Newsletter – 07.11.2022 

We’ve had some very positive news as a group: For the first time in a long time Stratford District Council have overturned an application by LSD Promotions Ltd, the market providers. It’s early days but it’s a good sign that our Local Authority are starting to sit up and listen to the voices of over 80 town centre businesses, and so they should. It proves there is strength in numbers, and we kindly ask you to spread the word so we can further increase our membership to tackle the biggest issues and challenges we all face. New members can join by clicking here. 

The Stratford Herald’s reporting of the events is somewhat incomplete and some of the language used at the licensing hearing has been changed within the SDC ‘Record of Decision’. The Chair of the meeting specifically referred to the application as being ‘nefarious’ and asked the SDC legal representative to put her comments on the record. 

Nefarious is a very strong word and reflects the strength of feeling towards LSD Promotion’s application. Via a simple Google search, it is defined as meaning: ‘typically of an action or activity) wicked or criminal’. “The nefarious activities of the organized-crime syndicates”

You  will find a ‘Letter of Concern’ we have sent to the Chair of the BID about this matter here.

Also attached you will find our responses to LSD’s further submissions the day before the hearing and the ‘Record of Decision’ of the hearing itself. 

We strongly believe that this application will be re-introduced by LSD Promotions and will let you know if and when this happens. We will act against any markets to be held outside of Market Square, Rother Street. 

Very significant news just in: BAGS has just received the independent report on Stratford Ltd BID from Andrew Cooper and we are now working through it. Andrew has really pulled the stops out and we are very grateful for his timely, sensible, independent professional advice. We will publish his full report on our website by next week and send you all a copy in our next Newsletter at the same time. We will also send a copy of his Report to Stratforward Ltd BID and ask them to action the recommendations as made in full. We expect them to do this in a positive and timely fashion so we can all judge the value of the Report’s suggested changes ahead of their re-vote in a few months’ time. 

We have a new Facebook page: ‘Business Action Groups Stratford-upon-Avon’. We will add some content and links to this over the coming days and weeks. Please feel free to join the page. 

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=nefarious 

www.businessactiongroups.com .

STRATFORD-ON-AVON DISTRICT COUNCIL 

LICENSING AUTHORITY 

SCHEDULE 4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1982 

APPLICATION FOR A STREET TRADING CONSENT 

RECORD OF DECISION 

Name of Applicant 

and Representative(s): Mr Tadhg McGillicuddy of LSD Promotions (Stratford) Ltd represented by Mr Rob Edge. 

Date(s) of hearing: 26th October 2022 

Licensing Panel Members: Cllr S Whalley-Hoggins (Chairperson) 

Cllr D Curtis 

Cllr E Fitter 

Administrator: Liz Jaworska 

Legal Adviser: Ross Chambers 

Licensing Officer: Anthony Riddell 

Objectors and Representative(s): Ms Alison Halford represented by Mr Andrew Rothwell 

The Licensing Panel heard oral Mr Andrew Rothwell 

representations from the Mr Rob Edge; Mr Dermot McGillicuddy 

following persons: Mr Anthony Riddell 

Mr Craig Bourne, Environmental & Operational Services Manager, Stratford on Avon District Council 

Background 

LSD Promotions (Stratford) Ltd (“the Applicant) has applied for a street trading consent to hold the Waterside Winter Upmarket on ten consecutive Sundays between 15/1/23 and 19/3/23 between 10:00 and 16:00. The Applicant brought winter markets to Bridge Street in Jan, Feb and March 2022 but considers that trading is more lucrative on Waterside and less impactful to the town than Bridge Street in relation to taxi rank moves and the grit lorry. The Applicant says that town centre businesses benefitted from the increase in footfall during the harder winter months. 

Alison Halford on behalf of a number of town centre businesses objected to the application on the following grounds (this is a summary; the full representation is contained in the agenda pack): 

• • The Stratford Benchmarking Report shows that 61% of businesses within the Stratford upon Avon Bid member area state that markets were a negative aspect of trading in the town, against a national average of 5%.
• • A Stratford upon Avon Bid survey in March/April 2021 shows support for the Friday and Saturday markets in Rother Street however markets on Waterside have a negative impact on trade in the town.
• • Stratford Benchmarking report shows that footfall in Henley Street is lower on market days than non-market days.
• • Waterside is unsuitable for a market at any time of the year. It is unsightly and detracts from the free open space, natural views of the canal and riverside, the Bancroft Gardens, and the world famous RSC.
• • There is evidence of chemical cleaning agents that endanger the local waterways and wildlife. There is run off from the process of cleaning oil and grease residue.
• • Evidence of damage to the paving area used by food stalls.
• • Markets growing in size, frequency and variety of locations
• • Concerns about the growth and frequency of markets against the interests of local businesses because of close relationship between the Bid Board, Stratford District Council and LSD Promotions.

In a response to the objection, the Applicant stated that the Winter Markets in 2022 generated an increase in footfall to the town on Sundays and town centre businesses will have benefitted from the increase in footfall during the harder months. The market traders who can’t normally trade in the town during the winter further benefitted. The winter markets provide employment to local people from Stratford upon Avon who may not have much work between January and March. The Council benefits from the parking income and the street trading fee of approximately £4,000. 

