Agenda item

 

Report from the Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment.

 

Recommendations:

That Cabinet:

1. Approve consultation to determine whether the Council should adopt Schedule 4 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.

 

2. Approve consultation on the draft Street Trading Policy, as outlined in the report.
   
   
3. Note that, following consultation, a future report will be presented to Cabinet in late 2026, outlining the final recommendations with regard to the adoption of Schedule 4 and the introduction of a Borough-wide Street Trading Policy.

 

 

At the Chair’s invitation the Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, Councillor Williams introduced a report outlining a proposed approach to regulating street trading across the borough. It was noted that street trading could make a positive contribution to local economies and high streets, but that unmanaged activity could also have adverse impacts on communities and established businesses. The proposed approach would introduce a consent-based system for street trading, supported by a new Street Trading Policy. It was explained that, subject to Cabinet approval, a two-stage consultation would be undertaken on both the adoption of the relevant legislation and the draft policy. A further report setting out the outcome of the consultation and proposed policy arrangements would be presented to Cabinet at a later date.

 

The Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment, Andrew Bramidge emphasised the need for a balanced approach that supported business growth while maintaining attractive and accessible town centres. It was noted that concerns had been raised by residents regarding uncontrolled street trading and its impact on public spaces. The proposed policy was intended to provide a more effective means of managing street trading than existing planning and highway powers, while ensuring that the interests of both businesses and residents were appropriately considered through the consultation process.

 

Councillor Blackham questioned the rationale for introducing the proposed street trading regime, commenting that the report did not clearly evidence the scale or nature of the issues it sought to address. Concerns were raised regarding the anticipated costs of enforcement, the basis for the proposed trader fees, and the lack of detail around how the scheme would operate in practice. It was suggested that the proposals appeared underdeveloped and that further clarity was needed on the objectives, costs and expected outcomes. Concern was also expressed that additional charges could discourage traders, particularly in areas with lower footfall, potentially impacting local economic activity.

 

The Licensing Manager, Alan Pogorzelec explained that the proposals were subject to consultation and that feedback from businesses, residents and other stakeholders would help determine whether the approach should be adopted. It was noted that concerns had previously been raised regarding uncontrolled street trading, while the absence of a formal framework also limited opportunities for new traders wishing to operate in the borough. Examples were given of situations where existing traders could operate but there was no transparent process for additional businesses to access the same locations. It was argued that the proposed framework would provide a fairer, more consistent and transparent approach to managing street trading, supporting business growth while balancing the interests of residents and existing businesses.

 

Councillor Blackham expressed concern about the proposed consultation period, noting that it would take place over the summer months. Doubts were also raised as to whether the proposed regulatory framework would address practical constraints on street trading, particularly in locations with limited physical space. It was suggested that the policy would not necessarily create additional trading opportunities where capacity was already restricted.

 

The Licensing Manager advised that the proposed eight-week consultation period was intended to enable consideration of responses and the submission of a further report to Cabinet and Council, with implementation anticipated early in the following year. It was noted that extending the consultation would delay this timetable but would otherwise have no significant adverse effect. In response to concerns about physical capacity, it was clarified that the proposal was not intended to create additional trading space, but rather to ensure that existing locations within the town centre were allocated and managed in a fair and appropriate manner.

 

Councillor Tarmey expressed concern that the proposed street trading framework could be perceived as placing unnecessary restrictions and costs on small traders, particularly those operating infrequently or in rural communities. Reference was made to local mobile food businesses that were viewed positively by residents, and concern was raised that they could be adversely affected by the proposed fees and regulatory requirements. While acknowledging the case for managing trading activity in busier locations, the member emphasised the importance of ensuring that any new policy was proportionate, supported local businesses, and did not create negative public perceptions of the Council's intentions.

 

The Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment emphasised that the proposals were not intended to ban street trading but to support and encourage business activity through the introduction of a clear and consistent regulatory framework. It was noted that no such framework currently existed in the borough and that the proposed policy would provide a structured approach to managing street trading while supporting local enterprise.

 

In response to a query Councillor Tarmey was advised that the proposed fees were not fixed and would be reviewed as part of the consultation process before any final policy decisions were made.

 

Councillor Monk referred to concerns raised by a resident regarding mobile traders and sought clarification on how the proposed operating restrictions, including specified trading hours, had been determined. Questions were raised as to whether the proposed hours reflected existing trading patterns or could potentially restrict business activity. Clarification was also sought on any assessment undertaken of the potential impact on affected traders.

 

The Licensing Manager explained that the proposed requirements for mobile traders were based on existing legislation and national guidance. It was noted that the Control of Pollution Act 1974 restricted the use of chimes to the hours of 12.00 noon to 7.00pm, and this had been reflected in the draft policy. It was further explained that other provisions, such as limits on the duration of music played, were derived directly from Government guidance for ice cream vendors and had been incorporated into the proposed framework.

