Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services Officer read out the procedure.

There were none.

At this point in the meeting declarations of interest are received from Members in any of the agenda items under consideration at the meeting. Members are asked to indicate:

(a) The agenda item number in which they have an interest to declare.

(b) The nature of their interest.

(c) Whether their interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other interest,  (as defined in Part 2, A and B of the Code of Conduct and Rules for Registration of Interests)

Any Member who needs to clarify any matters relating to the declaration of interests is recommended to seek advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officer before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

Councillor Symonds declared an interest in respect of Agenda Item 9 (Coeur de Lion) because he is acquainted with the applicant.

There was none.

These were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

These were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Members noted the procedure to be followed for the next three items of business.

Applicant: Bath Tourism Plus, represented by Nick Brooks-Sykes (Chief Executive) and Vicky Bunt (Event Manager).

Objector: Aidan Quinn (Director, Beaux Arts Bath)

The parties confirmed that they understood the procedure to be followed.

Mr Tapper presented the report and invited the Sub-Committee to determine the application.

Mr Brooks-Sykes stated the case for the applicant. He said that the Bath Christmas Market was one of the biggest events in the City, which generated £36m in revenue, the largest slice of which went to businesses in the City and not to the market traders.  It is visited by people from all over the country. It generates a surplus for Bath Tourism Plus (a not-for-profit company), which is used to cover losses elsewhere, e.g. on the tourist information centre He said that the Christmas Market needed to be constantly refreshed to stay ahead of the game in competition with Cribbs Causeway, Cabot Circus and the Salisbury Christmas Market. Last year’s market was regarded as a success and the management of coaches, in particular, was generally thought to have been done well. The quality of Bath Christmas Market had been recognised by Visit England. A key aim was to manage the flow of visitors through the Market; he believed that adding units in a few key units would help with that.  It would also enable more traders to be accommodated; this year 300 more applications had been received than could be accepted. He said that the Bath Christmas Market is a distinctively British and local market, with mostly locally-produced products, many of them handmade. A key objective is to support local business and to provide stalls for smaller, tabletop businesses. Adding chalets will increase footfall. Bath Tourism Plus is acutely aware of the impact of the Market on local businesses and residents. Consultation about this year’s Market began in January. There would be no addition to the overall footprint of the Market as a result of this application and no additional disruption to traffic. The extra units would encourage visitors to circulate more and so improve the flow of people around the area. In reply to a question from the Chair he said that that the Guildhall market was not part of the Christmas market, though it is referred to in the publicity for the Christmas Market, as are other attractions in Bath, such as the ice rink.

Mr Quinn put questions to the applicant.

Q: why are units being located in York Street?

A: it is a previously underutilised part of the Christmas Market footprint. There have never been chalets there before. Its use will ease pressure on Kingston Parade. York Street is already closed to traffic during the Market.

Q: Bog Island is used as a coach stop. There would also be vehicles delivering units to be installed and coming to take them away. This could cause access problems for emergency vehicles.

A: Bog Island will not be used as a coach stop during the Market or during the setting up and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Applicant: Alan Morgan, represented by Michelle Spence (manager)

Objector: Highways Department, Bath and North East Somerset Council

Councillor Symonds declared an interest by reason of his acquaintance with Alan Morgan. He said that he did not believe his judgment would be affected by this.

The objector was not represented. Ms Spence confirmed that she understood the procedure to be followed.

The Public Protection Officer summarised the report and invited the Sub-Committee to determine the application.

Ms Spence stated the case for the Applicant. She said that the Applicant wished to expand the tables and chairs area to increase the comfort of customers. She believed the gap between the enlarged tables and chairs area and the premises opposite would be 2.5-3 metres. She was puzzled that a hearing was necessary, given that the guidance was that there should be a minimum gap of 2 metres.

Following an adjournment the Sub-Committee RESOLVED to grant the application.

Reasons

Members have had to determine an application to place 3 tables along with appropriate seating on the highway to the front of the premises at 17 Northumberland Place, Bath. In doing so they took account of the Highways Act 1980 and the Human Rights Act 1998 and balanced the representations from the objector against the application and its background.

Members noted that the application is for renewal of the tables and appropriate seating to the front of 17 Northumberland Place, Bath with times permitted remaining the same, i.e. daily from 10:00 to 23:30 hours. The change since the last permit was issued is an increase in size of the area for placing the tables and seating from 1.1m x 4.5m to 1.5m x 4.5m.  In reaching a determination members had to decide whether the application was likely to obstruct the free passage of pedestrians, cause a public nuisance in highway terms or be a hazard in its real sense.