The Applicant’s submission further states that the data provided by Alison Halford is out of date or inappropriate because there have been no markets on Henley Street since 2017 (except the Victorian market) and Henley Street is not an accurate/appropriate comparison to Waterside. Some of the businesses objecting do not open their premises on a Sunday during the winter months, meaning the Winter Market has zero impact on their business. There is no evidence to support the statement that the market has a negative effect on Bid members. The objection is clearly only aimed to restrict competition. Local councils’ activities as regulators should not lead to a distortion of competition. 

The Applicant also submitted a letter dated 20/10/22 from Rob Edge, director of Licence Leader Ltd. This states that the Chief Executive of the National Market Traders Federation, Joe Harrison, has given his full support to the street trading consent for the Winter Markets on Waterside. The letter goes on to state that members of the Federation have strongly indicated they would like to attend the winter markets in 2023 and that the traders are in the “build back” process following restrictions being lifted after the pandemic. They feel it is crucial that small businesses are provided with this platform to enable them to earn an income during this unprecedented cost of living crisis. 

A further representation was received from the objector making, in summary, the following points: 

• • The application is for a category 3 event, between 50 and 75 traders, but the plan shows 93 stalls which is a category 4 event.
• • Some of the stalls are on land owned by the Canal and Riverside Trust.
• • Bid did not support the application. They were neutral about it.
• • No evidence submitted to support the statement that trading is more lucrative on Waterside.

• • No evidence that the Winter Markets in 2022 saw a considerable increase in footfall to the town on Sundays.
• • No evidence that town centre businesses benefited from an increase in footfall.
• • Casts doubt on the number of towns LSD Promotions say they operate markets in.
• • Consider the solution should be to simply have all markets on Rother Street except annual events such as the food festival and Christmas market.

The Hearing 

The Licensing Panel heard from the Licensing Officer who introduced the application and read out his report. The Licensing Officer noted that Warwickshire Police, Warwickshire County Council Highways, SDC Street Scene, SDC Planning and SDC Environmental Health were consulted on the application, and they had no objections. The Licensing Officer confirmed that an amended site layout plan and been submitted and that 75 market stalls are proposed. 

The Legal Officer referred the Panel to the Council’s Street Trading and Collections Policy, referred to in the Licensing Officer’s report, and the Council’s Licensing Policy in respect of Commercial Markets, adopted by Cabinet in 2018. 

Mr Rothwell on behalf of the objectors read out his representation. Cllr Curtis asked if there was evidence of chemical cleaning agents entering the waterways, in terms of independent analysis. Mr Rothwell said no but that he could see it. Mr Rothwell said he didn’t think it could be oil from motorbikes on Waterside. 

Mr Bourne said that pursuant to the contract with LSD promotions, LSD must clean up after the markets and remove all rubbish and there are on-site precautions to prevent drainage issues. Mr Bourne said that the substance on the photographs looks like normal suds and water. He said the Council have received no complaints about oil spillages into the Avon and he has received no comments about the matter from Biffa who carry out street cleansing operations for the Council. 

Mr Edge, on behalf of the Applicant, read out his representation. Addressing the cleaning fluids issue, he said that the traders use a product called “lemon floor gel” which is plant-based, non-toxic and non-flammable. It was specifically researched because of the close proximity to the canal. 

Mr Edge reminded the Panel that no consultee had deemed it necessary to object to the application. Mr Edge said that the 61% of traders who said that the markets were a negative aspect would say that because the market is competition. It is a free market economy. Mr Edge said that any environmental damage to paving would have been picked up by street scene or highways. LSD have been fully compliant with the markets contract and have reduced the number of days at the request of the Council. LSD have accommodated a requirement to close at 4PM for this year’s Winter Market and move to Waterside during road works on Bridge Street. Mr Edge re-iterated the point that the objections were due to a fear of competition. This is a market town and competition is good for the general public. Mr Edge clarified that LSD have in the past operated in some 30 towns and continue to operate in many of them. They have received several national awards. 

Cllr Whalley-Hoggins asked whether the Applicant had provided a map of other street traders and outlets trading in similar commodities to those proposed, as per paragraph 6(4) of the Council’s adopted Street Trading Policy. Mr Edge confirmed that such a map had not been provided. He said that this is an application for a market, which is slightly different to an application from a lone street trader e.g., on an application from someone wanting to trade in electrical goods the Council might want to know if there is a requirement in the area for another electrical goods trader. 

Cllr Whalley-Hoggins asked if there is a need for this market for 10 consecutive Sundays? Mr Edge said he believes there was demand this year and all the traders said they would be happy to return. 

Mr McGillicuddy said that he wasn’t aware of the requirement to submit a map of other traders and outlets. Feedback was that this year’s winter market was positive for the town. Footfall is at its lowest in winter, so it is good for the town. 

Cllr Fitter asked whether any other towns have winter markets and what the feedback was. Mr McGillicuddy said very few markets go through street trading legislation. Most markets are approved through a contract, although this proposal is outside the contract. He has not come across a situation before of needing to prove need. 

