The snappily named "Business and Planning Act 2020" enabled the fast track of pavement licenses during the pandemic. As you will note this is for pavement licenses. Not road licenses. However at this point in time perhaps it was fair to bend the rules a bit.
The law said that Camden could charge a maximum of £100 for the application and that they had to approve within about a week. They are not allowed to charge for the use. It was essentially a freebie for restaurants.
The law specifies particular things that must be done most notably that all things that are put out in the street must be removed at the end of the day. Do not loose sight of the fact that this was simply intended to allow people to put tables and chairs on areas of pavement adjacent to their premises.
So how did Camden convert this into their streateries concept?
The types of area which can be assigned these licenses are defined in clause 7a of the Highways Act. These include obvious areas such as pavements or pedestrianised streets or footpaths.
This presented Camden a problem because of course the road is not one of these. It can apply if vehicular use of the road is prohibited by a traffic order. But only if a traffic order is made and only if traffic is prohibited over the entire width of the road.
So it does appear that Camden just made it up. The councillors initially said that the legal basis was an Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) but there was no ETO to be found and indeed it would have expired an eon ago. It would seem that they just suspended parking, blocked off the bays with traffic barriers and hoped no-one would complain.
Indeed initially no-one did complain because this was a temporary stopgap measure. It was something specific to the pandemic. Now that is behind us it would be only reasonable to assume that these measures would be put behind us too.
On the 30 April 2023 Camden put in place an ETO which revokes the shared parking spaces which are currently being used by the streateries. Revoking shared parking spaces perhaps clears space but it does not make the road into a pavement.
However the ETO is the start of making this situation permanent. Camden is required to consult, but not to take any notice of what we say. All objections to indefinite continuation must be made within six months, after which they will be effectively be set in stone.
So essentially they want to take these legally dubious licenses they issued on the basis of emergency measures during the pandemic, and turn them into something permanent.
We - a diverse group of local residents - have been talking to the councillors since 9th July 2022.
Local elections took place 5th May 2022 so this is essentially from the point at which they were elected.
They agreed with us that the streateries are far from perfect and in need of much attention. They said they would attend to matters.
However over a period of a year all we have is an ETO - issued without any meaningful consultation - which aims to set the current situation in stone.
The consultation results used as the basis of support for the ETO consisted of 62 responses of which only 37 were residential and a 60% approval rating which is unlikely to be statistically significant.
Impact on Shops and Cafes
The shops and cafes say different things about the streateries. They also say different things in private and in public.
The owners of the streateries are of the opinion that these things are valuable or indeed sometimes essential. One cafe owner went as far as to say that without them they would have to close down their cafe.
The owners of the varied shops are generally of the opinion that these things have caused them significant damage. They block access to shops and they change the type of visitor you get. Many of them say that if the situation continues that they will have to shut down.
So which is correct?
The cafe owners have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo - it is after all free money - whereas the shop owners do not.
Looking at accounts publicly available from Companies House one can see the fiscal health of these businesses. In general the cafes are operating with a cash float of about £150,000. The small shops operate at a level ten times less. It is not the cafes that need help.
In private streatery owners have more varied opinions. Some have described the pandemic as being the biggest boom ever, others that they hate their streatery but have been told they have to keep it even if unused, others that they are handy but hardly a major source of income.
Do not lose sight of the fact that many of these streateries are unused. Some are completely derelict or used as parking spaces or rubbish tips. Others are maintained as empty spaces. In the winter they were practically all empty.
Even in the summer - once you start looking with fresh eyes - you can see how little they are valued by many of the establishments.
So why do the shops care so much? Part of it is obviously because they are operating so close to the edge. However many of them also describe a split in the demographics of the people who come to Primrose Hill.
Many people arrive on public transport to go to the park. They turn up, buy a coffee and some cake, hang out on the hill and then go home again. This is the cafe demographic.
The independent shops are often quite high end, selling exclusive fashion and luxury homewares. The people who shop here tend to turn up in cars and so the ability to park is paramount. Camden may not approve of cars but if you do not allow them, then these people will go elsewhere and these shops will die.
So the streateries boost the cafes at the expense of the shops. Which is about what one would expect.
If you want a varied village you need a balance. Without it you will have a monoculture of coffee and cup cakes.
Impact on Residents
The streateries make our village look like a shanty town. Even at their best they are remarkably inelegant. It is only if you like sitting in the gutter sipping a coffee that they are attractive.
The unsightly nature not only makes our village unattractive to us, but it makes it unattractive to others too. It used to be a regular site for film shoots but it is difficult to see how that could be the case any more. That means less money for Camden and ultimately more for us to pay.
The imbalance is causing the erosion of the varied nature of the village. We all want a bakers, a butcher, a greengrocer and a Post Office; perhaps also a kitchen shop, a clothes shop, a chemist and a few others. It is notable that the butcher has had to close. We need to maintain and support these small shops and the streateries are tilting the balance.
Primrose Hill is a conservation area. Given that residents are told what colour to paint their houses how can we justify these eyesores?
The parking spaces we lose, impact those who have cars and also those who do not. It impacts those who have cars because it can be so difficult to find parking. It impacts those who do not because the paid parking which would be bringing in money is lost.
Camden may have an anti-car policy but ultimately many people want or need them. And each car provides income to Camden which otherwise we would have to pay.
The Experimental Traffic Order (ETO)
There are only six months in which one can object to the "indefinite continuation" of the measures in the ETO.After that the ball is firmly Camden's.
The friendly face of the legal reality is presented on Camden's web site and flyers. Despite what they say about an eighteen month trial, one has to note the legal reality which is that no formal objections will be considered after six months.
The experiment is not an experiment given that it merely continues a situation which has been in place since 2020. The experiment has been ongoing for three years now and it should have come to an end by now.
The basis of this ETO was a surveyof 62 people of which only 37 were residents. This shows just how low the bar is.
Our expectations here have been set by Camden itself. They have said quite clearly that the scheme was to end in late 2022 yet here we are still discussing it.
The ETO allows traffic regulation but it does not allow for licensing. The basis on which the licenses have been issued is still, at the very least, legally dubious.
At GreenwichGoneTooFar they had a similar issue with an ETO and produced a set of sensible responses. These are worth learning from. In particular, if this is anything to go by, it is quite likely that the statements made by Camden in support of this scheme will be shown to be simply false.
Actions to be Taken
It is important to take action against Camden. Public opinion has to be the basis of any action but Camden is not actually required to take any notice of what we say. As such carrots have to be backed up with sticks.
The ETO needs to be challenged. There are only six months in which one can object to the "indefinite continuation" of these measures so it needs to be done promptly and effectively. After that there are no more formal objections so Camden can do what it likes.
Both the law and Camden specify certain conditions for pavement licenses. Notably all items must be removed in the evening and neighbouring frontages should not be obscured. These and other conditions are routinely flouted and action should be considered.
It is notable that there appears to be no legal basis for the pavement licenses that Camden have issued. As such, another obvious solution would be to take action against them in court to recover costs associated with their actions.
The great benefit of this would be that an initial test case would open the gates to claims across Camden going back many years. It could be quite substantial and certainly would be extremely newsworthy.
As such we are quite keen to establish a good test case we can use against Camden. We are looking for a clear case of damage caused, involving a small but relevant amount of money.