Appendix 4 - Requests for exemptions from Parish Councils

Boreham Parish Council Thank you for your letter regarding the proposal to pass a resolution that all streets within the district of , with some specified exceptions, shall be designated as consent streets. The Parish Council has considered this matter but feels that as the proposed street trading policy will enable organisers of community events to apply for street trading consent free of charge and with the minimum of formality, it is not necessary to have any land within excluded from the designation. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.

Broomfield Parish Council Thank you for your recent letter concerning the above. The Parish Council has agreed that two areas of land are suitable for exemption with are in the ownership and control of Broomfield PC and access is controlled by bollards and locked gates - these two areas are adjacent to each other and are used for Village Hall Fetes, Football Club Fun Days, etc etc. The two areas are Angel Meadow and David Smith Memorial Field - both parcels of land are adjacent to Broomfield Village Hall, 158 Main Road, Broomfield CM1 7AH. Please could you advise me if these areas of land are acceptable for exemption? The Parish Council have decided to keep all the Village Greens (Church Green, Angel Green, Parsonage Green, Scots Green) included under Control of Stree Trading as they are not secured and accessible to members of the public - a Street Trading Consent will be applied for the Church Fete which is held annually in May on Church Green.

Danbury Parish Council I write to confirm that Danbury Parish Council does not wish to exempt any of its land.

Galleywood Parish Council Further to your letter dated 7 May 2014, the Parish Council Planning and Highways Committee would like to fully support Chelmsford City Council’s proposal to pass a resolution that all streets within the district of Chelmsford, with some specified exceptions, shall be designated as consent streets. For some considerable time the Parish of Galleywood has been the target of vehicle trading from the Highway, specifically The Street, Watchouse Road, Keene Way and Beehive Lane. I called your office on Friday 23.05.14 to discuss the content of para 4 of your letter as it remains a little confusing as to what areas we are to consider and recommend (ie land owned by GPC or land generally within the parish) I am afraid that your office could not elaborate, but suggested I email you. In response to your request nominate the following areas of land which are likely to be used on a frequent basis for community events which should be exempted from the district wide designation, the Committee agreed that the following areas should be considered. 1. The central shopping area of Galleywood – Ownership CHP - It is proposed that this area may be used as a commercial street market (festive fayres only) to rejuvenate trade. 2. – Ownership Chelmsford City Council – Used for the trade of goods during festivals and other community functions

The Galleywood Common request is however tempered with caution as any exemption may proliferate the daily traders of ice cream and burger vans which would not be welcome.

Great Baddow Parish Council

The Parish Council has considered the further consultation on the above matter. The Council fully supports the written policy.

However, the Parish Council would like the following parish council owned/managed areas to be taken into consideration:

1. Recreation Ground – the drive into the recreation ground & car park - to be covered by the policy 2. Great Baddow Recreation Ground - the main area of the football/ pitches and other sports courts that are fenced – to be excluded from the policy 3. Lawn Cemetery and Vicarage Lane Allotment site behind fence/wall – to be excluded from the policy 4. Lawn Cemetery Vicarage Lane - car park at edge of road – to be covered by the policy 5. Tower Field Allotment site – to be excluded from the policy as it is fenced (The site is leased from the City Council) 6. Luxfield – to be covered by the policy as it is unfenced

The Parish Council would also like to know what procedures will be in place to add areas of land or to delete them. I will look forward to hearing from you on this matter.

Great Waltham Parish Council The Parish Council considered the letter sent by Chelmsford City Council dated 7 th May 2014 at their meeting held on 19 th May. The letter explained that the primary purpose behind this proposed district wide street trading control is to target and prevent nuisance sales of goods, such as used cars, on the highway. The letter explained that the City Council was giving all Parish Councils the opportunity to propose specific areas of land within their Parish for exemption from the district wide designation. Following discussion it was agreed that the following areas would be put forward for exclusion from the street trading controls. Broads Green Recreation Ground Banbury Square Brookmead Allotments Bury Lane Allotments Playing Field Playing Field

I would therefore ask that the areas listed above be excluded from the designated area for control of Street Trading as proposed to be placed before the Licensing and Regulatory Committee on 12 th June 2014.

