Agenda item

The Licensing Officer advised the Members of the Committee that she had been informed by their legal representative that neither of the Consent Holders would be in attendance. They had confirmed via their solicitor that they were content for the meeting to go ahead in their absence. She further advised that the legal representative had stated that should the Consents be revoked the relevant employees would lose their jobs.

The Licensing Officer then introduced the report relating to Greville Smyth Park (SL) and summarised it for everyone highlighting that documents submitted including the application form and insurance form are in the name of SL and the trading name of the business, which is not a registered company. This indicates that the business and SL are clearly linked, in spite of him being made the subject of a Slavery and Trafficking Risk Order (STRO) by Avon and Somerset Magistrates Court. This order in general prevents SL from being involved with any recruitment, management, payment, and accommodation of staff.

The Licensing Officer then introduced the report relating to Prince Street M Shed (RL) and summarised it for everyone highlighting that documents submitted including the application form and insurance form are in the name of SL and the trading name of the business, which is not a registered company. This indicates that the business and SL are clearly linked, in spite of him being made the subject of a Slavery and Trafficking Risk Order (STRO) by Avon and Somerset Magistrates Court.

The Members noted that although RL had been acquitted, the CPS had considered that there was enough evidence to potentially secure a conviction.

Decision

Members considered very carefully all of the written and verbal evidence presented to them.

They noted that SL’s name appears on all of the documents relating to the business indicating that he continues to play an active part in it even though he has been made the subject of a Slavery and Trafficking Risk Order (STRO) by Avon and Somerset Magistrates Court preventing him from being involved with any recruitment, management, payment, and accommodation of staff. No evidence was presented to indicate that he is no longer active in the business.

The Committee therefore decided to revoke the Greville Smyth Park Consent held SL. The Committee also decided to revoke the Prince Street M Shed Consent held by RL.

Resolved – that the Street Trading Consent(s) at Land to South West Corner of Playground Greville Smyth Park held by SL be revoked. The Committee noted that on 8 May 2019 SL was made the subject of a Slavery and Trafficking Risk Order (STRO) by Avon and Somerset Magistrates Court. The STRO was applied for by Avon and Somerset Constabulary, and was further to a court case in which he had deemed unfit to stand trial because he had been diagnosed with dementia.

Under the Council’s Street Trading Policy, the Council is entitled to take into account the suitability of the applicant as well as having a wide discretion when deciding whether or not to grant or revoke a Street Trading Consent. The Committee determined that to allow SL to continue to hold a Street Trading Consent would undermine the purpose of the Court Order. Given these circumstances, the Council could no longer be satisfied that SL was a suitable person to hold such a consent.

Resolved - that the Street Trading Consent(s) at Prince Street M-Shed held by RL be revoked. The Committee noted that on 8 May 2019 SL was made the subject of a Slavery and Trafficking Risk Order (STRO) by Avon and Somerset Magistrates Court. The STRO was applied for by Avon and Somerset Constabulary, and was further to a court case in which SL was deemed unfit to stand trial because he had been diagnosed with dementia.

The Committee considered the documents provided when the application was made by RL for both the tender, and the Street Trading Consent.

With respect to the documents submitted for the tender, it was noted that the majority were in the name of SML and S, a trading name of the business, but not a registered company. Public Liability Insurance is in the name of SM and his wife trading under the business name. As part of the application a letter regarding the business and trading style was submitted.

The application for street trading that RL made to the Council on 15 April 2019 contained a section for individual applicants, and one for non-individual applicants. Both sections of the form were completed, with the individual being named as RL, and the non-individual as SML and S. The Public Liability Insurance provided with the street trading application was the same as that provided with the application for tender.

The Committee determined that based on the information submitted, SL is clearly involved with the running of the business known as SML and S and that the business of RL could not be sufficiently separated from this.

Under the Council’s Street Trading Policy, the Council is entitled to take into account the suitability of the applicant as well as having a wide discretion when deciding whether or not to grant or revoke a Street Trading Consent. It was noted that although RL was acquitted of the charges of modern slavery, due to the seriousness of the allegations and that it was determined that his business was inextricably linked to that of SML & S, the Committee were sufficiently concerned as to RL’s suitability to continue to hold a Street Trading Consent.