 

Councillor Yasseen expressed concern that the proposed street trading framework was not sufficiently developed and lacked supporting evidence regarding the traders who would be affected and the potential impacts on different groups. It was acknowledged that some elements of the proposal may have merit, but concern was raised that the approach could impose unnecessary costs and administrative burdens on traders, including market and street traders who made a positive contribution to local communities and the local economy. It was suggested that further work and reflection were needed before the proposals progressed and indicated that, in their current form, the proposals were not supported.

 

The Licensing Manager clarified that the proposed policy would not apply to market traders, as trading from a market was not classed as street trading. It was therefore noted that the examples cited of market activity would not be affected by the proposals. It was further explained that, while the Council had sought to regulate and support street trading through existing powers, current legislation did not provide sufficient tools to address all aspects of street trading. It was argued that the proposed framework would create a fairer and more transparent system, enabling new traders to access opportunities that were not currently available, rather than imposing unfair restrictions on legitimate businesses.

 

Councillor Tinsley BEM questioned whether the issues underpinning the proposed policy were limited to the town centre and whether a borough-wide approach was justified. Concerns were raised about the impact on mobile traders, particularly those supporting pubs and community events, and clarification was sought on restrictions near schools. The need for clear guidance on residential and informal trading was highlighted, alongside concerns that legitimate local businesses should not be adversely affected.

 

The Licensing Manager advised that small-scale residential sales were proposed to be exempt, in line with existing exemptions for businesses trading from the frontage of their premises. It was acknowledged that the wider concerns raised were valid and would be considered through the consultation process before any final policy decisions were made.

 

Councillor Tinsley BEM sought clarification on whether the proposed restrictions relating to ice cream vans were intended to address health or parking concerns.

 

The Licensing Manager advised that the provisions were based on existing Government guidance and had been included in the draft policy to ensure clarity and consistency. It was noted that they had not been developed locally or intended to address any single issue.

 

Councillor Tinsley BEM noted that the consultation would allow stakeholders to comment on the proposals and that feedback could be considered before the policy was finalised. It was also noted that a further report would be brought back to Members for consideration.

 

Councillor McKiernan sought clarification on the scope of the proposed policy, particularly whether it would apply to traders attending community events such as parish council fêtes or larger events such as the Rotherham Show. Concerns were raised about the potential impact on individuals operating small-scale businesses and whether the policy could introduce additional administrative requirements for existing events. Clarification was requested on how such activities would be treated under the proposed framework and whether the policy would create any additional barriers to participation.

 

The Licensing Manager advised that, as a matter of policy, trading undertaken as part of organised events such as fairs, fêtes and markets would be excluded from the proposed street trading regime. It was clarified that the intention was not to impose additional regulation on these activities, and that existing events would not be subject to further controls under the policy.

 

Councillor McKiernan sought clarification on the arrangements in neighbouring authorities, asking whether similar street trading frameworks were already in place elsewhere in South Yorkshire or whether the borough would be among the first to introduce such a scheme. Clarification was also requested on how the proposed fees compared with those charged by other councils.

 

The Licensing Manager advised that the adoption of street trading controls varied between local authorities. It was noted that neighbouring authorities, including Barnsley and Sheffield, had already adopted similar legislation and generally charged higher fees than those proposed. The proposed fee structure had been developed on the basis of reasonableness and in accordance with relevant legislative requirements. It was further noted that the fees would form part of the consultation and could be reviewed and amended, if appropriate, before a final policy was presented for approval.

 

Vice-Chair observed that, while some regulation could be beneficial, particularly where public safety and compliance were concerned, a degree of flexibility and competition could also support consumers and businesses. Concern was expressed that formalising existing guidance might create barriers to market entry and discourage traders. Assurance was sought that, if adopted, the policy would be supported by clear and accessible guidance, including information provided through the Council's website and other supporting materials. It was further noted that the number and complexity of the proposed requirements highlighted the need for comprehensive guidance to assist applicants in understanding and complying with the policy.

 

The Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment explained that one of the objectives of the policy was to bring existing requirements together into a single, clear framework for traders and residents. It was stated that the consultation process was intended to help develop a balanced policy that supported business activity while protecting the public and ensuring a fair and transparent approach to street trading. Assurance was given that, if adopted, the policy and supporting guidance would be widely communicated through various channels, including the Council's website and dedicated information materials.

 

In a supplementary question, the Vice-Chair sought assurance that the consultation would specifically seek views on how any new policy and guidance should be communicated to traders and other stakeholders, emphasising the importance of clear and accessible information to support compliance.

 

The Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment confirmed that the consultation would include consideration of how the policy and associated guidance should be communicated and made accessible to traders and other stakeholders.

