Northcross Road market wardens hounding the graphic students selling their prints today!

[Anna27]

Just wanted to lend my support to the students selling their prints outside the picture framers on Northcross Rd market today. With permission from the shop owner they have been selling some of their art work from a small stall in front of the shop whilst also promoting the framing shop. They were approached by Southwark council informing them that they would have to pay the council ?250 to continue trading there!! even though the shopkeeper owns the land, one of their reasons was that it was blocking the pavement, I can't see what the problem is, it's no different from the florist selling her flowers and displaying them out the front of the shop. I think its great that the framers were supporting these three young students. Obviously they make nowhere near enough to cover this cost I just hope they can find a way around it or that the council can see sense!! We should be supporting these young men.

Maybe if the shopkeeper does a sale or return deal with them its no different to him selling his own produce outside his shop? it seems that the other market traders pay nowhere near this figure think its around ?25 (could be wrong)

[silverfox]

There is no problem. Since medieval times hawkers need a licence.

Pay up or shut up.

[Anna27]

I don't disagree but they have an agreement with the owner to sell from his land, can't see your point

[Chener Books]

Hawker?

[Chener Books]

More to the point is Southwark Council's interpretation of

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982

Schedule 4 Para 1(2)(e)(ii)

See here.

[Anna27]

A hawker is a vendor of merchandise that can be easily transported; the term is roughly synonymous with peddler or costermonger. In most places where the term is used, a hawker sells items or food that are native to the area. Whether stationary or mobile, hawkers usually advertise by loud street cries or chants, and conduct banter with customers, so to attract attention and enhance sales.

Ha Ha this sounds about right, think they would be proud to be referred to as hawkers!

Got to love this forum and its regulars...

[ianr]

> even though the shopkeeper owns the land

> they have an agreement with the owner to sell from his land

If they are exclusively on private land, wouldn't a ?4 download of the title plan from the Land Registry resolve matters?

> More to the point is Southwark Council's interpretation of

> Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, Schedule 4 Para 1(2)(e)(ii)

So presumably some other measure (such as a public footway licence?) would have to be used to deal with the potential nuisance of a shopkeeper encroaching on the pavement.

[Marmora Man]

We should applaud and support the student's free enterprise. If this small start leads to them becoming successful then they may want to consider formalising their trading arrangements - but hawking as a low cost start up tactic seems fine to me - and adds to the bustle of Northcross Market.

Of course bureaucrats always see the "thin end of the wedge" and will / would argue that if they allow one they'll have to allow all. Bah humbug I say - let them trade.

[zeban]

Completely agree MM

[Quintus Lesterman]

Yes i've seen these young lads work outside the frame shop in the market, it's very good. Bought a nice print last weekend. I think it's utterly ridiculous the council are demanding ?250 per month to set up such a small stall outside the shop when it clearly doesn't obstruct the path for pedestrians. Even the florist next door has plants protruding to the edge of their land, much further forward than the boys stall.

How do these council works sleep at night, killing all creativity, I think the market needs some fresh art from some bright sparks, and I think we should all support them.

[James Barber]

How absolutely daft.

Can anyone email more details so I can get some common sense applied?

[James Barber]

The head of Southwarks markets has told me that their understanding is...

As the forecourt is less than 7m from the public highway it is covered by section 21 od the London Local Authorities Act. The footway and forecourt are maintained as public highway. BUT that markets staff spoke with the persons on the stall, indicating that the cost of the pitch would be ?24.00 and they could join the main market. They were also told that the first two trading days would be free to help get them established.

Common sense prevails.

Well done to everyone.

[Chener Books]

Are you sure, James?

I have just double-checked all the 1990-2008 London Local Authorities Acts in force.

I can't find the reference (Section 21) you were quoted.

John K

[ianr]

London Local Authorities Act 1990 [as enacted] [PDF]

s.21(1) ...

"street" includes?

(a) any road or footway;

(b) any other area, not being within permanently enclosed premises, within 7 metres of any road or footway, to which the public have access without payment;

© any part of such road, footway or area;

(d) any part of any housing development provided or maintained by a local authority under Part II of the Housing Act 1985;

"street trading" means subject to subsection (2) below the selling or exposing or the offering for sale of any article (including a living thing) or the supplying or offering to supply any service in a street for gain or reward;

[Chener Books]

Thanks Ian, but there's more:

===============================

1. This Act may be cited as the London Local Authorities Act 1990.

PART III

STREET TRADING

21.?(2) The following are not street trading for the purposes of this Part of this

Act:?

(j) the sale, exposure or offer for sale or offer or provision of services on

any land comprised in a street (not being part of a highway) within

the meaning of subsection (1) above by the owner or occupier of the

land or by a bona fide employee of the owner or occupier of the land.

================================

It looks like they got challenged because they failed the test at sub-para 21(2)(j).

John K

[ianr]

John, indeed. Assuming it's still in force, which I'd think very likely.

I did notice that the matching provision in the 1982 Act you cited was more lenient. But on checking, that whole schedule is simply a template which district councils are empowered (by s.3) to adopt if they wish.

Anyone want to devise a realistic scheme wherein the students became bona fide employees while still profiting from the sale of their own work?

[Marmora Man]

Perhaps then owner od the land could pay them ?1.00 to "guard" his premises?

[Anna27]

Do any of the other shops on Northcross Rd that have stalls or their own products on sale on the public footpath currently pay a licence fee? or have these students been singled out?

Does the florist for example require a licence?

Also I feel that they should be given a student rate, ?24 is still a lot of money, this is not an established business compared to say the other stalls knocking out hog roast ciabattas at ?4.50 a go!

I also know that the students were not at any point offered a ?24 fee to join the main market!! this seems to be a fabrication of the truth...

[ianr]

> I also know that the students were not at any point offered a ?24 fee to join the main market!!

You were present at and heard all interchanges?

[Anna27]

I'm well informed, I hope they will be there this week it would be such a shame if they were to be put off by the council!

[the-e-dealer]

Well we could try and have an unregulated market. Wonder how soon it would end up in chaos?

[DaveR]

If they are there with the express consent of the proprietor of the shop, and he is either the freeholder or leaseholder of the land, I reckon they could have a stab at arguing that they are 'occupiers' within the meaning of s.21(2)(j) and therefore not 'street trading'.

[Anna27]

Looks like the boys are setting up their stall today, lets lend our support! their probably going back to uni soon anyway.