Mr. Stephen McGorrian (Horatio Group and Hospitality Ulster), Mr. Neil Hutcheson (Federation of Small Businesses) and Mr. Damien Corr (Cathedral Quarter BID)
Minutes:
The Chairperson advised that he had been contacted by a delegation who wished to present to the Committee regarding the new Pavement Café Guidelines.
The Committee agreed to receive the presentation and welcomed Mr. Neil Hutcheson (Federation of Small Businesses), Mr. Stephen McGorrian (Horatio Group and Hospitality Ulster) and Mr. Damien Corr (Cathedral Quarter BID) to the meeting.
On behalf of the delegation, Mr. Hutcheson outlined that:
· the hospitality and retail industry in NI was dealing with huge cost increases, dampened demand and an inability to raise prices much further due to the ongoing cost of living crisis;
· none of the government support, which was available in England, was available in NI, notably the significant rates discount of 75%;
· businesses really appreciated the support that the Council had given to businesses during the pandemic;
· it was clear that there was a desire for a pavement cafe culture in NI and that everyone was keen to see a permanent and effective scheme, particularly taking into account the needs of disabled groups;
· they appreciated that the existing legislation and draft guidance restricted the Council on how it could operate, however, they did not feel that a best practice consultation process had been followed;
· had best practice been followed, the vast majority of businesses, licensed or unlicensed, would have applied to the permanent scheme and would be successful, thereby demonstrating its success;
· the timeframes had been too short for businesses, it had been carried out at a difficult time of year for them and they had not been able to critique draft wording before it had been implemented;
· some of the concerns which they had raised during the consultation had not been addressed;
· some business owners were concerned regarding liability insurance and how it would operate if an incident occurred when a premises was unlicensed or in breach of its licence;
· there were flaws with the draft guidance from DFI and there had been a lack of engagement between DFI and businesses;
· they were requesting that the Committee grant a further extension of the transition period, for two or three months, so as not to penalise those who had already applied to the permanent scheme, and also to alleviate the insurance issue;
· a more structured engagement with businesses was required with stakeholders, and should include DfC and DFI; and
· the Council would consider highlighting the scheme and providing an incentive to businesses, for example, financial assistance with street furniture.
The Senior Licensing officer thanked the representatives for their presentation. He reminded the Committee that, in June 2020, the Council had agreed to implement a temporary Pavement Café scheme to assist the hospitality sector during the Covid-19 pandemic. The process had been focused on business needs and was always meant to be a temporary process. He reminded the Committee that the scheme had been extended on a number of occasions, with the transition period ending on 30th April, 2024.
He outlined that there had been extensive engagement with a wide range of stakeholders regarding the proposals for the permanent scheme, including disabled groups and FSB, and that officers had met many business owners on site. He reported that officers had a meeting scheduled for next week with Hospitality Ulster in respect of the scheme. He emphasised that the scheme was not about a blanket, “one size fits all” approach.
The Members were advised that two information sessions had been held, in February 2024, and the Council had also used its social media to encourage business owners to apply to the permanent scheme.
The Senior Licensing Officer reported that officers had worked with businesses to assist them with their applications. He explained that the permanent scheme mirrored the temporary scheme in many aspects, however, fees had been introduced and the standard licence conditions had been revised. It was reported that what had been deemed appropriate during the temporary scheme, in terms of the location or size of the pavement café area, would not necessarily fit within the terms of the permanent scheme and that more detail, generally, was required from applicants.
The Members were reminded that the purpose of the permanent scheme was to allow a food and drink business to place temporary furniture in a public area. It was not an extension of a bar or a smoking area.
He outlined that, to date, 40 applications had been received for the permanent scheme, 35% of which were new applicants and 65% were from those who held a temporary licence. The Members were advised that DFI had reported they did not expect to issue a large number of refusals.
The Committee was advised that, while officers would be happy to have further meetings with the BIDs or with FSB, they suggested that there was perhaps more merit in meeting with individual businesses in order to provide advice on their specific queries or concerns.
In response to a Member’s comment, the Building Control Manager confirmed to the Committee that officers would not carry out enforcement action in respect of a business if an application for a permanent licence had been submitted and had not yet been processed.
During discussion, a number of Members stated that the Committee and the Licensing officers had given extensive thought and consideration to the Permanent scheme and that significant consultation had been carried out with a large range of stakeholders. A number of Members added that, while everyone wanted to see a busy, flourishing city centre, there were other competing issues which also had to be taken into account, including accessibility and street cleansing considerations.
Mr. McGorrian stated that he acknowledged that some business owners had gone too far and pushed the limits as part of the temporary scheme.
The Senior Licensing Officer acknowledged that concerns had been raised regarding the “twenty minute rule” within the legislation, which stated that the street furniture within the pavement cafe area should be capable of being moved within twenty minutes.
Mr. McGorrian stated that his issue was not with the logistics of removing the furniture within a certain timeframe but, rather than having to purchase temporary or easily moveable items, such as windbreakers, he would have preferred to invest in more aesthetically pleasing outdoor furniture.
In response to a query raised by the deputation, the Solicitor (Regulatory and Planning) advised the Committee that it would be for the licensee to ensure that they were adequately covered in terms of the hypothetical insurance queries which had been raised. He also clarified that the legislation stated that all furniture had to be “of a temporary nature that could be removed within 20 minutes at the end of the licensed period”.
The Senior Licensing Officer added that, while enforcement officers would not be insisting that businesses moved the furniture strictly within 20 minutes, the intent of the legislation was to ensure that the furniture was of a temporary or moveable nature, for accessibility and street cleansing reasons. He acknowledged, however, that officers would be flexible, where possible, and would continue to listen to individual concerns from businesses.
The Chairperson added that the Committee had been involved in discussions around the scheme for months and that officers had worked tirelessly to take as much as possible on board from numerous stakeholders, with different competing priorities. He stated that, while it was not a perfect piece of legislation, the guidelines were a live document and that peoples lived experience would continue to ensure that changes could and would be made as officers saw fit. He added that the permanent scheme, as it stood, was the best and “least worst” option.
In response to comments made by the deputation, the Senior Manager (Economy) advised the Committee that the “Go Succeed” service was providing financial assistance of up to £4,000 to businesses. She outlined that the assistance was available for wider business support, including issues such as attracting new business or seasonality issues.
After discussion, the Committee:
· noted the concerns which had been raised by the delegation, particularly in relation to the 20 minute rule, and noted that officers would continue to work with applicants regarding any specific issues; and
· noted the potential financial assistance of up to £4,000 which was available to businesses through the Go Succeed service, linked to wider business support around issues such as attracting new business or seasonality issues.