Rights of Way & Highway Licensing Panel
Thursday 5 September 2013 6.30 pm
RIGHTS OF WAY & HIGHWAY LICENSING PANEL
5 SEPTEMBER 2013
5 SEPTEMBER 2013
PRESENT: Councillors John Stretton (Chairman), Maureen Hunt (Vice-Chair), James Evans, Mohammed Ilyas and Hari Dev Sharma (sub for Gary Muir).
Also Present: Phil Smith (East Berks Ramblers).
Officers: Anthony Hurst, Tanya Leftwich and Ben Smith.
PART I
09/13 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Councillor Gary Muir.
10/13 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
- None were received.
11/13 MINUTES
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 04 June 2013 be approved.
12/13 ORDER OF BUSINESS
- RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the order of business as detailed in the agenda be amended.
13/13 HIGHWAY LICENSING COUNCIL DECISION
The Chairman asked the Strategic Manager - Highways and Transport, Ben Smith, to outline the agenda item.
The Strategic Manager - Highways and Transport explained to Members that Councillor Beer, at the last full Council on the 23 July 2013 had requested that the following changes to the RBWM Policy on Street Licensing for Street Cafes, Goods Displays and Advertising Boards on the Highway be adopted as soon as reasonably practical, and should apply to all locations in the Royal Borough:
- i. License Applications for Street Cafe, Ice Cream Parlours, Drinks Outlets and the like should be subject to a fee of £450 for a 3 year licence per application regardless of the size of the application area (subject to review).
A refund of £150 should be made if an application was refused.
The fee for Goods displays would be determined by................
- Response from Highway & Engineering: The fees for Goods displays were equivalent to those for Street cafes.
ii. The Renewal Fee for Street Cafes, etc., where circumstances other than the applicant’s name were unchanged should be £100 for a further 3 year period. Other changes should be subject to a pro rata fee adjustment.
UNANIMOUSLY AGREED
Response from Highway & Engineering: Renewal charges have been amended, all other charges remain unchanged.
iii. Brass studs would be set in the paving by the Borough at the applicant’s expense to demarcate the licensed areas. Other methods of marking might be accepted at relevant officer’s discretion in less frequented locations.
REFUSED – Councillor James Evans agreed with Councillor Malcolm Beer.
Response from Highway & Engineering: The Rights of Way and Highway Licensing Panel resolved that ‘…That brass studs would not be used to demarcate licensed areas…’
Seeking additional funding from traders may be viewed unfavourably.
iv. Application Forms should state that the nature and layout of street furniture in Conservation Areas must be in keeping with such an area, and that contact details of the Borough Conservation Officer would be included, so that advice on the permissible type of furniture, colour schemes and other elements could be specified.
ALREADY AGREED – It was agreed that the Conservation Officer must be contacted.
Response from Highway & Engineering: The Rights of Way and Highway Licensing Panel resolved 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…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’.
Practical difficulties would exist in securing and enforcing exact details at the application stage.
v. Consultation would be carried out by Officers in relation to all applications by means of a Notice on the premises and Notices to adjacent property holders, Ward Councillors, Parish or Town Council Clerks and other recognised business or community bodies in the area.
It was UNANIMOUSLY AGREED that Ward Councillors be consulted to represent all parties. Notices to adjacent property holders were not required.
Response from Highway & Engineering: The only exception to the current practice was that adjacent property holders were not consulted.
Extended consultation of this nature might delay the application process as additional objections might be generated.
vi. The grant of licences would usually be permitted subject to the number and details relating to them being determined in accordance with space requirements for access, free movement and egress of pedestrians, mobility scooter users, emergency services and the like.
UNANIMOUSLY AGREED
Response from Highway & Engineering: This represents existing practice.
vii. In residential or partially residential areas built up areas no items relating to a licence might be set up before 08:30 and shall be removed before 22:30.
UNANIMOUSLY REFUSED as it could generate enforcement issues. However, Councillors believed it was important that furniture was not left out over night, which the Strategic Manager - Highways and Transport agreed he would factor in.
Response from Highway & Engineering: Licence conditions were established on an individual ‘case by case’ basis.
In order to introduce an additional standard condition the definition of ‘residential’ would need to be established.
viii. Advertising Boards would not be permitted on highway land, and existing licences would be withdrawn with effect from 31 December 2013. Current licence holders would be sent formal notice and refunded fees relative to the curtailed period.
UNANIMOUSLY REFUSED
Response from Highway & Engineering: The Rights of Way and Highway Licensing Panel previously resolved that ‘… Advertising Boards be banned from the highway but that people with existing licenses be allowed to expire with no new applications being accepted…’
ix. All Refusal or Qualified Notices should be given details of the appeal process.
UNANIMOUSLY AGREED
Response from Highway & Engineering: This proposed change was to be included in the licence process.