 

Councillor Monk echoed concerns that any consultation document would need to clearly explain what was and was not included in the proposed policy to ensure meaningful responses. Clarification was sought regarding the proposed £28 fee for changing a name or address on a licence and whether this would apply to a change of business ownership or only to amendments made by the existing licence holder. The Licensing Manager explained that the fee would apply only to changes made by the existing licence holder, such as a change of name, address or business name. A change of ownership would require a new licence application and the associated vetting process. It was also noted that the £28 fee already existed within the current licensing framework for licence amendments. Councillor Monk expressed concern that the Equality Impact Assessment did not appear to recognise potential implications arising from name changes and indicated that this issue would be raised as part of the consultation response.

 

Councillor Yasseen expressed concern that references within the draft documents, including wording suggesting the Council had adopted Schedule 4 of the Act, could give the impression that decisions had already been made and potentially undermine the consultation process. It was also noted that the report identified limited evidence on the issues being addressed, the potential impact on traders and customers, and the effects on protected groups, making it difficult to assess the proportionality of the proposals.

 

Councillor Yasseen proposed that consideration of the policy be deferred to allow further intelligence gathering and stakeholder mapping, particularly in relation to affected traders, and that clearer evidence on the issues, complaints and potential impacts be established before progressing to consultation.

 

Councillor Baggaley commented that both the report and discussion had highlighted significant information gaps, resulting in a lack of clarity around the proposals. Concerns were raised that the draft policy did not clearly identify exemptions, including those relating to community and parish council events, and that the provisions for trading from private land could have unintended implications for businesses hosting food vendors.

 

Further concern was expressed that the criteria and process for granting or refusing street trading consents were not clearly set out. In light of these issues, Councillor Baggaley considered that the policy was not yet ready for consultation and should be revised and clarified before being brought back for further consideration.

 

The Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment advised that the document had been presented as a draft policy for consultation and did not suggest that any decisions had already been taken. It was explained that the purpose of the consultation was to gather views before any final decision was made by Cabinet, and that this would be made clear to consultees. It was acknowledged the detailed points raised regarding the scope and balance of the proposals and noted that these would be considered through the consultation and policy development process.

 

Councillor Williams noted that the concerns raised could be explored through consultation, which would provide feedback from street traders and other stakeholders. It was considered that the draft policy already clearly defined street trading and relevant exemptions, and that consultation responses should inform the final policy. It was further stated that the existing arrangements were not considered fair or effective and that a formal policy was needed to create a more consistent and equitable framework for street traders and the local economy.

 

Councillor Baggaley reiterated that, if Members were unclear about aspects of the document, it was unlikely that residents would fully understand the proposals. It was argued that the number of questions raised during the discussion demonstrated that the draft lacked sufficient clarity and that, as a result, consultation at this stage would not be effective. The view was expressed that the document should be revised and clarified before being issued for consultation to ensure respondents could provide informed and meaningful feedback.

 

Councillor Blackham highlighted the importance of achieving a balanced outcome through consultation and questioned whether the proposed consultation period was sufficient. Concern was expressed that an eight-week consultation, including four weeks during August, could limit participation at a time when many residents and stakeholders might be away on holiday. It was suggested that, given the significance of the policy, a longer consultation period during a time when more people were available to engage would be more appropriate.

 

Councillor Williams considered an eight-week consultation period sufficient, noting that affected stakeholders would have adequate opportunity to respond. It was also stated that any Committee recommendation regarding the consultation period would be welcomed and taken into consideration.

 

Councillor Tinsley BEM sought clarification on how fairness would be ensured where multiple applicants wished to trade from the same location. Clarification was also sought on whether street trading consents could be transferred or sold, or whether a new application would be required from any prospective trader.

 

The Licensing Manager advised that street trading consents would not be transferable and that any new trader would be required to submit a fresh application. It was explained that where demand exceeded available pitches, locations would be allocated through a fair process, similar to that used for market stalls, rather than on a first come, first served basis. It was noted that a ballot or lottery system could be used where pitches were oversubscribed.

 

Councillor Bacon noted that concerns had been raised about the lack of evidence and data to support the proposed changes and that the Board had not been provided with sufficient information to fully assess the case for reform. It was therefore suggested that Cabinet be recommended not to proceed to consultation until further evidence, intelligence and supporting data had been gathered and presented.

 

The Chair advised that the proposed recommendation would effectively defer the policy and request that Cabinet not approve the report in its current form. It was noted that the Board’s recommendation would then be discussed with the Cabinet Member, Leader of the Council and Chief Executive.

 

The Chair then proposed that consideration of the report be deferred until sufficient information and evidence had been provided for Cabinet's consideration, and that Cabinet be requested not to approve the report at its forthcoming meeting. Following a vote, the recommendation was carried by nine votes in favour. It was confirmed that this would be the Committee's sole recommendation to Cabinet for this item.

 

Resolved: That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board recommends that Cabinet:

1. Defers consideration of the Draft Street Trading Policy and does not proceed to public consultation until further development work has been completed and sufficient supporting evidence is provided to ensure the policy is evidence?led and fit for consultation. This work should include clearer data on current trading activity and issues, improved impact assessments, clearer scope and definitions, and more detailed operational and fee proposals.