Taken from the application form at:
http://www.haringey.gov.uk/business/licensing-and-regulations/licen...
Tags (All lower case. Use " " for multiple word tags):
Yes, the line of text at the top of the page is from the application form for such a licence for either tables & chairs on the footway or produce on the footway. The licence application process is on the Council website. To a non-expert it would appear, to great surprise, that traders might be openly in breach of licence conditions.
http://www.haringey.gov.uk/business/licensing-and-regulations/licen...
It seems to me that there are both pros and cons about the partial 'takeover' of pavements.
Some negatives are fairly obvious. The pavement is narrowed and traders are occupying part of "the "commons"; publicly-owned space.
For people with buggies; a disability and especially those using wheelchairs, narrowing the remaining public space can be a problem. Worse if there are lampposts, parking meters and other street furniture; and bags of waste in the way.
Once this pattern becomes established other traders may expect the same treatment. There are then interesting questions about who pays for cleaning and repair for the privately used land which is still public highway. (Though it's possible there may be strips of pavement which belong to the private freeholder.)
But then there are also advantages. Not only traders benefit, but a "virtuous circle" means many other people enjoy street life and "coffee culture". Streets are livelier, more interesting, and safer. (More overlooking; more eyes.)
Though, of course, not everyone can afford to pay for a coffee/snack to - in effect - "rent" a micro timeshare of a table and chairs - and perhaps use of a free toilet.
So there are questions about - having lost public space - where can poorer people and others (pregnant women, for instance) sit and rest for free for a few minutes.
I once raised these issues with someone brought in temporarily by the council to help with the recovery of High Road Tottenham after the 2011 riot. I suggested the need to clarify the legal position of these informal street trading arrangements along High Road Tottenham. With a possibility of a new agreement between the Council, the traders, and local residents to re-balance different interests. The temporary member of staff was an intelligent, thoughtful and sympathetic person; open to different ideas. But unfortunately she was dealing with far more pressing issues - like relocating the burnt-out and demolished Post Office. Her contract came to an end.
Some uses are brief. Photo left shows watermelon delivery at Andreas Michli & Son, 405-411 St Ann’s Road in 2012.
Some years ago ( maybe 8 ? ) The Council announced an experimental scheme where cafes, shops, etc on Tottenham High Road would allow passers-by to use their toilets.
I've never seen any follow up to this and I suspect it has been quietly forgotten.
Alan, putting aside the rebalancing of interests, which is the real focus of this discussion, and sticking with the licence conditions. Given that your experience and knowledge is far greater than mine, do you think the examples portrayed constitute breaches of the licence?
WightmanPaul, I've no idea if your experience of licenses is greater than mine. I don't know who you are and I don't know your own experience.
In any case, it hardly matters. You seem to have been looking at specific estsblishments and individual licences and have formed the view that some of the establishments "might be openly in breach of licence conditions".
Linking this to Michael Anderson's entirely sensible comment on your photo and pedestrians being forced to walk in single file, I suggest you might want to contact Haringey's Licensing Team for advice about what formal action you and others may wish to take.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
© Copyright Harringay Online Created by Hugh