- Councillor James Evans informed Members that a paper was due to go to Cabinet in the near future regarding enforcement changes which was being written by the Trading Standards Manager, Steve Johnson. The Strategic Manager - Highways and Transport agreed to check when this paper was going before Cabinet. Councillor James Evans raised his concerns that he believed the Panel should wait to see what the Cabinet paper contained before making a decision tonight, a view which Councillor Hari Dev Sharma echoed.
- The Chairman and Vice-Chair informed Members that they believed the Panel should look at this item as it currently stood and stated that they could re-visit it in the future if necessary.
RESOLVED: Unanimously that;
- The resolution of the Highway Licensing and Rights of Way Panel in December 2012 be reaffirmed subject to the following amendments:
Application Forms should state that the nature and layout of street furniture in Conservation Areas must be in keeping with such an area, and that contact details of the Borough Conservation Officer would be included, so that advice on the permissible type of furniture, colour schemes and other elements could be specified.
- It was agreed that the Conservation Officer must be contacted.
Consultation would be carried out by Officers in relation to all applications by means of a Notice on the premises and Notices to adjacent property holders, Ward Councillors, Parish or Town Council Clerks and other recognised business or community bodies in the area.
- It was UNANIMOUSLY AGREED that Ward Councillors be consulted to represent all parties. Notices to adjacent property holders were not required..
All Refusal or Qualified Notices should be given details of the appeal process.
- The Principal Rights of Way Officer informed Members that the height of the parapets of the bridge were 1.5 metres, in order to allow walkers using the footbridge visibility along the tracks.
- Members were informed that whilst the proposed diversion order ideally should have been submitted before the new bridge had been built Network Rail had a very tight timetable to carry out the work and was unable to meet the deadline for submission of the diversion application prior to start of works on site. It was noted, however, that Network Rail had completed the consultations and the responses could be found on pages 2-3 and 6-7 of the agenda.
- Members were informed that section A-B of the footpath on the northern approach to the bridge was not currently fenced off, but that this fencing would be installed if the diversion was agreed.
- Members were informed that the new footbridge followed a slightly different alignment across the tracks at the request of the land owner.
- The Principal Rights of Way Officer informed Members that he believed the Ramblers Association had requested a three metre wide path between points A and B so that the area would not be so enclosed and to reduce overhanging vegetation. Members were informed that it was the landowners’ responsibility to keep the vegetation cut back.
- The Principal Rights of Way Officer informed Members that the Ramblers Association had requested a metal gate be used rather than a wooden gate. Members were informed that the wooden gate used did meet British standards and allowed access to disabled people.
- Members raised a concern that the wooden gate would deteriorate quicker than a metal gate. The Principal Rights of Way Officer informed Members that the gate was treated timber (softwood) and that it was the responsibility of the landowner to maintain the gate and when it eventually deteriorated the landowner would be responsible for replacing it. Members noted that ideally the gate should last approximately 15-20 years.
- The Vice-Chair suggested that the Principal Rights of Way Officer looked into and investigated the possibility of using hardwood gates in the future.
- The Principal Rights of Way Officer, Anthony Hurst, explained to Members that the report sought the Panel’s approval to publish a Diversion Order for part of Shottesbrooke Footpath 5, which crossed a Network Rail footbridge (Waltham Bridge), in order to facilitate the Great Western Mainline electrification programme. It was noted that a plan which showed the proposal could be found in Appendix 1 on page 5 of the agenda.
The Principal Rights of Way Officer went on to show Members before and after photographs of the work that had been completed.
Members were informed that the original footbridge across the railway line had recently been removed and replaced with a new footbridge following a slightly different alignment across the tracks (the original footbridge followed a skewed alignment, and the new footbridge was perpendicular to the track and had been constructed to current day standards).
It was noted that a new kissing gate had been installed at the southern entrance to the new footbridge, and security fencing had been installed between the footpath and the railway tracks.
The Principal Rights of Way Officer explained that the only outstanding work required on site was the installation of boundary fencing along the section of footpath that connected with the northern side of the footbridge.
It was noted that the footbridge had been re-opened and was available for public use, initially as a permitted path pending the confirmation of the Diversion Order.
Members raised and noted the following points:
The Vice-Chair proposed that the Panel approved the proposed diversion order which Councillor Hari Dev Sharma seconded.
RESOLVED: Unanimously that;
- i) That the Head of Legal Services, in consultation with the Strategic Manager of Highways and Transport, be authorised to publish a Diversion Order for Shottesbrooke Footpath 5 (part) as detailed in this report.
ii) If no objections were received following publication of the Order, or any such objections are subsequently withdrawn, to confirm the Order without further recourse to the Panel. If objections were received and not subsequently withdrawn, to report the proposal back to the Panel for further consideration.
15/13 DATES OF FUTURE MEETINGS
- Monday 2 December 2013.
16/13 MEETING
- The meeting, which opened at 6.30pm, closed at 7.15pm.