific paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act if and so long, as in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

In accordance with the provisions of Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Sub Committee resolved to exclude the press and public from the meeting during its deliberation of each case on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to the financial and business dealings of each applicant.