Highwood Parish Council Further to your letter of 7 May 2014, the parish council requests that the following areas of land are excluded from the district-wide designation: the grass area at the rear of the village hall the grounds of the village hall the play area at Edney Common (opposite the Green Man)

Little Baddow Parish Council I refer to your letter dated 7 th May. We have considered your invitation to submit details of specific plots of land that we wish to see excluded from district wide designation under the proposed new regulations. We are sorry but we think that the proposal as it stands presents both you and us with unnecessary difficulties that could readily be avoided by taking a different approach. You have been explicit in saying that you do not wish to constrain or inhibit community or charitable events. Unfortunately - a) such events do not always take place on the same areas of land – for example, one of our largest events in recent years took place on a private field made available to the community by the landowner, for the first time b) the definition of “street” includes footways and any area to which the public has access without payment. We have within our Parish many miles of footways and permissive paths many of which abut private property where our active community may wish to hold fund-raising (not-for-profit) events that we would wish to allow without the need to obtain consent c) if we exempt areas of land from the regulations (such as our Sports Field) then we make that land more susceptible to exactly the kind of trading activity that you are trying to control; furthermore, when other land is subject to control, unwelcome trading activity is more likely to seek out the land that is exempted d) What may be appropriate land for exemption in 2014 could well no longer be appropriate in 2024; what is needed is an approach that can flex according to circumstances and over time. e) The bureaucracy both and City Council and Parish Council level is significant and potentially unwieldy: both Councils must maintain descriptions of the exempted land, and City Council must maintain a reliable procedure for granting consent. Inevitably, sooner or later an application will be forgotten or delayed or not made due to ignorance, and City Council will be blamed for any delays that lead to uncertainty or even cancellation of events.

We therefore strongly recommend that you reconsider your approach to this issue. There are 2 options that we can immediately identify both of which address the problems above, and we invite you to consider them before proceeding with any district wide resolution. 1. Delegation of the Responsibility In consulting Parish Councils to establish which plots of land they might wish to see exempted from the regulations, you are giving those Councils a one-time opportunity to consider the needs of their community in relation to the problem of street trading. It would be far simpler to give them that opportunity indefinitely . In that way, it will be easy for Parish Councils to apply the regulations effectively and flexibly over time. If a patch of land is used repeatedly for a community event, then the organisers of that event will know that their activity has Parish Council support, and this situation will continue unless it is withdrawn. If the same event moves to a different area of land, no problem of consent arises. If the land in question starts to be abused by unwelcome trading, Parishes can act to control the “street trading”. This approach is in line with the stated aims of central government to decentralise control, and addresses all of the problems listed above without compromise. 2. Narrowing the Definitions Although this is not our favoured course, if you are unwilling to countenance delegation to Parish Councils then there is another option we can immediately identify that would make unnecessary the whole business of identifying (and subsequently maintaining records of) exempted land, both at City Council and Parish Council level. Given that the type of activity you are trying to constrain is clear, then it should be possible to narrow the definition of that “street trading” which is to be caught within the terms of the regulations. We recognise that the definition of “street trading” within the Act is more widely drawn, but it should not be difficult to craft the Regulations so as to catch that part of the wider definition that is unwelcome. You are seeking to control only a subset of the activity captured within the Act, and that is surely within your power. You may wish to modify the following definition, but it seems to us that the unwelcome activity is that which is “conducted for private gain, or which even if undertaken for community or charitable purposes extends over a period of longer than 7 days”. Specific Exemptions If, despite the advantages of either of the alternative approaches set out above, you are adamant that you wish to proceed with your original intention, then we need to establish – • whether, if we itemise a specific area of land for exemption, we can reverse that exemption quickly and easily should the need arise due to later abuse of that land • when the new proposals will take effect, and what steps you are taking to institute a process for obtaining a street trading consent that is reliable, and to use your words “free of charge and with the minimum of formality” • whether we may specify as exempt land that is privately owned but which we anticipate may be used for community events, and if so whether we must obtain the prior consent of the landowner(s).