In relation to the issue of whether there have been markets in Henley Street since 2017, it was clarified that part of the Victorian Christmas market takes place on Henley Street. 

Cllr Curtis asked how many jobs the market provides for local people. Mr McGillicuddy said LSD and the market traders employ local people, but he doesn’t have any figures. Cllr Curtis asked if there is any evidence of the town centre benefitting from the market. Mr McGillicuddy said he has heard positive feedback but hasn’t carried out a survey. 

Cllr Curtis asked if the Applicant could clarify the statement about the Bid supporting the application. Mr McGillicuddy said that he is a Bid member and is fully aware that the Bid voted to remain neutral. Cllr Whalley-Hoggins said she is discomforted by the statement in the application that the Bid support the application. 

Mr Bourne clarified that the 10 market days applied for are in addition to the 43 days on Waterside agreed in the market contract. Mr Bourne said it is a locational change rather than an increase in market days because the market will transfer from Bridge Street. Mr Edge and Mr McGillicuddy said that the Highway authority prefers Waterside because you don’t have to close the road to traffic on Waterside. 

The Panel asked whether anyone wanted to make a final statement. Mr Rothwell said they are not objecting to markets. They want the best for Stratford and for the businesses to grow. Having traders on Waterside is not supported. The markets should be on the market square in Rother Street. The RSC should be protected and there shouldn’t be a market detracting from the pleasure of viewing Bancroft Gardens and the RSC. The objectors still want the markets to thrive as it is a market town. 

Mr Edge confirmed he did not want to make a final statement. 

The Decision 

The Licensing Panel has taken note of all the written representations and supporting information made in respect of this application for a street trading consent, including the supplementary documents submitted, and have listened to all those who have spoken at the hearing. 

The Licensing Panel has taken into account Stratford-on-Avon District Council Street Trading and Collections Policy, the Licensing Policy in respect of Commercial Markets and has considered the provisions of Schedule 4 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1982. 

In formulating a decision, the Panel worked through the criteria in paragraph 6 of the Council’s adopted Street Trading Policy: “Considerations to be taken into account by the Licensing Panel when determining Street Trading Consents”. 

In terms of Public Safety and Public Order, the Panel had no concerns about the proposal. In terms of the avoidance of public nuisance, the Panel noted the concern of the objector in relation to potential discharge of substances into the waterways but were satisfied that the Council’s contract with LSD would ensure safe clean-up operations and noted that there had been no objection from environmental health. 

Turning to the needs of the area, the Policy states that the Panel will consider the demand for the articles for sale and the geographical location of the proposed site. The Panel noted that no map had been provided by the Applicant indicating the locations of other street traders and outlets trading in similar commodities to those proposed within a half a mile radius of the site. The Panel noted that the Policy states that “the Licensing Panel will always consider the sufficiency of other trading outlets to serve the needs of the area. A new consent is unlikely to be granted where the Licensing Panel consider that adequate like provision already exist”. 

Very little information was submitted about the commodities proposed to be traded and whether similar commodities are already being traded in the locality. The Panel, therefore, found it extremely difficult to assess the question in the Policy about the needs of the area and whether there is a need for 10 additional market days on Waterside. The only evidence the Panel heard on the point was anecdotal evidence from the Applicant that there was demand this year and the traders would be happy to return. The Panel noted that if the application were granted it would amount to 53 days of markets on Waterside in a year, about one a week on average, which the Panel considered to be potentially excessive. Fundamentally, the Panel felt that the application was lacking in relation to the question of need and noted that the Applicant would be free to make another application that addresses this part of the Policy. 

In terms of other considerations, the Panel recognise the importance of markets generally to the local economy and that Stratford is a market town and that markets already take place on Waterside. However, they must judge an application for a street trading consent on its own merits. 

In terms of the proposed market being “unsightly” or spoiling views of the Bancroft or the RSC as alleged by the objector, the Panel did not agree that this was the case and noted that the RSC had not commented on the application. 

In terms of whether a market on Waterside has a positive or negative impact on town centre trade, the Panel felt the evidence was inconclusive. The Panel noted the Applicant’s anecdotal evidence that the market increased footfall into the town centre during the harder winter months but also noted some comments from business owners in the March/April 2021 Bid survey that markets on Waterside have a negative impact on the town centre because they draw people away from the heart of the town. Conversely, there were other comments in the survey to the effect that markets generally attract people to the town. 

The Panel noted that having a market on Waterside instead of Bridge Street could result in fewer road closures, which could be beneficial for the town. 

On balance, due to the lack of information in the application on the need for additional market days on Waterside, as required by the Council’s adopted street trading policy, the Panel decided to refuse the application. 

A copy of this Record of Decision will be served on all relevant parties. 

Under Schedule 4 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 there is no statutory right of appeal against this decision. 

Any communications regarding this decision should be addressed to : 

Mr R. Chambers, Solicitor, Stratford-on-Avon District Council, Legal Services, Elizabeth House, Church Street, Stratford-upon-Avon CV37 6HX. 

Councillor Sarah Whalley-Hoggins (Chairperson) 

Dated 31 October 2022