Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Councillor Win Mullen-James

Councillor Michelle Walker had been unable to join the meeting via Zoom due to technical issues with the video conferencing system.

Councillor Win Mullen-James

Councillor Michelle Walker had been unable to join the meeting via Zoom due to technical issues with the video conferencing system.

To appoint a Chair of the Licensing Committee for the ensuing year.

RESOLVED that Councillor Bobby Feeley be appointed Chair of the Licensing Committee for the ensuing year.

Nominations were sought for Chair of the Licensing Committee for 2021/22.  Councillor Andrea Tomlin proposed, seconded by Councillor Hugh Irving, that Councillor Bobby Feeley be appointed Chair.  There were no further nominations.

RESOLVED that Councillor Bobby Feeley be appointed Chair of the Licensing Committee for the ensuing year.

To appoint a Vice Chair of the Licensing Committee for the ensuing year.

RESOLVED that Councillor Hugh Irving be appointed Vice Chair of the Licensing Committee for the ensuing year.

Nominations were sought for Vice Chair of the Licensing Committee for 2021/22.  Councillor Andrea Tomlin proposed, seconded by Councillor Paul Keddie, that Councillor Hugh Irving be appointed Vice Chair. There were no further nominations.

RESOLVED that Councillor Hugh Irving be appointed Vice Chair of the Licensing Committee for the ensuing year.

Councillor Joan Butterfield – Personal Interest – Agenda Item 10

Councillor Joan Butterfield declared a personal interest in agenda item 10 because she used taxis and knew most of the taxi drivers.

No urgent matters had been raised.

No urgent matters had been raised.

To receive the minutes of the Licensing Committee held on 2 March 2022 (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2022 be received and confirmed as a correct record.

The minutes of the Licensing Committee held on 2 March 2022 were submitted.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2022 be received and confirmed as a correct record.

To consider a report by the Head of Planning, Public Protection and Countryside Services (copy enclosed) seeking the Committee’s further review of the current tariff charges for hackney carriage vehicles (taxis) following the consultation on the proposed tariff charges.

RESOLVED that –

(a)       the proposed tariff as detailed in Appendix D to the report be approved with an implementation date of 1 July 2022, subject to additional miles being measured in one tenth of a mile increments, there being no change to the tariff timings which would remain as currently set in 2018, and there being a surcharge per passenger of more than 4 passengers of 20p, and

(b)       a review of the tariffs, including Tariff 2 timings, be undertaken with a report back to members for further consideration in approximately six months’ time.

The Public Protection Business Manager (PPBM) submitted a report (previously circulated) seeking members’ further review of the proposed tariff charges for hackney carriage vehicles (taxis) in light of the consultation responses received.

The proposed changes to hackney carriage fares and charges had been approved for consultation by the Licensing Committee in March 2022 and had followed a request from licensed drivers for a review of the tariff charges.  Fourteen objections had been received in response to the consultation together with a number of representations received in support of the proposed tariff changes and two petitions signed by 38 licensed drivers.  The proposed changes to the current tariff had been highlighted and reference had also been made to the authority’s current position in the “league table” of taxi fares in comparison with the proposal.  Members were asked to review the proposed tariff charges and consider whether or not to modify the proposed tariff charges, or reject the proposals, in light of the information provided and responses received.  Particular areas for consideration included the timing of Tariff 2, the days where Tariff 2 was implemented, and whether the rate per mile was the appropriate measurement for subsequent distance.

The PPBM guided members through the detail of the report and the responses received to the consultation, highlighting the issues raised in those representations.  In brief, there were mixed objections to the proposed tariff charges relating to various aspects of the proposals with some objecting to specific elements of the proposal and others to any and all tariff increases.  Most objections had been against the timing of Tariff 2 on a Friday and Saturday and the introduction of Tariff 2 on a Sunday.  Other objectors supported an increase in the start fare but not per mile and others questioned the rate per mile as an appropriate measure. The main basis of the objections was that the proposed fee increase would deter taxi use and have a detrimental impact on the trade, with valuable trade lost as a result.  Those in favour of the increase cited the cost of living increases having a significant impact on the viability of the trade and a shortage of drivers to meet customer demand.  The PPBM also referred to an email sent directly to members from a taxi operator in response to representations received in support of the proposed tariff changes.

