Agenda item

Members were asked to consider and comment on a report which addressed a motion submitted by Councillor Ted Strike at Council meeting held on 29 May 2024, concerning the resolution agreed under the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982 which designated the whole Borough as a consent area for the purposes of street trading. This motion had been automatically referred to the General Licensing Committee for comments.

 

Full details of Councillor Strikes motion was contained within the main report.

 

Councillor Ted Strike and Councillor Tony Riordan attended the meeting and given the opportunity to make representation. Their comments could be summarised as follows:

 

. The idea behind the Consent Street Trading (CST) was accepted and businesses should be required to comply, however it was believed that there was no intention that Stockton Borough Council Officers and Local Councillors meant to penalise community events organised for the community by volunteers, however this is what was happening.

 

. Cllr Strike informed the Committee that as the founder and Chairman of the Ingleby Barwick Community Partnership (IBCP) he could speak first hand on the matter.

 

. Reference was made to the ‘Ingleby Barwick light switch on’ where it would cost £100 for up to 20 stalls, however this was not that type of event. Last year there was only a coffee van which was charged £25 to attend.

 

. The Ingleby Barwick market would be 10 years old in September, however if these charges remained the market wouldn’t see 11 years. Organisers of the market put on an entry fee to combat the charge, and although vouchers were given out to visitors to the value of the entry fee which could be redeemed at any stall, footfall had gone down.

 

. If the minimum fee of £100 was paid then these events would not be viable, taking into consideration all the work required setting up at 8am, then dismantling at the end finishing about 3.30 or 4pm depending on the number of volunteers. It was hard to see this continuing if £100 had to be paid to Stockton Borough Council for each market!

 

. If the markets were stopped, which was probably what would happen should these charges remain, then the income generated which went towards the Family Fun Weekend (FFW) would have to be found elsewhere. Add to that the cost of the CST consent for the FFW, which this year would be £150, consideration would have to be given whether the FFW continued.

 

. Volunteers worked hard on these events for no financial reward.

 

. Stockton Borough Council liked to say they are an events Council, and the ‘Powering Our Future’ initiative was meant to be about working and supporting local communities. How was taxing community events supporting local communities?

 

. Do the right thing and exempt community events from stealth tax.

 

At the request of Cllr Strike and with the agreement of the Chair an email was read out which had been submitted by Deborah Gale who was Chair of a non-profit community group (CPAD IB Fund) Community Public Access Defibrillators. Details of the e mail were as follows:

 

‘I am writing this email to confirm my support of Cllr. Strikes motion regarding the Street Trading Consent.

 

I am Chair of non-profit community group CPAD IB Fund. The group is run by unpaid volunteers, every penny we raise goes towards locating and maintaining community public access defibrillators in the Stockton area (53 CPAD’s located to date) and, delivering free community CPR and defibrillator awareness training (approximately 5000 trained to date).

 

Our fundraising events allow us to fund our potential lifesaving work. Whilst I appreciate, we are exempt if we hold an event with only charity/non-profit stalls or the event has an entry charge, it’s not always possible to add and facilitate an entry fee depending on the venue. If we invite commercial stalls to our events, they pay a pitch fee and often give a donation to the fund, this helps us greatly to deliver the fundraising event and continue our hard work for the benefit of the community.

 

We have a small event planned in August and due to us not being able to make it a chargeable event, we have taken the decision to only host charity stalls to fall into the exemption category. This will have an effect on the funds raised. We also work with many local emergency and rescue charities and a proportion of the funds raised are shared to help them continue their vital work. If we invite commercial stalls and pay the £100 fee to cover the street trading consent this equates to the cost of two pairs of defibrillator pads to the fund.

 

I am also curious how the street consent is policed as there seems to be many events held which invite commercial stalls, with no entry fee and I believe have not applied for street trading consent. It should be a fair and equal process especially when raising funds to benefit the local community.

 

CPAD IB Fund support the proposal the street trading consent is reviewed and any non-profit or charity events ran by unpaid volunteers/community groups, should be exempt fully’.

 

. Questions were raised as to whether a fair and effective consultation had been undertaken by licensing officers.

 

. Good consultations helped in the decision-making process, aiding decision makers to make better decisions.

 

. Only 49 responses had been received following the consultation, 45% agreed with the proposals and 49% disagreed, with 6% being unsure.

 

. The voluntary sector consultation period was too short.

