Agenda item

The Chairperson welcomed Mr. D. Healy, Divisional Manager at DfI Roads Western Division, to the meeting.

            He advised the Committee that, since the original pavement café legislation had been proposed, the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) had been compiling a document to assist its staff in ensuring consistency across Northern Ireland.

He outlined that initial work on the guidance, up to 2020, had only reached draft stage as there had been a number of issues around consistency as well as getting agreement with Councils and disability groups.

The Committee was advised that the unpublished draft guidance had been used by DfI staff in assessing Pavement Cafes to date.  However, having been prompted by Belfast City Council’s adoption of its permanent Pavement Café Licensing scheme, he had since been tasked, as Chair of the Network Planning Committee, to bring the draft guidance forward. 

Mr. Healy explained that a number of amendments had been made in terms of suitable footway widths.  He outlined that DfI relied upon a number of different guides in terms of what were deemed acceptable footway widths.  He stated that the minimum standard was 2metres but within each guidance document there were instances where that distance could be reduced.  He pointed out that, in the Chartered Institution for Highways and Transportation “Planning for Walking” document, it suggested an absolute minimum of 1.8metres clearance, whereas the Inclusive Mobility document specifically relating to pavement cafes suggested that 1.5metre clear space should be regarded as a minimum acceptable distance.

He explained that the new guidance document from DfI would draw upon the guidance from the various complementary documents and would consider in what circumstances a pavement café could operate with less than 2metres clearance.  He outlined that DfI would seek to produce guidance which was acceptable to Councils and to disability groups.  He explained that the new document would look to assess applications for a pavement café where it had less than 2metres clearance of footway width.

The Members were advised that the updated draft guidance had been issued to Councils and disability groups in early January 2024. A meeting had subsequently been held with those groups on 18th January, 2024, with a number of amendments having been made as a result of the consultation.  A further version of the guidance had been issued to stakeholders on 19th February, 2024 and DfI was currently awaiting feedback.

The Committee was advised that, once the guidance was completed, it would go through the Department’s Equality Screening assessment in advance of its publication.

Mr. Healy confirmed to the Committee that the guidance would be a “live” document and would continue to evolve over time but would hopefully help to ensure consistency across all Council areas.

In response to a Member’s question regarding the most recent version of the guidance, the Building Control Manager advised the Committee that, while officers had only had sight of it two days previously, t they had been working closely with the Department in respect of the guidance and that the guidance produced by the Council and the DfI seemed to be well aligned.

The Chairperson emphasised that it was important that the guidance was not set in stone so as to adopt best practice, learn from lived experience, and that it was ultimately people-centred and not policy-centred.

In response to a Member’s query, Mr Healy confirmed that only in certain circumstances should applicants be permitted to have less than 2metres footway clearance, such as in areas of very low pedestrian footfall.

A further Member queried how individual applications would be adjudicated, including who would decide if it was acceptable for a pavement café to operate if there was less than 2metres clearance available, and if there would be an appeal mechanism.  In response, Mr. Healy explained that there was a section in the guidance outlining scenarios where less than 2metres clearance could be acceptable, where it would be up to the applicant to demonstrate that the pedestrian flow adjacent to the property was sufficiently low to lessen the risk of anyone on the footpath being impeded, or in areas of not more than 2metres long, known as pinch points.  The Committee was advised that the information would also be verified by DfI staff on the ground.

A further Member queried how the appeals process would operate.  The Building Control Manager outlined that the only right of appeal would be from applicants, if their application for a pavement cafe was refused.  He explained that the Committee would be asked to consider any applications which had been refused by officers and were being appealed by applicants, but he clarified that users who felt disadvantaged by a pavement café would not have a right of appeal.

            After discussion, a number of Members stated that it was important that the parameters were clear for officers and applicants, in order to provide reassurance to everyone.

The Chairperson thanked Mr. Healy for his attendance and the update which he had provided.