Councillor Martyn Hogg did not feel sufficient information had been provided to understand the full effects of the rate increase but accepted the need for a tariff rise due to cost increases incurred by the taxi trade.  The current proposal was higher than inflation and taking into account the consultation responses he proposed an amendment (as a compromise) in line with inflation (around 10%) as follows –

·         Tariff 1 – Start fare £4.00 (includes first mile), fare per mile thereafter £2.20

·         Tariff 2 – Start fare £5.50 (includes first mile), fare per mile thereafter £3.30

·         Fare to be charged in one tenth of a mile increments

·         No change to timings of Tariff 2

Councillor Hogg explained his reasoning behind the amendment and provided examples of the percentage increases in the cost per journey as a consequence.  He felt further work should be undertaken to understand the average taxi journeys in the county and to review the tariff timings as soon as possible.  The proposed amendment had been discussed with the PPPM who confirmed that the Tariff 2 proposal needed to be reviewed as did the rate per mile.  The practicalities of the amendment were acknowledged but no calculations had been carried out on the revised proposals.  Councillor Joan  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider a report by the Head of Planning, Public Protection and Countryside Services (copy enclosed) updating members on the work of the Licensing Section in 2021/22.

RESOLVED that the contents of the report be noted.

The Public Protection Business Manager (PPBM) submitted a report (previously circulated) updating members on the work of the Licensing Section during 2021/22 which focused on both operational and management matters.

The PPBM took members through the report which provided statistical data of the number of licences issued, complaints and service requests received covering the main functions – Alcohol and Entertainment; Hackney and Private Hire Licensing; Gambling, Gaming and Lotteries; Street Trading; Charity Collections and Scrap Metal together with Covid related work and other ancillary matters including overall workload results and communications.  Management matters included policies, fees, complaints against the service together with future workload considerations.

Councillor Hugh Irving highlighted the heavy workload of the Licensing Team as reflected in the report, and congratulated them on their efforts which he had seen first-hand when shadowing officers in the undertaking of their duties.

Officers clarified various aspects of the report in response to questions as follows –

·       the three complaints in respect of scrap metal issues related to potential unlicensed activity which involved the collection of scrap metal without the necessary licence or having an unlicensed site

·       the Freedom of Information legislation provided that for the vast majority of requests a charge could not be made.  However, there were provisions for a charge of £25 per hour to be made if responding to the request would entail more than eighteen hours of officer time.  There was an obligation to assist with refining the request to ensure it was easier to respond to in such cases

·       underage alcohol sales were dealt with proportionally and reacted to as appropriate based on intelligence received, generally via a test purchase in the first instance with advice given or a warning issued.  Further actions could be taken for repeated offences with prosecution being the ultimate step

·       tobacco and cigarette sales were generally not a matter for the Licensing Committee but any information received would be followed up and appropriate action taken within the powers available, and people were encouraged to report those matters as the service reacted to intelligence received.  Councillor Joan Butterfield highlighted a particular case in her ward and confirmed she would forward the necessary information directly to the PPBM.

RESOLVED that the contents of the report be noted.

To consider a report by the Head of Planning, Public Protection and Countryside Services (copy enclosed) on the priorities of the Licensing Section together with a revised forward work programme and update on the rescheduled items.

RESOLVED that –

(a)      the contents of the report be noted, and

(b)      the revised forward work programme for 2022 as detailed in Appendix A to the report be approved.

The Senior Licensing Officer submitted a report (previously circulated) on the priorities of the Licensing Section together with an update on rescheduled items and the proposed revised forward work programme for 2022.

