My Lords, in Amendment 248 my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond brings us back to the use of roads adjacent to pavements that have been granted a licence. I can assure him that there are already clear processes by which a local authority can consider the pedestrianisation of a street, including to facilitate outdoor dining, with vehicular access a relevant consideration in those processes: this is not an issue that will be glossed over. Pavement licences can then be granted if the conditions are seen to be right and, in recent years, we have seen the success of this in practice across the country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, returned to the question of new powers for local authorities to charge for the use of the pavement. She is probably aware that the Business and Planning Act 2020 does not give local authorities a specific power to charge ongoing rent for the use of the pavement, and the aim behind that measure is to support businesses by making it significantly cheaper to gain a licence, compared to the previous route. The measure fully funds local authorities’ costs for providing this service: we are not looking to impose additional costs on businesses at a time of rising costs.
My noble friend’s Amendments 249 and 250 concern the fees to be charged for pavement licensing. The Government feel very strongly that we must keep costs reasonable and consistent for businesses. At a time when their costs are rising, we should not place additional financial burdens on businesses still recovering from the pandemic. The fee caps in the Bill have not been arrived at by accident but are the result of close work with local authorities, businesses, leaders from the hospitality sector and communities. They reflect the actual costs of processing, monitoring and enforcing pavement licences. I also make the point, on Amendment 250, that the direct attribution of profit to the granting of a licence would not be a simple matter.
As for my noble friend’s proposal in Amendment 253 for deemed rejection rather than a deemed granting of a licence in the event of no decision being made within the determination period, I say to him that it would not be right to punish applicants for delayed local authority decisions. Deemed consent encourages local authorities to make decisions while ensuring that the local and national conditions which would otherwise have applied are applied and can then be enforced, including by the removal of the licence.
My noble friend’s Amendment 251, changing the start of the consultation period to the time at which a receipt has been sent to the applicant, would add an additional and, in our view, unnecessary step and potentially delay the process.
Amendments 252 and 255 would likewise increase both the consultation and determination periods that apply. We have listened carefully to the views of local authorities, communities, businesses and other concerned
organisations and believe that our proposals strike the right balance, protecting the ability of everyone to be heard while ensuring that businesses receive a decision in a reasonable timeframe.
I turn to my noble friend’s Amendments 254 and 256 dealing with the free flow of pedestrians and the conditions which may be imposed by a licence. The Business and Planning Act 2020 already requires that local authorities take this into consideration, preventing licences being granted where they would preclude entry on to or passage along the highway, or normal access to premises adjoining the highway. On Amendment 256, the Act already provides powers for local authorities to impose conditions such as these, and we are anecdotally aware of local authorities having done so. As such, we do not consider that specific reference to the discretion for local authorities to do so is needed. These are rightly matters determined locally.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, suggested that the Government’s wording in this area was not quite tight enough. We have made it clear in the pavement licence guidance that, when setting local conditions and determining applications, local authorities should consider the need for barriers to be put in place to separate furniture from the rest of the footway so that people who are visually impaired can navigate around the furniture. As recommended by the RNIB, we have highlighted that best practice involves using measures such as colour contrast and a tap rail for long cane users. However, this will need to be balanced to ensure that any barriers do not inhibit access for other street users, such as people with mobility impairments, if they are creating a further obstacle in the footway.
On Amendment 257, I thank my noble friend for raising the very important issue of accessibility and the impact of pavement licensing on disabled users of the highway. In considering whether to grant a licence, Section 3(7) requires particular regard to be given to the needs of disabled people and to guidance on this matter published by the Secretary of State. That guidance, developed in close collaboration with the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the RNIB, includes details of minimum accessibility width considerations for disabled persons. We believe that the determination as to the best way to meet the needs of disabled persons is best made locally, taking account of the specific circumstances for that pavement, particularly since physical barriers may on occasion hinder accessibility, as I have already alluded to.
Finally, Amendment 258, in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, would create a national condition banning smoking in pavement licensed areas. Of course I understand very well the strength of feeling expressed by my noble friend and a number of noble Lords on the nuisance caused by the smoking of tobacco. Both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, called for pavement licensing to be made smoke-free. My noble friend stressed the need to protect the interests of non-smokers in particular.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that the Government fully recognise the importance of this issue for public health, but we also recognise the need to do what is reasonable and proportionate in all the
circumstances. Our guidance already makes it clear that pavement licences require businesses to make reasonable provision for seating for non-smokers to ensure choice for customers. It is also clear that ways of meeting this requirement could include clear “No Smoking” signs, the removal of ashtrays in smoke-free areas and a minimum 2-metre distance between smoking and non-smoking areas, wherever possible. Local authorities are also able to consider setting their own conditions, where appropriate, and where local decision-makers believe it is reasonable to do so. We are aware that a number of councils across the country have put in place local conditions with the effect that noble Lords are calling for. As my noble friend Lord Naseby rightly said, it is perfectly possible for councils to do this, and we think it is better for decisions of this sort to be taken locally so that individual circumstances are taken into account.
I recognise the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment, which is a benign intention. However, I think he would concede that this is an issue wholly different in kind from that of planning fees, where it is incumbent on government to ensure financial fairness across the country. We consider it right that this is a decision made locally, taking into account the representations received, rather than imposed nationally.