Agenda item

The Committee received a report on the Buckinghamshire Council draft Street Trading Consent Policy.  Prior to the formation of Buckinghamshire Council in April 2020, street trading was dealt with differently in each legacy district council area, using different application forms, processes, and fee levels. Since becoming a unitary authority, the licensing team had been working to consolidate records and develop working practices that were consistent across the new council area. There was currently no street trading consent policy covering the Buckinghamshire Council area. Whilst there was no statutory requirement for a policy under the legislation, it was considered appropriate to produce a single policy which sets out a clear and consistent framework for the Council’s approach to street trading. The adoption of a policy supported the Council’s commitment to transparency, fairness and openness when determining applications and ensuring compliance with the relevant legislation.

A pre-draft policy consultation exercise had been carried out and the results had helped shape Buckinghamshire Council’s first draft street trading consent policy. It was proposed that all streets in the Buckinghamshire Council area be designated as ‘consent’ streets. Subject to agreement by the Licensing Committee, the draft policy would be consulted upon widely for a period of 6 weeks. The results of the consultation would be reported back to the Licensing Committee for further consideration. The draft Street Trading Consent Policy (referred to onwards as “the Policy”) at Appendix 1 also provided guidance on the application processes and a brief overview of relevant legislation. The Policy provided an opportunity to outline matters which the Council would take into consideration when deciding whether to grant a street trading consent and it aimed to balance the needs of the public, traders, businesses, and the environment as well as supporting the Council’s Corporate Plan. The ability to determine where street trading could take place, the articles that might be sold and the way trading was conducted, could help to support other council plans in terms of how public spaces look, feel, and are used. The street trading regime could be used to promote healthy lifestyle choices and environmentally friendly activities. A well-planned street trading policy also presented an opportunity to support economic prosperity and areas with vibrant street trading activity were likely to benefit not only traders themselves but also other businesses within the vicinity.

The draft Policy was based on the recommendation that Full Council designates all streets in the authority’s area as ‘consent’ streets, should the Licensing Committee be minded to support this recommendation. This would mean that anyone wishing to trade in Buckinghamshire Council’s area would need to apply for a street trading consent unless one of the exceptions, as shown in 2.7 of the report, applied.

If approved by the Licensing Committee, and subject to any suggested amendments, the draft Policy would undergo a six-week public consultation with all relevant stakeholders notified, including current street trading consent holders and non-consent holders (where these could be identified), Ward, Town and Parish Councillors, Community Boards, Thames Valley Police, Fire and Rescue Service and a number of Council departments such as Environmental Health, Trading Standards, Economic Development Team, Public Health, Planning and Community Safety.

Following the consultation process, a further report would be presented to the Licensing Committee providing full details of any comments received, together with any recommended changes by the licensing service to the draft Policy arising from the consultation. Should the Licensing Committee be minded to agree the proposed recommendation to adopt consent street controls, the matter would be referred to Full Council for consideration once a final version of the Policy had been agreed by the Licensing Committee.

Should new street trading controls be introduced across the whole council area, including controls on mobile traders, it was anticipated that more traders would be brought within scope of the regime. At present it was not possible to give an accurate estimate of the number of new traders, however it was expected that this information would be available following the proposed consultation exercise. Once final decisions had been made on the adoption of street trading controls and policy content, the licensing service intended to review both the budgetary position and levels of fees and charges during the period 2024/25 with a view to ensuring a cost neutral financial position would be maintained. A further report would be presented to the Licensing Committee on this and if approved new fees might be introduced during 2024/25 dependent on the policy decision making process. Thereafter fees and income levels would be reviewed on an annual basis.