 

. Small businesses would be harmed by effecting trade and reducing amount of revenue spent locally. The amount of paperwork required to be completed would put small community groups off.

 

. It appeared this was just bringing money into the Council.

 

. The Guidance was due to be reviewed within 12 to 18 months from 1 March, however the Council could reflect and amend the CST policy to reflect Cllr Strikes motion before this.

 

Officers were given the opportunity to respond to comments/issues raised. Their responses could be summarised as follows: -

 

. There had been a fair and effective consultation undertaken which had gone above and beyond statutory requirements. The consultation had been extended outside of the statutory consultees and officers also went out seeking responses to the consultation.

 

. In terms of the 49% of consultees that had disagreed with the policy, that part of the consultation results had been reconsidered by the General Licensing Committee. All consultees who had disagreed were invited to that meeting although none attended, however Members agreed to amend that part of the policy alleviating some of those concerns.

 

. Where comments had been raised relating to the policing of events, officers confirmed this was a new scheme and in the early stages of implementation.

 

. It was confirmed that the ‘Siren Fest’ event which Deborah Gale had highlighted in her e mail did have an entrance fee and therefore would not need to go through the CST process, however commercial enterprises at the event would need to apply for CST consent, unless the stalls were charitable which would make them exempt.

 

. The CST application for the ‘Ingleby Barwick Family Fun Weekend’ had been received and was currently being looked at. Trading where all profits were for charity were exempt and did not need to be included in the CST process.

 

. The Licensing Team Leader also explained to Members that there were many elements to the CST process. Without the policy, individual businesses such as burger vans could pitch up anywhere in the Borough where the CST policy did not apply. The new policy would allow for enforcement powers across the whole of the Borough. DBS certificates would be required for businesses operating such as ice cream vans, and assistants working on those types of businesses would need to be named. A licence plate would be required for any operating vehicle, making it easy to identify those that had the correct permission to operate as a street trader. The CST application process also asked if a street trader had previously had CST consent refused or revoked before with other local authorities. Where street traders were selling food items, food safety and hygiene certificates would be required. The CST application approach across the whole of the Borough was paramount to safeguarding the community.

 

. Previously to the whole Borough having CST legislation, it was difficult to know who was trading in the Borough. Officers believed that traders from out of the area were choosing Stockton as an area to trade due to the whole Brough not having CST legislation in place. With the CST policy much, more would be known about each trader. The introduction of the Borough wide CST legislation helped prevent issues with pedlars and enforce any issues which may present themselves including those linked to modern day slavery.

 

Members were given the opportunity to ask questions / make comments. These could be summarised as follows: -

 

. An amendment was requested that voluntary events where food stalls were trading were exempt or have a limited number of commercial enterprises exempt at those events.

 

. Clarity was sought as to whether a trader could trade anywhere in the borough once they had gained CST consent.

 

. It was felt the principle of the CST policy had already been established in a small part of the Borough and that there was no reason for it not to be rolled out to the whole Borough. The new policy allowed for a revaluation after 12 to 18 months, and as the policy only came into effect 1st March 2024 there had not been enough time to see how the new policy translated on the ground, therefore it was suggested the policy be re-evaluated after the proposed timescale already laid out in the policy.

 

. Queries were raised relating to concerns raised by the organiser of Norton Green Market, as when the policy went to consultation the organiser of Norton Green Market was happy with the recommendations. Cllr Ted Strike however explained that after recent discussions with the organiser of Norton Green Market they were still concerned that if the charges applied the Market may not go-ahead next year.

 

Officers were given the opportunity to respond to comments/issues raised. Their responses could be summarised as follows: -

 

. The Licensing Team Leader explained that the CST policy was for the whole of the Borough and that commercial enterprises would need CST consents at community events, however it wouldn’t necessarily be the organiser that would need to pay the fees, it could be the individual trader.

 

. The CST process was self-funding which would cover the costs of the process itself including staff time etc. The fees had not increased and had been in place for some time; however, they were now to be applied to the whole of the Borough not just part as had been previously.

 

. It was confirmed that a trader would need to apply for CST consent for each event or location they wanted to trade.

 

. Norton Green Market organiser had recently been in touch with the Licensing Team enquiring about extending their market event.

 

RESOLVED that:

Officers collate the options identified by the Committee, and these options be circulated to members of the committee, for feedback, with this feedback being provided to a future meeting of the committee, prior to it making a final decision and informing Council accordingly.