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 either a

(a)   personal interest

(b)   prejudicial interest

(c)    disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI)

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.

There were no declarations of interest on this occasion.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 31 July 2018 as a true and correct

record.

The Sub-Committee considered the minutes of the last meeting held on 31 July 2018.

Resolved:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 31 July 2018 be approved and signed by the Chairman.

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 items 3 and 4 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 which is exempt from publication by virtue of Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972)

Members were informed of a Horse Drawn Hackney Carriage licence applicant who had given sufficient cause for concern as to be referred to the Sub-Committee for consideration.

Members discussed the application as follows:

T.W.C  (New Applicant)

Mr Ryan Ratcliffe, Licensing Officer was in attendance and advised the Sub-Committee that the applicant had a previous conviction for an animal welfare offence and another for threatening behaviour.

TWC was in attendance with a friend and advised that in relation to the animal welfare offence, he claimed he had been the victim of an unfortunate incident whereby a horse and foal had been abandoned on his land and both were already in poor health. He advised that he had taken it upon himself to try and nurse the animals back to health but following a visit by the RSPCA, the animals were deemed to have been in a state of neglect. The applicant claimed to have worked with horses for most of his adult life and to have a good track record looking after his own animals. He admitted that in hindsight, it would have been prudent to contact the RSPCA immediately after finding the horses on his land rather than attempting to help them first. TWC’s friend suggested that in his opinion, the practice of abandoning animals had become fairly commonplace and in such cases, the care of those animals then became the legal responsibility of the landowner.

The applicant submitted various personal references for the Sub-Committee’s consideration which contained significant praise for TWC and alleviated some of the Member’s concerns.

With regard to the other offence for threatening behaviour, members were satisfied with the applicant’s account of events which described the incident in question as a straightforward dispute between members of his family and a neighbour.

The Sub-Committee reasoned that despite concerns about the applicant’s poor decision making in relation to the horses left on his land, his intentions seemed to be honourable and the personal references he presented confirmed those sentiments.

Resolved: To grant the Horse Drawn Hackney Carriage Licence.

Background papers: exempt

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

Members were informed of a Hackney Carriage Driver who had given sufficient cause for concern as to be referred to the Sub-Committee for consideration.

Members discussed the referral as follows:

(i)          A.J.M. (Existing licence holder)

The licence holder AJM was in attendance and made representations to the Sub-Committee.

Mr Ratcliffe advised the Sub-Committee that the licence holder had separate convictions for battery and harassment and had been issued a severe warning letter by the Sub-Committee on 22 November 2012.

AJM described a difficult series of personal circumstances in which he claimed his former partner had prevented him from having access to their daughter. As a result, the licence holder had endured various family court proceedings and pursued his partner in a bid to have some form of relationship with their daughter. AJM expressed regret for the assault on his partner and claimed he overreacted after she had taunted him on numerous occasions. With regards to the harassment offence, the licence holder claimed he had never been threatening or abusive to the family of his estranged partner and had only sought to ascertain the whereabouts of his daughter through them.

AJM assured Members that he was now in a stable relationship and had other children to look after. He added that as he had exhausted all legal options to try to contact his daughter, he had had to accept the likelihood that he might never see her again.

The Sub-Committee accepted that AJM had been involved in an exceptionally difficult custody dispute which had led him to take action out of desperation which he later came to regret. Despite concerns about his behaviour and the potential to relapse, the Sub-Committee sympathised with the licence holder’s difficult situation and accepted that where he had acted irrationally, he had done so out of a sense of instinct and duty of care to his child and as such, he did not present a risk to members of the public.

Resolved: That no further action be taken against the licence holder.

Background papers: exempt

To note the date of the next meeting as 2 October 2018.

Members noted that the date of the next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday 2 October 2018.