Skip to content

Draft Transport Strategy and Local Plan

The Strategic Transportation Group Manager to be heard. 

 

Minutes:

The Committee considered Proposal 17 of the Draft Transport Strategy and Local Plan.

 

The Chairman advised that Proposal 17: Keep pavements free of obstruction was relevant to the Corporation as a Licensing Authority and that the larger piece of work would go to the Planning and Transport Committee next week.

 

The Comptroller & City Solicitor explained that the Licensing Authority was governed by the four licensing principles set out in the Licensing Act 2003 but only the two objectives concerning public nuisance and public safety were relevant. The Chairman added that they had little control regarding keeping pavements clear unless the condition preventing the sale of alcohol in unsealed containers for consumption off the premises (MC18) was a condition of the license.

 

In response to a query regarding grandfathering rights and why some premises were allowed to use outside public space and some were not, the Comptroller & City Solicitor confirmed that the Local Authorities Act changed in 2003 but that it still legally recognised all of the historic licensing applications from before the Act.

 

A Member felt that this proposal demonstrated that the Transport and Highways Authority had significant control, power and legal responsibility and therefore should be scrutinising licensing applications. Members agreed that information from the Transport and Highways Authority, e.g. the width of public pavements, would be helpful to the Sub Committee when considering applications as applicants often applied for licensing approval before obtaining a tables and chairs license.

 

A Member stated that many public pavements in the City were completely overrun by people standing outside a premises and felt this was a public safety issue. The Member claimed that busy streets required a greater width to factor in busy roads, bus stops, etc. The Chairman stated that each case needed to be taken on its own merits.

 

A Member noted that the proposal needed to clarify that it was regarding public pavements only.

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents:

 


Back to top of page