Agenda item

The Building Control Manager reported that an application had been received from Mr. T. O’Kane for the grant of a Stationary Street Trading Licence to sell telecommunications products and services from a designated site in Lombard Street, at its junction with Rosemary Street. The applicant was seeking to trade from Monday to Saturday between 9.00 a.m. and 6.30 p.m. and on a Sunday between 11.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m., using a gazebo style stall measuring 2 metres x 2 metres. He pointed out that, whilst the stall was larger than that which had been recommended within the Council’s Stall Design Policy, the Policy did allow the Committee to approve a design which varied from the standard stall and that it had, previously, granted licences for larger pitches in other streets within the City centre. 

He reported that, although the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Transport NI had offered no objection to the application, Belfast City Centre Management had objected, on the basis that there were already two businesses selling similar items in the vicinity of that site, the proposed stall was not in keeping with the style of the street and a traders’ group representing local businesses was seeking to either remove or reduce the size of the air quality monitoring unit in Lombard Street and was opposed to another structure being placed there. 

He reminded the Committee that the Street Trading Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 placed a statutory duty upon a council to grant an application for a Street Trading Licence, unless there were sufficient grounds on which to refuse it. However, Section 9(1) (a) of the Act made provision for an application to be refused if the location was unsuitable, if there were already sufficient traders trading in the vicinity in the articles or things in which the applicant wished to trade or if the sale or preparation for sale of those articles or things would adversely affect the general amenity of the area. 

            The Committee agreed that it would be beneficial to offer the applicant the opportunity to address concerns which had been raised by several Members around the nature and safety of his stall and to clarify the type of goods and services which he was proposing to sell. Accordingly, Mr. O’Kane, who was accompanied by Ms. G. O’Brien, were welcomed by the Chairperson.

Ms. O’Brien informed the Committee that Mr. O’Kane had been required to provide, as part of his application process, a sample design for his stall and that he would, in light of Members’ concerns, be willing to submit an alternative design for a more robust and secure stall, which might be better suited to the location. She explained that Mr. O’Kane would be operating on behalf of a business which had secured a franchise from a prominent telecommunications company and that he would be required to undertake appropriate training and adhere to a code of practice in relation to the operation of the business. That required him, amongst other things, to remain close to or within the confines of the stall whilst trading. She concluded by pointing out that Mr. O’Kane’s business differed from others in that area in that he was selling a home phone broadband and television service, rather than mobile phones.

Mr. O’Kane and Ms. O’Brien were thanked by the Chairperson.

During discussion, several Members again voiced their concerns in terms of the type of stall which had been proposed by the applicant and its potential impact upon adjacent businesses and the amenity of the area and suggested that, in view of the significant expenditure which had, in recent years, been allocated to improving the public realm and of the Council’s ongoing plans for developing the City, this would be an opportune time to review all aspects of the street trading function.

            However, other Members pointed out that the site was available currently and that the list of commodities which the applicant was proposing to sell complied fully with the designating resolution. Any delay in the processing of his application to allow for the completion of the aforementioned review would, therefore, impact upon his business. 

After further discussion, it was

Moved by Councillor Boyle,

Seconded by Councillor Hutchinson,

That the Committee, in its capacity as Licensing Authority, agrees to defer consideration of an application by Mr. T. O’Kane for a Stationary Street Trading Licence for a designated site in Lombard Street, at its junction with Rosemary Street, to allow for a review to be undertaken of the street trading function generally, including the designation process and the Stall Design Policy, and that the Planning Service should be consulted as part of that review. 

Amendment

Moved by Councillor Collins,

Seconded by Councillor Bell,

      That the Committee, in its capacity as Licensing Authority, agrees to grant to Mr. T. O’Kane a Stationary Street Trading Licence permitting him to sell telecommunications products and services from Monday to Saturday between 9.00 a.m. and 6.30 p.m. and on a Sunday between 11.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. from a designated site in Lombard Street, at its junction with Rosemary Street, subject to the submission of the required documentation and the appropriate licence fee.

            On a vote by show of hands eight Members voted for the amendment and ten against and it was declared lost.

            The original proposal was thereupon put to the meeting when eleven Members voted for and seven against and it was declared carried.

            The Committee noted that it would receive from officers information on all sites across the City which had, to date, been designated under the street trading legislation.