Meeting documents

Rights of Way & Highway Licensing Panel
Monday 3 December 2012 6.30 pm


RIGHTS OF WAY & HIGHWAY LICENSING PANEL

3 DECEMBER 2012

PRESENT: Councillors John Stretton (Chairman), Maureen Hunt (Vice-Chair), Tom Bursnall, James Evans, Mohammed Ilyas, John Penfold and Hari Dev Sharma (sub for Gary Muir).

Officers: Anthony Hurst, Mark Lampard, Tanya Leftwich, Ben Smith and John Stewart.

PART I

09/12 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies were received from Councillor Gary Muir.

10/12 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
        Councillor James Evans declared a personal interest in the street licensing item as he sat on the Windsor & Eton Town Partnership Board.

11/12 MINUTES

The Part I minutes from the meeting held on the 12 June 2012 were agreed as a correct record.

12/12 HIGHWAY LICENSING – REVIEW OF RBWM POLICY ON STREET LICENSING FOR STREET CAFES, GOODS DISPLAYS AND ADVERTISING BOARDS ON THE HIGHWAY

The Chairman informed Members that Highway licensing items rarely came before the Panel.

The Engineer for Highway Assets, John Stewart, explained to Members that the current highway-licensing regime for café chairs and tables/merchandising of goods on the street had operated for a number of years. It was increasingly felt that the costs and procedures were not equitable and changes had therefore been proposed in order to optimise the street trading environment in the RBWM, to promote fair competition and accountability.
        In the ensuing discussion, the following points were noted:
          • Change 1: Lower the application threshold.
            Members were informed that not many complaints regarding the cost of the application threshold had been received over the years. Councillor James Evans informed the Panel that the Windsor & Eton Town Partnership Board felt the application threshold should reflect the market rate in order to encourage more people/businesses to apply.

            It was unanimously agreed that street café applicants continue to pay £450 (covers three years) per application regardless of the size of the application area or whether or not the application would be successful. It was noted that £150 refund was currently returned to the applicant if an application was unsuccessful.
          • Change 2: Charge for space on the highway by rateable value.
            A) Suggested pricing based on the rateable value of the applicant’s premises. Members were informed that no standard application form could be used if prices were to be based on the rateable value of the applicant’s premises, that no obvious benefits would be received and that it would more than likely be unenforceable. Councillor James Evans informed the Panel that the Windsor & Eton Town Partnership Board felt the current charges were too low and that charges should be tiered depending on what area of the Borough the applicant’s premises were located in.
            B) Reduce the renewal of licences to £100 (from £450) for straightforward renewals. The Finance Partner, Mark Lampard, made Members aware that from a budgetary position (income stream) he would be interested to see the impact of the reduction, if agreed. It was agreed that the ‘Fees and Charges’ paper went to Cabinet for annual approval it would need to note the level of impact from the suggested reduction.

            It was unanimously agreed that pricing should not be based on the rateable value of the applicant’s premises and that the renewal of licenses should be reduced to £100 for straightforward renewals, subject to safeguards.
          • Change 3: Charge an implementation cost to cover appropriate measures.
            It was suggested that the most sensible form of demarcation would be the use of brass studs embedded into the corner points of the licensed area, which would have a cost implication to the business. It was noted that if agreed, a suitable local contractor would have to be found. The Engineer for Highway Assets explained that he believed it was only people’s perception that areas had been expanded and that he could not see any real benefit to the use of brass studs. Councillor James Evans informed the Panel that the Windsor & Eton Town Partnership Board had expressed a concern for premises with licences for street furniture, as there was currently no demarcation in place. It was noted that the Windsor & Eton Town Partnership Board believed the use of brass studs would be a benefit to enforcement. Councillor Tom Bursnall stated that he believed verbal warnings should be given before additional costs were assigned to businesses. Councillor Penfold explained that he wanted encourage and attract people and businesses into the Town Centres, not deter them. Councillor Hari Dev Sharma agreed with Councillor James Evans that enforcement was important otherwise, it gave a bad message to the community.

