The officers consider that the following item or items contains exempt information as provided for in the Local Government Access to Information Act and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The Committee is recommended to agree the necessary resolutions excluding the public from the meeting during consideration of these items. At the time this agenda is published no representations have been that this part of the meeting should be open to the public.

A recommendation was made that the public is excluded during consideration of the items of business.

Decision

To exclude the public during consideration of the following items which involved consideration of exempt information relating to the financial or business affairs of particular persons, and public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

In reaching its decision the Committee also considered the Council’s Street Trading Policy, Schedule 4 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Legal Matters

Councillor Grimshaw who was sitting as Chairman of the Sub Committee advised all parties at the commencement of the hearing that he knew the street trader making representations.

It was established that Cllr Grimshaw knew the objector as a ‘passing acquaintance’ from years ago when he was a street trader himself, as he did many of the street traders. There was no social, family or close connection and no pecuniary interest in relation to her. Cllr Grimshaw had also reassured there was no bias.

The Applicant and his business partner were advised it was their right to request a fresh sub-committee be constituted and they were advised they could have a period of time to discuss and make their decision. If so the matter would be adjourned for that to take place.

The Applicant, (and his business partner who was present), advised they did not need to discuss matters and were happy for the hearing to continue with the current Sub Committee.

Evidence

The Applicant had applied for various street licences previously and been refused; this application was made a couple of months ago; they were selling something completely different.

They were aware another applicant had been granted a licence in March 2016 to sell sweets and chocolate but that was on the left hand side, (of the Metrolink tracks). The applicant was asking for the right hand side of those tracks and next to an existing street trader.

Photographs were provided of the site.

The applicant stated the site was not right in front of Santander and there was three to four metres available next to the objectors unit, (the street trader making representations).

The applicant did not want to place any members of the public in danger.

When questioned, the applicant confirmed the following: -

• He hadn’t run a business like this before but had been trying to obtain a licence for the last twelve months; he had previously tried for one on Oxford Road but due to the saturation of outlets in the area they had refused to accept his application;
• There would be two people working in the unit at all times;
• He had obtained quotes for the installation of an electricity supply; the documentation was provided and it was unlikely any closure of the Metrolink would be required as the nearby supply could be connected to and separately metered;
• He had taken steps in respect of waste management and produced documentation relating to ‘Cheaperwaste.co.uk);
• The unit itself would be painted to meet the required colour specification;

The Out of Hours team set out in their representation the application applied for and stated their main concern was the location proposed which was right on edge of the corner/bend of the tramlines. This was a heavy footfall area and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.