The priorities of the Licensing Section reflected the duty placed on the authority in relation to its responsibilities for the licensing function and the effective regulation, control and enforcement of licensees together with the authority’s commitment to safer communities and the development of the economy.  Due to unforeseen priorities the previously approved forward work programme had been amended with items rescheduled and a revised work programme presented for consideration.

An update was provided to members on those rescheduled items which related to –

·         Review of Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Statement of Licensing Policy

·         Review of Statement of Principles – Gambling Act 2005

·         Review of Street Trading Policy

·         Statement of Licensing Policy – Licensing Act 2003

Members noted the update and proposed revisions to the forward work programme.

RESOLVED that –

(a)       the contents of the report be noted, and

(b)       the revised forward work programme for 2022 as detailed in Appendix A to the report be approved.

RESOLVED that under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that it would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 12 and 13 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

To consider a confidential report by the Head of Planning, Public Protection and Countryside Services (copy enclosed) seeking members’ determination of an application to drive hackney carriage and private hire vehicles from Applicant No. 554278.

10.45 am

RESOLVED that the application for a hackney carriage and private hire vehicle driver’s licence from Applicant No. 557452 be refused.

A confidential report by the Head of Planning and Public Protection (previously circulated) was submitted upon –

(i)             an application having been received from Applicant No. 557452 for a licence to drive hackney carriage and private hire vehicles;

(ii)            the Applicant having previously held a licence to drive hackney carriage and private hire vehicles which had subsequently been revoked in May 2021 following an accumulation of motoring convictions for speeding and resultant disqualification from driving for a period of six months under the totting up of points procedures (TT99);

(iii)          the application having been referred to the Licensing Committee on 2 March 2022 for determination and following consideration of all the evidence presented, including the Applicant’s submission and response to questions, the Committee had resolved to grant the application subject to all other necessary checks associated with the application being satisfactory;

(iv)          subsequent checks having revealed that two of the speeding offences had occurred in a licensed taxi, contrary to the Applicant’s account the speeding convictions had been obtained solely whilst driving a motorbike through leisure pursuits and not in a professional capacity as a licensed driver;

(v)           the matter having been referred back to the Licensing Committee in light of the new information which called into question the honesty of the Applicant;

(vi)          the Council’s policy with regard to the suitability of Applicants and options available to the Committee when considering the application, and

(vii)         the Applicant having been invited to attend the meeting in support of their application and to answer members’ questions thereon.

The Applicant confirmed he had received the report and committee procedures.

The Public Protection Business Manager submitted the report and facts of the case.

The Applicant apologised for the incorrect information provided at the last meeting.  He had contacted the DLVA to obtain the necessary information but had been advised that it was no longer available and so he had answered to the best of his knowledge.  He had been unaware that the information could have been obtained from the Magistrates Court.  He had a number of different vehicles and it was difficult to know in which vehicle the convictions had been obtained.  Reference was made to the effect of the driving ban on his personal circumstances and he gave assurances as regard to his future driving conduct.  He had been a licensed driver for fourteen years without issue and had provided references attesting to his character and good service.  In response to questions the Applicant advised that he had incurred no speeding convictions since the reinstatement of his DVLA licence.

In terms of dishonesty in the application process an explanation was sought as to how the wrong information came to be put before the Committee.  The Applicant explained he had a number of different vehicles, three of which were licensed, and he had since sold both motorbikes – he had been more worried about the speeding convictions rather than the vehicle they had been obtained in which had only been brought up in March.  He had contacted the DVLA with a view to proving that he had not been driving much over the speed limit but could not obtain the information.  He had been asked the question off the cuff by the Committee and had answered as honestly as he could without having the necessary information.  He was not a public speaker and had panicked to answer the question.  In his final statement the Applicant apologised again to the Committee for his actions and hoped to move on.

The Committee adjourned to consider the application following which it was –

RESOLVED that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.