            It was agreed (6 for and 1 against – Councillor James Evans) that brass studs would not be used to demarcate licensed areas.
          • Change 4: Control by RBWM over layout and nature of street furniture.
            The Engineer for Highway Assets explained that only furniture, which had already been purchased, could be viewed and approved by officers. The Chairman expressed her concern that a number of barriers, colours and logos were a ‘sight for sore eyes’ and suggested that a standard background be suggested along with a set of limited colours. Councillor Tom Bursnall commented that he believed if bright colours were used, they could be dealt with (made to repaint) on an individual basis and that people should be given the flexibility to make the right decision. Councillor James Evans informed the Panel that the Windsor & Eton Town Partnership Board had noticed the extensive use of logo’s and bright colour schemes in conservation areas and believed that there should be a common standard. It was noted the Windsor Town Partnership Board were also concerned about the use of large, intrusive furniture outside premises in the Royal Borough.

            It was unanimously agreed that a sentence be added into the formal guidance with regard to conservation areas to state that the layout and nature of street furniture be in keeping with the area. It was also unanimously agreed that the contact details of a conservation officer be provided, if in a conservation area, so that advice on colour schemes and other elements such as the type of furniture used could be given.
          • Change 5: Ensure appropriate consultation.
            A) Suggested that officers only carried out consultation where they were minded to approve licence applications.
            B) Suggested that ward councillors and other appropriate consultees – the town or parish council and/or the Town Partnership etc – be consulted on all street licences. Councillor James Evans informed the Panel that the Windsor & Eton Town Partnership Board wished to feel included along with Town Forums. Councillor Tom Bursnall informed Members that he believed it would be a mistake to go beyond ward councillors due to the limited timings of the Town Forum meetings and because depending on attendance a fair majority vote may not be received. The Vice-Chair informed Members that she believed it was the Town Managers responsibility to inform external businesses not other RBWM officers.
            It was unanimously agreed consultation not only be carried out by officers where they were minded to approve licence applications and that ward councillors be consulted on all street licences.
          • Change 6: Apply these principles to both street cafes and highway merchandising.
The Engineer for Highway Assets explained that whilst he was unable to update and publish a register of granted licences to the web, he might be able to do so in approximately six months’ time once he had been given publishing rights. In the meantime, Members were informed that the register could be provided upon request.
            A) Advertising Boards. It was noted that there were very few advertising boards present in the Royal Borough at the current time and that those present tended to be located in areas off the highway, which the Council could do nothing about. Councillor Tom Bursnall raised his concern that a blanket ban of advertising boards might stop new businesses advertising / promoting and that the premise was open for business.
            B) Suggested considering setting an upper limit to the number of permits permitted in different areas of the Town Centre. It was noted that accessibility by the emergency services might be more of a concern to Members compared to the number of permits issued especially as Members had previously wanted to support the café culture and enhance opportunities for businesses in this difficult time. The Vice-Chair suggested giving businesses a three-strike policy before they were refused renewal of their permits.
            It was agreed (5 for, 1 against – Councillor Tom Bursnall and 1 abstained – the Vice-Chair) that Advertising Boards be banned from the highway but that people with existing licences be allowed to expire with no new applications being accepted. It was unanimously agreed that no upper limit would be set to the number of permits permitted in different areas of the Town Centre (as long as enough space was left for the access of emergency services).
                  RESOLVED: Unanimously that the Panel would request Council to approve the changes suggested below to the RBWM Policy on Street Licensing for Street Cafes, Goods Displays and Advertising Boards on the Highway:
                    i. That street café applicants continue to pay £450 (covers three years) per application regardless of the size of the application area or whether or not the application would be successful. It was noted that £150 refund was currently returned to the applicant if an application was unsuccessful.
                    ii. That pricing should not be based on the rateable value of the applicant’s premises and that the renewal of licenses should be reduced to £100 for straightforward renewals, subject to safeguards.
                    iii. That brass studs would not be used to demarcate licensed areas.
                    iv. That a sentence be added into the formal guidance with regard to conservation areas to state that the layout and nature of street furniture be in keeping with the area.
                    v. That the contact details of a conservation officer be provided, if in a conservation area, so that advice on colour schemes and other elements such as the type of furniture used could be given.
                    vi. Consultation would not only be carried out by officers where they were minded to approve licence applications and that ward councillors be consulted on all street licences.
                    vii. That Advertising Boards be banned from the highway but that people with existing licences be allowed to expire with no new applications being accepted.
                    viii. That no upper limit would be set to the number of permits permitted in different areas of the Town Centre (as long as enough space was left for the access of emergency services).
13/12 CONSTITUTION AMENDMENTS – RIGHTS OF WAY AND HIGHWAY LICENSING PANEL TERMS OF REFERENCE
        The Principal Rights of Way Officer informed Members that the report dealt with proposed amendments to the Constitution which were required to ensure best practice. Members were informed that the report recommended that the Panel requested Council to approve the proposed revisions to the Panel’s Terms of Reference and officer delegations, thereby enabling efficient and effective operation of the Council’s public rights of way and highways services. It was noted that if adopted, there were no financial implications for the Council.
        The Principal Rights of Way Officer explained that the changes referred mainly to day-to-day operations in order to make services offered more efficient. Members were referred to page 10 if the agenda, references:

