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 Officeror a member of his staff before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

There were none.

There was none.

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

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 the following item(s) of business 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 consideration of Mr BTG’s medical condition.

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

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report and then circulated a hospital report on Mr BT G and a statement of support from his GP. Members took time to study these.

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

Following an adjournment it was

RESOLVED that Mr BT G’s combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence be revoked.

The Chair reminded Mr BTG that his licence had been due for renewal in February 2015, and noted that he was scheduled to have a further medical examination in December this year. She advised him that if the medical examination showed that his eyesight had improved sufficiently, he could make a licence application then and did not have to wait until February 2015.

Decision and reasons

Members have had to determine whether to take any action against a licensee having disclosed a medical condition during the duration of his licence.  In doing so they have taken account of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, Human Rights Act 1998, Council’s Policy, case law and the DVLA current medical guidelines for professional drivers.

Members listened carefully to the representations from the licensee who said he was fine to drive a private vehicle and his insurance is happy to insure him at no extra cost for driving his taxi. He stated the TIA was a minor incident, his physical fitness was fine and the vision in his right eye was improving. He considered the DVLA guidance could be disregarded because a lot of taxi driver’s time is spent waiting to pick up fares rather than driving like bus or lorry drivers.

Members noted a letter from his GP raised issues of personal circumstances. Members were, however, careful to disregard personal circumstance as these must only be taken into account in exceptional circumstances but in any event must not override the protection of the public. In reaching a determination therefore Members had regard to relevant representations and disregarded irrelevant representations. Accordingly, Members noted the licensee informed the office on 30 May 2014 that he had suffered a TIA or “mini stroke.” The effect of this was a loss of vision in his right eye with a diagnosis of right central retinal occlusion and bilateral open angle glaucoma. Members therefore had regard to the DVLA’s guidance which stated a “licence should be revoked for 1 year following a stroke (TIA) and that an application for a licence should be reconsidered at the expiry of this period provided there was no residual impairment affecting safe driving. Members also had regard to an ophthalmic consultant’s report which stated the licensee did not meet the criteria required by the DVLA.

Members found the matter fell within the DVLA’s guidance and considered the licensee presented a serious risk to the fare paying public and other road users  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

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

Mr WH 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 had been undertaken, which had revealed previous convictions and a caution. He circulated the Disclosure and Barring Service check and references for Mr WH and his personal statement. The applicant and Senior Public Protection Officer withdrew from the meeting while Members took time to consider these documents.

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

Following an adjournment it was

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

Decision and reasons

Members have had to determine an application for a combined licence to drive hackney carriages and private hire vehicles. In doing so they took account of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, Human Rights Act 1998, case law and the Council’s Policy.

In making a determination Members took account of the applicant’s representations, reference, statement and balanced these against the information provided by the Disclosure and Barring Service.

Members noted the applicant had accepted he had made mistakes and noted that the offences had been committed against the background of a personal tragedy. Having found the applicant had put those incidents behind him, moved on in his life and had the responsibility of a young family Members considered him a fit and proper person to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence.

The Sub-Committee returned to open session.

The Sub-Committee noted the procedure to be followed for the next item of business.

Applicant: Mahmut Yurt

Other Persons: Cllr Eddie Newman (Westfield Parish Council)

Responsible Authority: Avon and Somerset Police, represented by Sergeant Geoff Cannon.

The parties confirmed that they understood the licensing procedure.

The Public Protection Officer presented the report.

The Applicant stated his case. He said that he ran a similar business elsewhere in partnership with his brother. A Member noted that the pitch on which he intended to operate was on an industrial estate where most of the units closed between 5 and 6pm and that there were no residences nearby. Where would his customers come from? Mr Yurt replied people would come to his van once it was known that he was trading there. He had previously run a successful business in similar circumstances.

Cllr Newman stated his case. He said that he knew the area very well. He believed that young people in fast cars would be drawn to the site as soon as it was known that a burger van was trading there. He foresaw problems of disorder, and in his view the police were already dreadfully overstretched.

Sergeant Cannon stated the case for the Police. He submitted that as there would be no people working or residing in the immediate vicinity during most of the time the Applicant would be trading, the clientele would be people from outside the area attracted by the presence of a van serving food. He suspected many of them would be young people in cars, who would sometimes drive recklessly. There was no CCTV cover in the vicinity. There were problems of anti-social behaviour and disorder nearby and he believed these would migrate to the vicinity of the van. He did not see the need for another hot food outlet, as there was already a chip shop and fast venues not far away.

The parties made their closing statements.

Cllr Newman said the van would be an attraction for young people. He did not believe that there were enough police to cover both ends of the town at the same time.

Sergeant Cannon said that the Police had worked very hard for a long time to reduce crime and disorder on the industrial estate. He believed that it was likely to increase again if the van started trading there.

The Applicant thanked the Sub-Committee for allowing him to state his case.

After an adjournment it was RESOLVED to refuse the application.

Decision and reasons

Members have had to determine an application for a Street Trading Consent at First Avenue Radstock. The application proposes an increase in the number of hours for the operation of the pitch between 4pm and 11pm daily. In determining the application members have taken into account the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, the Council’s Policy on Street Trading and the Human Rights Act 1998.

The applicant stated he would like to work in this area as he works elsewhere in the area with his brother. He was aware that the site would be closed but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

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

Applicant: Stores Extra LLP, represented by Michael Parrott (Greg Latchams LLP) and Stuart House (Subway Franchisee and Development Administrator)

Other Parties: Daniel Byrd and Amber Dawkins

The Chair explained the procedure to be followed for this item.

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

The Chair advised the Applicant’s representatives that the Sub-Committee would expect them to address the issue of cumulative impact.

Mr Parrott stated the case for the Applicant. He said that the application was for late-night refreshment only between the hours of 23.00 and 03.00 the following morning seven days a week. The premises would be able legally to provide cold food and drink during those hours without a licence; this was done at some Subway outlets, for example in Bristol. Although the application was to provide late-night refreshment seven days a week, in practice it would only be provided in a more limited way. Since the premises were located near the bus station, it was anticipated that much of the late-night trade would come from people heading towards the bus station to catch late-night buses. The provision of late-night refreshment would therefore probably be limited to weekends in University term time. He drew attention to the absence of representations from the Responsible Authorities and the fact that the nearby McDonald’s had a 24-hour licence. He said that Subway was an international brand with 760 stores in the UK. Subway had plenty of experience of operating premises in sensitive locations, such as Queen’s Road in the Bristol cumulative impact area. At the Southgate shop rubbish was stored at the back and was collected at least five times a week. He apologised that there had been noise from the building work recently completed at the premises. He said that the intention was to close the door leading to the upper floors at 21.00 hours and that the first and second floors of the premises were not part of this application. Their closure in the evening should reduce the transmission of noise. Experience in Bristol suggested that there would be about 20-30 sales per hour if hot food was served late, which would be reduced to 10-15 if only cold food was served. This, he submitted, was a very small addition to cumulative impact. Since McDonald’s had a 24-hour licence, there was already a certain amount of late-night activity in the vicinity. He said that Subway always endeavoured to be a good neighbour.

Mr House said that he hope the shop would be a good neighbour. The first and second floors would not be open after 21.00 and rubbish would be collected between 04.00 and 06.00. Waste consisted mainly of cardboard and packaging; there was very little food waste. There was no staff or customer parking at the rear of the premises.

A Member referred to problems with waste at McDonald’s. Mr House said that his premises were much smaller than McDonald’s and that his waste was collected five times a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.