DRAFT

STREET TRADING AND PEDLARY LAWS – COMPLIANCE WITH THE EUROPEAN SERVICES DIRECTIVE

 

CONSULTATION PAPER FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION & SKILLS

 

 

Set out below are the responses from Maidstone Borough Council to the above consultation paper and the questions detailed within:-

 

 

 

Response 1: 

                         Yes.

 

 

Response 2:

If there is a need for pedlars the definition set out in the consultation paper appears to be quite effective.  However the dimensions of the receptacle which the pedlar can push or pull do seem quite large and in essence are the size of most stalls to which this Council currently gives consent under Schedule 4 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act.  Additionally the idea of the maximum work time of ten minutes in one location and with the requirement to move fifty metres distance and not return in three hours whilst reasonable as an operation is in this Council’s view difficult to enforce.  Also difficult to enforce would be determining what is a reasonable speed.  For local authorities to be in a position to enforce this they would require enforcement officers to be on the streets checking on pedlars for long periods of time in order to ensure they are complying with the time and distance requirements of your definition and they would also not be able to use directed surveillance.

 

 

Response 3:

                         No.

 

 

Response 4:

                         Yes.

 

 

 

Response 5:

                         Yes.

 

 

Response 5.1:

This is difficult to answer as applicants know they have to be 17, but based on current figures the interest is likely to be none.  

 

 

Response 6:

Whilst this authority has not adopted the provisions relating to street trading licences, it would be helpful if guidance was issued as suggested in the question.

 

 

Response 7:

This question relates to street trading licence and this Council has adopted a consent scheme.  However, this Council has adopted this ground within its policy as a reason for which it could refuse applications.  However, in more recent times, the advice given to the Committee when considering applications has indicated that the Council should not take into account the traders and trade of shops when considering any particular application. 

 

 

Response 7.1:

                         Yes there could be a product for sale that would be unsuitable to an area.

 

 

Response 7.2:

                         (i) Rarely but there could be an exceptional case

                         (ii) None

 

 

Response 7.3:

                         Yes

 

 

Response 8:

This Council has adopted a consent scheme rather than the licence scheme and has not used this reason for refusal as part of its scheme.

 

 

Response 8.1:

Not relevant.

 

 

Response 8.2:

                         Not relevant.

 

 

Response 8.3:

                         Not relevant.

 

 

Response 9:

                          No

 

 

 

Response 9.1:                                                                                                                                                                      

Yes I think existing traders under local Acts would be more likely to be  UK nationals.

                        

 

 

Response 10:

This Council’s consent scheme does include paragraph 3(6)(d) as one of its reasons for refusal.  If a licence or consent is granted for a period longer that twelve months or indefinitely this reason for refusal becomes less effective as an applicant could be convicted of an offence and without a regular check it might not be possible to find this particular evidence.  Therefore I think it is important that an application is submitted on a regular basis whether that is twelve months or a longer period could determined.  An indefinite period would not be suitable. There could be checks required at intervals rather than just on renewal.

 

 

Response 10.1:

Potentially negative if the period is too long and pitches are dominated  by existing traders.

 

Response 10.2:

(i) No.

 

(ii) Not relevant.

 

 

Response 11:

This Council does not operate a licence scheme and therefore has no experience of these revocation grounds but it would be helpful if guidance was issued.

 

 

Response 11.1:

                         Not applicable.

 

 

Response 11.2:

                         Not applicable.

 

 

Response 11.3:

                         Not applicable.

 

 

Response 12:

This applies to licences for which this authority has no experience.

 

 

Response 13:

This Council sees no problem with the relaxation of the prohibition in paragraph 7(7).

 

 

Response 14:

                         No

 

 

Response 15:

The Maidstone Borough Council Act 2006 is included within Annex B and has not been repealed.

 

 

Response 15.1:

This Council would like to include an amendment within your regulations.  A draft by parliamentary agents is included with this response.

 

 

Response 16:

This Council has included with this response consequential amendments required as result of the repeal of the Pedlars Act.

 

 

Response 17:

The consequential amendments required and the appropriate draft provisions are included with this response.