Members heard oral representations from Michelle Spence who is the manager of the Coeur De Lion. Ms Spence described that what was proposed was a slight extension to the terms of the previous licence and intended to improve the comfort of customers. Ms Spence said she had measured the distance and she thought there was 2.5m to 3m from the outer edge of the proposed licensed area to the wall of the opposite shop and noted that this was in excess of the guideline of 2m indicated by the Highways Department.

Members had regard to the written objection from the Highways Department but noted that Mr Sperring had left before the application was heard.

Members decided to grant the licence as proposed on the basis that they did not find that the application was likely to obstruct the free passage of pedestrians, cause a public nuisance in highways terms or be a hazard in its real sense.

Authority is delegated to the licensing officer to issue the permit with the attachment of the standard terms and conditions.

Members noted the procedure to be followed for agenda items 12 and 13.

RESOLVED that, having been satisfied that the public interest would be better served by not disclosing relevant information, in accordance with the provisions of Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for agenda items 12 and 13 because of the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended.

The Sub-Committee considered the report, which sought determination of Mr JKH’s application for the grant of a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence.

Mr JKH was present. He confirmed that he understood the procedure for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report and stated that as part of the application process a Disclosure and Barring Service check was undertaken, which had revealed previous convictions. He circulated the Disclosure and Barring Service check and references for Mr JKH and his personal statement. The applicant and Senior Public Protection Officer withdrew from the meeting while Members took time to consider these documents.

Mr JKH put his case and was questioned. He also made a closing statement. 

Following an adjournment it was

RESOLVED that Mr JKH be granted a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence.

Reasons

Members have had to determine an application for the grant of a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence and in so doing have had regard to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the Council’s Policy, the Human Rights Act 1998 and case law. Members had to consider whether the applicant was a fit and proper person and asked themselves whether they would allow their son, daughter, spouse, partner or any one they cared about to travel alone in a vehicle driven by the applicant.

In making a determination Members took account of the applicant’s oral representations, written reference and statement and balanced these against the information provided by the Disclosure and Barring Service which showed the applicant had three previous convictions the first of which was from 1980 and the last in 1992. In all the circumstances members found that the applicant was a fit and proper person and granted the application for a combined hackney carriage/private hire driver’s licence.

The Sub-Committee considered the report which sought consideration of a conviction by KH during the term of his Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver's Licence.

The Licensee was present and confirmed that he had read and understood the procedure for the meeting.

The Senior Public Protection presented the report and circulated the following documents to the Sub-Committee:

1.  A letter to KH from his legal representatives;

2.  A letter from KH’s legal representatives to Bristol Magistrates Court;

3.  Minutes of a previous meeting of the Sub-Committee at which KH had been given 4 penalty points for failing to declare a conviction during the term of his licence.

The Licensee and the Senior Public Protection Officer withdrew from the meeting for Members to have time to consider these.

When the Sub-Committee reconvened, KH made a statement and was questioned by Members. He then made a closing statement.

Following an adjournment, it was RESOLVED that KH’s licence be suspended for 6 months.

Reasons

Members have had to determine what action, if any, to take against the licensee having obtained a conviction during the duration of his licence.

In determining the matter Members had regard to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the Council's Policy, Human Rights Act 1998 and case law. Members noted that case law stated hearsay evidence is admissible, the merits of a conviction must not be reviewed or re-opened, the economic wellbeing of the applicant is irrelevant and when considering any action the protection of the public is of the utmost importance. Accordingly Members had to decide whether the licensee continued to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence taking into account all the circumstances including his driving history and character.

Members heard oral representations from Mr K H, read letters from his solicitors in relation to the conviction in question and read his statement. Mr K H indicated that he regrets his actions on the day in question and that it has caused him a lot of aggravation. He explained that his ASBO had been extended following that conviction and that he is subject to Supervision as part of his sentence. He told members that he had completed a psychology course in Bath as part of his Supervision which has enabled him to take on board the issues and co-operate with the Probation Service. When asked by members whether or not he was a fit and proper person Mr K H responded by saying that he had made serious attempts to stay away from the area in question and this is borne out by the fact that the one time he went through the excluded area he was caught. He describes the breach as a spur of the moment decision and was not pre-meditated. He informed members that he has made a conscious decision to avoid getting anywhere close to the excluded area and it is in his mind. When asked what he would do if a fare wanted him to go into the excluded area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.