The Head of Regulatory Services & Community Safety has submitted a report asking the Sub-Committee to determine the action to take in relation to Street Trading Consents.

The Sub-Committee is asked to consider written and verbal evidence and make the determination.

The Head of Regulatory Services and Community Safety had submitted a report asking the Sub-Committee to determine what action to take in relation to Street Trading Consents where the street trader has breached the conditions of their consents and the Street Trading Policy.

Mr Hall and the licensing officers joined the meeting. The Chair asked everyone to introduce themselves, and then explained the process to be followed.

The Licensing Officer introduced the report, outlining the main points in the report relating to three contraventions of the street trading consents:

1. Trading outside a school (breach of peripatetic consent conditions);
2. Trading at Pembroke Square using a vehicle not listed on the consent (breach of consent conditions);
3. Trading at Port Meadow (trading without a valid consent).

Full details were included in the officer’s report and appendices.

The licensing officer also reported and read out an email in support of Mr Hall sent by his ward councillor Cllr Djafari-Marbini.

Mr Hall explained in his statement and in answer to questions that:

·         In relation to (1) the route was covered by his sister. He had explained the consent conditions to her, but was unsure if she knew the details of the conditions. His sister had not reported receiving visits or complaints. He had been unaware of the breaches until the licensing officers had contacted him after receiving a number of complaints.

·         In relation to (2) he was aware that the previous holder of a consent to trade at Port Meadow had left. Assuming that a valid consent still existed, albeit not in his name, he had decided to try trading there over the Easter weekend. He had then emailed the licensing team to obtain a formal consent but as he had not heard back he had not returned to Port Meadow.

·         In relation to (3) the ice-cream van listed on the consent had broken down and he had used another of his ice-cream vans to avoid losing a day’s trade.

·         Trading had been very difficult over 2020 and 2021 with the reduction in trade on his routes and a loss of most of the trade for the static pitches and events. 

The Licensing Officer in summing up reminded the Sub-Committee that Mr Hall had already received a formal warning from a previous Sub-Committee hearing, and reminded the Sub-Committee of the options to consider including:

• Revocation of all four street trading consents held by Mr Hall;
• Revocation of the two peripatetic street trading consents which were the subject of the complaints;
• Imposing conditions;
• Formal warning; or
• No action

With no further points to make, Mr Hall and the licensing officers left the meeting while the Sub-Committee considered their decision in private session.

The Sub-Committee in coming to their decision noted that:

·         On (1), the breach of his consent conditions by trading at the school was serious and contravened the Councils’ street trading policy. The licensing team had not communicated these to Mr Hall immediately. Mr Hall’s explanations for the breaches were credible, although clearly these must  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13

The Head of Planning, Sustainable Development & Regulatory Services has submitted a report in relation to the breach of Street Trading Conditions.

The Head of Planning, Sustainable Development and Regulatory Services had submitted a report seeking the Sub-Committee’s view about what action to take in the light of Mr Hall’s breach of the conditions of his Street Trading Consent.

The Chair confirmed that Mr Hall had received the paperwork associated with this item and that he had been alerted in advance to the fact that, on this occasion, the Sub-Committee would comprise two City Councillors.

The Licensing Officer spoke to the report. Mr Hall holds a Street Trading Consent for his ice cream van which permits him to trade on a peripatetic basis at specified times in designated areas. The matter had been referred to the Sub Committee following two complaints regarding trading from his van in Rose Lane. On both occasions the van was parked on double yellow lines obstructing the footpath and road. Oxfordshire County Council confirmed that parking fines had been issued on both occasions.

Prior to the breaches, on 14 March 2018,  Mr Hall attended a meeting  with the licensing officer  when he had been reminded of previous advice and a  verbal warning he had received in 2017 regarding trading in Rose Lane. It was explained to Mr Hall that immediate enforcement action would be taken if further complaints were received.

Mr Hall’s Consent does not include Rose Lane or allow him to trade for longer than 20 minutes in one location. On both occasions there was trading from the van for longer than 20 minutes.  Mr Hall was therefore in breach of the Consent.

Following receipt of the complaints, Mr Hall attended a further  meeting with the licensing officer when  it was explained that the matter would be put before the Sub-Committee. 

Mr Hall explained that at the time of both incidents described his sister was driving the van and he was not present. He had sold ice creams in Oxford from a vehicle for 20 years. Ice creams had not been sold from anywhere other than permitted sites since the second incident.

The Licensing Officer confirmed that Mr Hall was the owner of the ice cream van and the person to whom the Consent had been granted and that Mr Hall’s sister was recognised as an authorised employee for the concession.  The meetings referred to in the report had been held with Mr Hall and not his sister as he was the Consent holder.

Mr Hall and the licensing officers left the room while the Sub-Committee considered the points raised.

The Sub-Committee was concerned that despite the warning given to Mr Hall on 14 March 2018, the two breaches described in the report occurred just a few weeks later. Taking account of all the circumstances described, the Committee agreed that the breaches would not warrant revocation of the consent at this point but were clear that a further breach would require the Sub-Committee to reconsider the position

Mr Hall returned to the room.  The Chair explained the Sub-Committee’s concerns to Mr Hall.

The Sub-Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5