        8.5.3 ‘Power to authorise erection of stiles etc on footpaths or bridleways (Section 147 of the Highways Act 1980)’
        8.5.9 ‘Duty to assert and protect rights of the public to use and enjoyment of highways (Section 130 of the Highways Act 1980)’

        The Strategic Manager for Highways and Transport, Ben Smith, informed Members that the Lead Member for Highways, Councillor Geoffrey Hill, was concerned about the change to 8.5.3 and wanted ‘subject to consultation with Ward Councillors’ included in the wording.
        In the ensuing discussion, the following points were noted:
          · The Vice-Chair disagreed with Councillor Geoffrey Hills request, as she believed the Council’s highly qualified officers already worked very closely with the Ramblers Association and therefore no Member involvement was required.
          · Councillor James Evans agreed that there should be some Members involvement in 8.5.3 as Members were ultimately responsible for decisions made, which Councillor Hari Dev Sharma endorsed.
          · The Principal Rights of Way Officer explained that officers often consulted with Ward Councillors with regard to 8.5.3, and also 8.5.9 which relates to the serving of legal notices in relation to rights of way enforcement cases, so he would be happy to include the additional wording suggested by Councillor Geoffrey Hill if the Panel wished.
          · The Vice Chair raised the subject of 8.5.10 ‘Duty to keep a definitive map and statement under review (Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981)’ and explained that she often found it difficult to source definitive maps for individual wards. The Principal Rights of Way Officer explained that parishes tended to produce promotional leaflets, which the Council printed rather than definitive maps and that the initiative primarily needed to come from the Parish, which the Council could help develop. The Vice-Chair was informed that the Council was currently in discussions with Hurley Parish Council with regard to the possible production of a promotional leaflet.
                  RESOLVED Unanimously that the Panel would request Council to approve amendments to the Council’s Constitution as set out in Appendices A and B (and that Ward Councillors would be copied into correspondence with regard to 8.5.3 and 8.5.9 so they were aware of what was happening in their respective wards).

14/12 BRAY FOOTPATH 24 (PART): DIVERSION ORDER

The Principal Rights of Way Officer informed Members that this report updated the Panel on progress of a Diversion Order for part of Bray Footpath 24.

It was noted that the Panel had authorised the making of the Diversion Order at its meeting in June, the Order had been published in September and no objections had been received during the statutory consultation period, which ended on the 9 November 2012. Members were informed that the Order would therefore be confirmed as an unopposed Order and the diversion would come into effect once works to construct the new route of the footpath had been completed.
          RESOLVED Unanimously that the Panel noted the report.


15/12 DATES OF FUTURE MEETINGS
          • Tuesday 12 March 2013

        The Panel agreed that future meetings should be held in the Council Chamber if the agenda included a matter of great public interest, if not alternative rooms with better acoustics could be sourced by the Clerk.


16/12 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
        RESOLVED: That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on item 8 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act"