Members were invited to ask questions of officers. A Member questioned what the benefits were to having consent streets rather than prohibited streets and asked why prohibited streets were not being proposed in the new policy. In response, officers explained that consents would allow the Council to regulate the street trading activities across all areas that members of public might freely access. This would include the historical prohibited streets from legacy councils. Once an application was complete and deemed valid, the application would be subject to a 28-day consultation.  This consultation was comprehensive and would allow other council departments, external stakeholders and members of the public to review the application and make any representations either for or against the application.   This process would therefore flag up any issues in the historical prohibited streets.     Furthermore, once a street was prohibited there could be no events held there, so if the Council wanted to hold an event on a prohibited street it might not be able to do so.   Therefore, consent streets would provide more flexibility, whilst still ensuring that the necessary safeguards were in place.

A Member questioned what the need was for introducing a policy when it wasn’t a statutory requirement and there didn’t seem to be an issue with the current situation.  The Member was concerned that the new policy was not necessary and was overregulation which would make things more difficult for small businesses. Having referred to 2.9 of the report, which stated that there were only 19 street trading consents in operation across Buckinghamshire Council area, the Member questioned whether the Council would have the resources to consider and determine the increase in the number of street trading consents which would result from the introduction of the new policy and whether it had the resources to carry out the increase in activities, particularly in relation to enforcement, which would be required.  Furthermore, the Member was concerned that there would be an overlap with the enforcement activities carried out by other services and partner organisations such as Environmental Health and the Police.

With regard to the reason for the Policy, officers explained that a single policy would set out a clear and consistent framework for the Council’s approach to street trading. Furthermore, the adoption of the Policy would support the Council’s commitment to transparency, fairness and openness when determining applications and ensuring compliance with the relevant legislation. Historically, there had been objections made to street consents, so it was an issue that had created concern amongst members of the public.  Currently, there were streets in Buckinghamshire which were not regulated that the Council had no jurisdiction over and therefore could do nothing about if there were any concerns.  

With regard to scope, officers explained that at this stage the exact number of additional traders which would be brought within scope of the regime was not known. The proposal was that, through the consultation, the licensing service would contact all food mobile traders who were registered with Environmental Health to get a better understanding of how many of those would come within scope of the regime. Officers would then be able to report those numbers to the Licensing Committee. There were around 200 mobile food traders registered with Environmental Health, but it was anticipated that not all of those would come within the scope of the regime and therefore the number within scope of the regime would be less than that.

In terms of resources, officers explained that fees would be set at a cost recovery basis. Enforcement costs would be factored into the fee setting the same way as had been done with the other licensing regimes.  If the Policy was adopted, a full fee review would be carried out on a cost recovery basis to ensure that there were no additional costs to the Council whilst ensuring that the costs for businesses be kept to a minimum.  With regards to the concern regarding a potential overlap with enforcement activities carried out by Environmental Health and other enforcement agencies, officers explained that they had met with Environmental Health and other enforcement agencies such as the Police and the feedback had been that they were in support of the Policy. In relation to Environmental Health and Licensing, it was noted that they were two distinct regimes which compliment each other.

A Member asked a question regarding the pre-draft policy engagement workshops and which organisations had attended. In response, officers explained that the workshops were attended by numerous departments within the Council, including Environmental Health, Planning, Trading Standards and other licensing colleagues. Externally, the workshops were attended by some representatives from the Town Centre Management Team, High Wycombe Business Improvement District (HW BIDCo), Thames Valley Policy, Bucks Fire and Rescue and other organisations listed in the draft Policy. 

A further question was asked as to whether any lessons had been learnt from the pre-draft policy engagement workshops and survey in terms of level of engagement and how to increase the number of responses in the consultation should the draft Policy be approved for consultation.  In response, officers explained that the pre-draft policy consultation was publicised in the same way as any other consultation carried out by the Council and involved following a consultation plan which had been created in conjunction with the Council’s Consultation and Engagement Team.  The survey was published on social media and the link to the survey was sent to all relevant stakeholders including ward councillors. It was also publicised in the Town and Parish Councils’ Newsletter.  However, the response rate was low and the service would take on board any learning from the pre-draft policy engagement and work with the Council’s Consultation and Engagement Team again on how to promote the consultation to improve response rates should the draft policy be approved for consultation.  Officers welcomed any ideas which Members might have on how to promote the consultation and any support they could offer.  This time, the consultation would not only go out to consented traders but would also go out to the mobile food traders registered with Environmental Health. The licensing service would also reach out to organisations like High Wycombe BIDCo and the Council’s Town Centre Management teams. 

