Agenda item

Following introductions, the licensee’s authorised assistant, Mr Peter Carter, explained that the licensee, Mrs Ann Carter, was recovering from an operation and had authorised him to act on her behalf.  He presented the letter of authorisation from Mrs Carter to the Committee for information.

The Service Manager for Street Trading and Trading Standards introduced his report. Following complaints in November 2016 from the solicitors acting on behalf of the Montcalm Hotel, about the trading practices of the trader on a pitch immediately outside the front of the Hotel, Council officers had brought to the trader’s attention various breaches of street trading conditions. In addition, he referred to a report prepared by the Council’s Compliance Manager on the monitoring of activities at the street trading pitch located in Finsbury Square, EC2. This report was appendix 7 of the agenda. He would defer to his colleagues, the Street Trading Manager and the Compliance Manager, on points of detail. He stated that he was not representing the Montcalm Hotel. The breaches of the street trading conditions by the street trader were detailed in paragraph 3 of the report of the Service Director (Public Protection), specifically conditions 15 (relating to the size of the trading area), condition 16 (relating to approved receptacles), condition 22 (setting up times for trading), condition 56 (relating to commencement of trading) and condition 57 (relating to storage of receptacles). In addition, he suggested that condition 26, which stated that “The operation of your stall must not cause a nuisance to other traders or the general public” had been breached. He outlined the background to the case, which was all set out in the report of the Service Director (Public Protection).   Since early 2017, Council officers had looked at options for relocating the trading pitch, but this had not proved fruitful.  He noted that since the Council’s letter of 1 November 2017, notifying the trader of this meeting, there had been no breach of the conditions, apart from that relating to the size of the receptacle. The licence for this pitch had been in existence for many years and the trading receptacle used to fit into the delineated pitch, but no longer did so. This had now been brought to the Council’s attention. No reasons had been provided by the trader for the periods when the receptacle had not been removed from the pitch in accordance with street trading conditions. It was not the Council’s wish to take any person’s livelihood but, at the same time, traders were required to comply with street trading conditions attached to their licence.

Mr Peter Carter informed the Committee that he had used the same van for fourteen and a half years, prior to the establishment of the Montcalm Royal London House Hotel in October 2016 and he could not recall any complaints about the size of his trading van prior to October 2016.   The Street Trading Manager pointed out that scattered sites, such as this, would not be checked on a regular basis unless there had been complaints.

In response to questions from members, the Street Trading Manager confirmed that, as the vehicle was licensed to be outside the Montcalm Hotel, even though parked there within designated trading times and not open for sales, this was not an issue for this particular trader:  if hot liquid was poured down the nearby drain, this would not be a problem as long as the liquid was not oil: when the licence was first issued, there had been no issues with the trader selling to customers of the Hotel.

As a witness for the Street Trading Team, the solicitor acting for the Montcalm Hotel drew the Committee’s attention to provisions of the London Local Authorities Act which related to revocation of street trading licences and variations to conditions to specify the relocation of a street trading pitch. On behalf of the Montcalm Hotel, he had pointed out that the street trader was not complying with the conditions of the licence. He drew attention to evidence logs of breaches of street trading conditions, on pages 66- 104 of the agenda. He stated that the Hotel had been reasonable in their approach to the trader, but the breaches of condition could not be resolved in a practical way. He therefore supported the application for revocation of the trader’s licence. The photos submitted as part of the Hotel’s evidence showed that the trader’s vehicle was oversized, both in  length and height. The vehicle had been left on the pitch after trading hours had ceased, which was in breach of conditions and he maintained that the vehicle caused a nuisance, which was also a breach of conditions. All of these breaches in conditions affected the Hotel, with customers not being able to access taxis, taxis not being able to see the entrance to the Hotel, those with disabilities having to walk around the trader’s vehicle with their luggage, odours from the van permeating through to the bar and restaurant of the Hotel.  In addition, there were complaints on Tripadvisor from Hotel customers about the noise around the trading vehicle. Taxis were often double-parked around the trader’s vehicle, which also reduced the ability of customers entering and exiting the Hotel.  The occasions when the vehicle had been left for three to four weeks at a time outside the Hotel was a serious health and safety issue for the Hotel, as any emergency services’ vehicles would be impeded. The trader’s vehicle had been left outside the Hotel over the summer without any MOT. The trader’s vehicle had had a real and detrimental impact on the Hotel. Referring to the written submission of Mrs Carter, he said that there was no attempt therein to address the breaches of conditions and that there had been much engagement with the trader both by the Hotel and the Street Trading Team

