(1)

Licensing Committee -

?

8 December 2020;

(2)

Licensing Sub Committee -

?

8 June 2021;

?

24 August 2021;

?

31 August 2021.

(a)

the measures that the police were undertaking to address illegal activities such as drinks spiking and safety of women;

(b)

sought clarification -

?

on the process for undertaking alcohol and gambling test purchase operations;

?

on when the safe bus would be available in December 2021 and how this would be advertised;

(c)

raised concerns that -

?

Security Industry Authority (SIA) trained individuals had limited powers to deal with issues that arose on the safe bus and suggested that Special Constables should be engaged instead;

?

if the safe bus was only going to drop off at specific points, rather than individuals being able to alight the bus where required, this could lead to safety issues (as the drop off points would be advertised this could attract undesirable behaviour).

 (a)

due to the Covid 19 pandemic the financial pressures placed on existing street traders during the 2021/22 trading year, teamed with the decrease in footfall in the city centre, there had been no increase in consent fees;

(b)

2021/2022 had been a challenging year for all street traders and the issues that hit the high street at the start of the pandemic in March 2020 had continued through this financial year with most traders experiencing the strain of price rises and less income with no grants to assist them this year;

(c)

it was proposed that there was no increase in consent fees for city centre street traders for the 2022/23 trading year, in order to support street traders to continue to trade;

(d)

it was further proposed that there was a restructure of consent fees for the ice cream trading pitches for the 2022/23 year; during 2020 and 2021 several establishments along the waterfront had started to sell ice cream from their premises, some operating on to the highway; this had caused upset and some anger between traders;

(e)

the ice cream traders had highlighted the difference in site fees along the ice cream sites on the waterfront and there had been historically a large difference in consent fees; however, the footfall had changed as have the locations and parking arrangements for the ice cream vehicles, so it was proposed that there was a levelling out of fees across the waterfront; this means that the highest consent payers would not have an increase in fees but others would; the sites would be equal opportunity for all traders with the new price proposal with street trading suffering no loss of income;

(f)

the ice cream consent holders had asked for consideration to be given for them to extend their offer to include hot drinks and hot snacks from the mobile ice cream vans; this would provide a fair opportunity for trade over the colder months; all consent holders would need to meet all health and safety and hygiene requirements;

(g)

it was therefore proposed that the paragraph in the application form (permitted trades for ice cream pitches) was changed to ‘all the trading locations would be allocated for the sale of ice cream, frozen confectionery, hot and cold soft drinks; hot drinks and snacks may be  permitted on application, the decision with regard to the acceptable type of trade at each location would be decided as part of the application process in consultation with the Chair of the Licensing Committee and lead opposition member’.

(h)

whether in order to alleviate the large increase in consent fees, for some of the consent holders, could be phased in over  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.