Agenda and minutes

Members are asked to declare any interests in the items under consideration and in

doing so state:

(1) the type of interest concerned; and

(2) the nature of the interest concerned

If any member requires advice on declarations of interests, they are advised to contact the Head of Democratic Governance in advance of the meeting.

During consideration of the case of Hackney Carriage applicant S.R, Councillor Scott became aware that he knew the applicant as he had worked with him in a professional capacity and therefore declared a prejudicial interest.

Councillor Scott left the meeting for the remainder of the case and took no part in the determination and subsequent vote.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 7 November 2017 as a true and

correct record.

The Sub-Committee considered the minutes of the meeting held on 7 November 2017.

Resolved:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 November 2017 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Resolved: That under Section 100 (A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the whole item, including the decisions referred to at Agenda item 3 on the grounds that it would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

(This item contains personal information regarding applicants and licence holders which is exempt from publication by virtue of Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972)

The Sub-Committee was informed of four applicants who had given sufficient cause for concern as to be referred to the Sub-Committee for consideration.

Members discussed the applications as follows:

(i)                 G.L (New Private Hire applicant)

Mr Luke Andrews, Licensing Officer, was in attendance and presented the Authority’s case. He advised that the applicant had a significant number of previous convictions for a wide range of offences from theft and dishonesty to violence which had occurred over a period of decades. In addition, only a single offence had been declared on the application to be licensed.

G.L was in attendance and made representations to the Sub-Committee. He acknowledged and accepted he had made poor choices earlier in his life and explained he had committed many of the offences whilst intoxicated as he was an alcoholic for many years. In relation to not declaring some of his convictions, he advised that he had made a mistake and wanted to put his past behind him. He further suggested that he had received an offer of work from a local taxi operator and highlighted that he had not been convicted of an offence since 1992.

Members discussed the case and had a number of reservations about the frequency, total number and nature of the applicant’s offences. In addition, some Members felt that the lack of a detailed explanation regarding non-declaration on the application was of concern. However, the applicant had also demonstrated remorse and appeared to have made a number of positive lifestyle choices that had resulted in no further offending behaviour in over two decades.

Resolved:

1.      To not prosecute for non-disclosure of offences on the application to be licensed.

2.      To grant the Private Hire Vehicle Driver’s Licence with the addition of a severe warning letter in relation to future conduct indicating that if the driver were brought before the Sub-Committee again, suspension or revocation would be the likely outcome.

NOTE: MOTION MOVED, SECONDED, VOTED UPON AND LOST

During consideration of the above item, the following motion was moved, seconded, voted upon and lost:

‘That the application for a Private Hire Vehicle Driver licence be refused on the grounds that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to be licensed.’

(ii)               S.R.P (New Hackney Carriage applicant)

The applicant was in attendance and described the incident which had resulted in him being called before the Sub-Committee. Despite being charged with battery and dismissed from his employment as a result, S.R.P claimed that whilst unfortunate, the incident had occurred during the course of his normal duties. He added that the fact he knew the victim was purely coincidental and he did not report the incident at the time as he felt it did not merit police action.

Mr Andrews reminded the Sub-Committee of the policy regarding the amount of time elapsed since an applicant’s last offence.

Members were concerned about the nature of the offence and what they felt were unclear circumstances surrounding the incident. In addition, the applicant appeared to make  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To note the date of the next meeting as 16 January 2018.

To note the date of the next meeting as 16 January 2018.