We have 2 areas that we shall probably wish to exempt, subject to your response to the first of these. Given the time constraints you impose, an early response on this specific point is sought. Finally, we should welcome the opportunity to speak in support of our recommendation for consideration of Option 1 above at the meeting of your Council’s Licensing and Regulatory Committee on 12 th June.

Rettendon Parish Council

The Parish Council would like you to consider excluding the following areas of land in our Parish: The Rettendon Memorial Hall and land, lying west of Main Road, Rettendon. The Rettendon Memorial Hall carpark, lying west of Main Road, Rettendon. The Cricket Field lying west of and behind the Rettendon Memorial Hall and entrance from the Memorial Hall carpark. The Rettendon Primary School and associated land, lying east of Main Road, Rettendon** All Saints Church and associated land, lying west of Church Chase, off of Main Road, Rettendon. The Upper and Lower Bell Fields, lying South of Road and West of Main Road, Rettendon Common. Battlesbridge Free Church and associated land, lying north of Hawk Hill, Battlesbridge.

South Town Council Thank you for your letter of 7 May outlining new proposals to alter the existing City Council policy on the licensing of street trading. The Town Council’s Policy and Resources Committee was able to consider the proposals at its meeting on 27 May 2014 and I am pleased to provide their comments and recommendations. The Town Council notes that the proposed removal of the existing exemption for the pedestrianised retail areas in the town centre would have a detrimental effect on the town centre. Outwardly this conclusion may seem counter intuitive, but it reflects the unique nature and layout of the retail area in . The existing close management of these areas by the landowners and operators of the retail outlets effectively manages the risks associated with nuisance street trading in the town. The design of the town centre supports the many smaller events and activities that take place each year that are well controlled by event organisers or land owners. This activity supports a town centre that otherwise risks being under utilised and may encourage a downward spiral of decreasing commercial activity, public interest and investment. Any change in the existing arrangements will therefore introduce additional administrative burden and cost for event organisers and for the operators of the recently resurrected retail market without providing any significant benefit to the public or the business interests in the town.

Away from the retail area for the town centre there are stronger arguments for the proposed change to be introduced. A notable exception exists with the Village Hall and the playing fields in Hullbridge Road which it is argued should continue with its current exempted status, again reflecting its well controlled established use for a range of popular events.

The Town Council feels therefore that there is considerable potential to provide an improved approach to street trading licensing in South Woodham Ferrers. A switch to the majority of the town being designated as consent streets is supported. The additional safeguarding provided by the need for licensed trading is entirely appropriate for most of the town. The notable exceptions are the retail areas in the town centre and the village Hall (and its playing fields) in Hullbridge Road which should retain their existing exemption.

If you require any further clarification of the Town Council’s views or the reasoning behind its conclusions, please do let me know. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the review being undertaken.

Stock Parish Council

Thank you for your E-mail of 7 th May 2014 regarding the above policy. Stock Parish Council have no comments to make but would advise you that they support the policy.

Roxwell Parish Council

Further to your letter dated 7 th May 2014, on behalf of all village organisations we would ask you to consider the following points, and recommendations for Roxwell. The proposals being put forward by the City Council would have a significant effect on several organisations within the village.

Street trading has never caused a problem in Roxwell, and to our knowledge there has never been any significant commercial street trading. Regularly each year for the past 30 years at least, there have been 3 or 4 fund raising events run by local organisations that would fall within the definition of street trading and as already mentioned none of these has ever caused a problem.

The City Council ‘solution’ to the ‘problem’ they perceive will create extra unnecessary work for the hard working Roxwell volunteers of local organisations trying to raise funds for community facilities, plus the additional work for CCC employees, and therefore more charges to the rate payers.

Therefore the Roxwell Parish Council request exemption for the whole Parish, which would leave things as they are now.

If this is not possible exemptions to The Street, Church Green, St Michaels Drive and Stonehill Road within the 30mph area, would cover all the locations of village fetes and other events that are regularly used.