In response to questions from members, the Service Manager for Street Trading and Trading Standards confirmed that the removal of a trading vehicle or stall at the end of the trading day was very important to the Council. The monitoring report commissioned by the Council indicated that the trading vehicle outside the Montcalm Hotel had not been removed on occasions. The Council had not investigated any issues associated with nuisance caused by smoke, although the evidence submitted by the Hotel indicated that this was a problem.  There had been no statutory nuisance in that there had been no formal complaints to the Council that customers of the Hotel were unable to sleep due to noise. The Council had invited the Hotel to monitor any noise caused by the trading vehicle but no reports were forthcoming.  In response to a question about the location of the serving hatch if the trading vehicle had been relocated to Christopher Street, the Street Trading Manager said that the trader would be serving onto the street.

In response to a question from members, the Service Manager for Street Trading and Trading Standards stated that his report related to breaches identified by the Council only and that they had not relied on section 28(1) of the London Local Authorities Act.  The Council had considered alternative pitches for the trader.

Mr Carter maintained that, contrary to the statement made by the solicitor for the Montcalm Hotel, the nature of Finsbury Square had not changed and there was no extra traffic in the vicinity. His wife had been licensed to trade at the pitch in Finsbury Square since 1995, on the basis that the pitch would not be causing any obstruction. Traffic had flowed freely in the Square.  The complaints against his trading pitch had only arisen since the establishment of the Montcalm Hotel in the Square.

Mr Carter explained the reasons why his trading vehicle had been left on the pitch outside the Hotel after trading hours.  The van had been vandalised twice and, due to stressful personal issues, including accompanying his wife to hospital appointments, he had not been able to concentrate on matters.  He had not bene trying to save money on parking fees for his trading vehicle, but had been attempting to find a regular parking space in the vicinity.  However, he had been able to find a safe parking place for his trading vehicle and he stated that the trading vehicle would no longer be outside the Hotel outside of trading hours.  In response to a question from members, Mr Carter said that he had asked the Metropolitan Police and City of London Police about the dimensions of his trading vehicle and they had said that, as long as the wheels of the vehicle were inside the delineated pitch space, he would not be breaking any laws. However, he acknowledged that there was an overhang from the vehicle, beyond the delineated space for trading. His was the only trading pitch in the vicinity. He felt sure that, if his vehicle was causing an obstruction, or was a danger to other traffic, that Transport for London would have contacted him as there was a bus terminal near his pitch. He said that, together with Council officers, he had looked at possible alternative locations in the Square for his vehicle but, his current position on the north part of the Square, was the widest.

A witness for Mr Carter suggested that it would be wrong to try to relocate Mr and Mrs Carter to another trading pitch, at his stage of their lives.  This was their only source of income, upon which they relied. He suggested that the Montcalm Hotel may wish to consider recompensing Mr and Mrs Carter to give up their licence to trade at this location in Finsbury Square.

The Service Manager for Street Trading and Trading Standards referred to the persistent breach of street trading conditions by the trader, detailed in paragraph 3.10 and the appendices to the report. The length of the vehicle was still an issue. Although this had not previously been an issue, the nature of the street had changed in the past year or so and it was now an issue. The height of the vehicle had not been addressed in the report since it was not an issue in this location.

RESOLVED:

That the application by the Council’s Street Trading Team for the revocation of the street trading licence of Mrs Ann Carter, licensed trader on pitch 798 outside 20 Finsbury Square, be refused.