Following a question regarding market traders, the Committee was advised that ‘trading in a market or fair that has a legal right to be held by virtue of a grant or an enactment or order’ was one of the activities which was not considered street trading in accordance with the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (see section 2.7 of the report). A concern was raised by a Member that a market trader who paid a levy every year might feel undermined by a trader who had a consent and potentially was paying lower for their pitch. In response, officers stated the Policy could actually help to address this issue as a regulated system would mean that the Council would have the discretion to ensure that street traders would not conflict with authorised market traders.  At present there were large areas of Buckinghamshire town centres which were not regulated, meaning that there were street traders who were operating without having to pay any kind of fee for that location resulting in inequity across Buckinghamshire.  Following a request from a Member, officers agreed to ensure that the Market Traders Association would be consulted with as part of the consultation process should the draft policy be approved for consultation.

A Member commented that one of the issues raised in Wycombe was that the street traders were effectively in competition with other fixed businesses in the town centre and often street traders did not have to pay rents or rates unlike the fixed businesses on the high street did and the price of a street trading consent was quite low in comparison.  A Member asked how these inequalities would be addressed and any potential conflict avoided.   Officers explained that this was something which was raised in the discussion with the Economic Development Team and the Town Centre teams as part of the pre-draft policy engagement and that they had stressed the need to ensure, when considering an application, that authorisation of a consent would not adversely affect the businesses already existing in the town centres. The draft policy was proposing a comprehensive consultation process whereby this issue could be raised and the Council would have powers to refuse an application if there was a conflict.   In terms of the fees, there were strict legal provisions which set out the extent to which the level of the fees could be set. The Council could not set fees deliberately at a level which would deter people from applying but fees could be set at a level to ensure the Council could cover its costs and the Council could also factor in other costs, like street cleansing, so that they were not borne by other businesses.   

A Member welcomed the proposal to introduce the draft policy and felt that it would offer the opportunity to support economic prosperity which would benefit traders and other businesses in Buckinghamshire.  In response to a comment about ensuring that the public know which traders had consent, officers stated that the draft Policy required all applicants and nominated assistants to provide proof of identification and a passport photo which would be printed on the consent.  This consent would then need to be displayed when trading. Furthermore, it was being proposed that a public register for consent street traders be made available on the Council’s website, similar to the public register of licensed premises.

Another Member referred to the Council’s website and how the process regarding street trader consent was confusing as the process differed depending on what area of Buckinghamshire someone was trading in. The Member, therefore, welcomed the introduction of a clear and consistent single Policy.    

Following the discussion, the Chairman explained that the recommendations being put to the Committee had been amended and were now as follows:

1)      That the draft Street Trading Consent Policy set out at Appendix 1, subject to any recommended amendments, be approved for public consultation.

2)      That following consultation on the Policy, the Licensing Committee recommend that Full Council pass a resolution to designate all streets in Buckinghamshire as ‘consent streets’ for the purposes of street trading.

On a vote being taken the first recommendation was proposed by Cllr Wood and seconded by Cllr Baum and:-

RESOLVED that the draft Street Trading Consent Policy set out at Appendix 1, subject to any recommended amendments, be approved for public consultation.

A vote was then taken on the second recommendation which was proposed by Cllr Gomm and seconded by Cllr Towns and:-

RESOLVED that following consultation on the Policy, the Licensing Committee recommend that Full Council pass a resolution to designate all streets in Buckinghamshire as ‘consent streets’ for the purposes of street trading.