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.

The Chair declared an interest in relation to agenda item 11 (application for a premises licence for Bath Rugby Football Club) because the two witnesses to be called by the Other Person were well known to her.

There was none.

Members are invited to note the procedure for the next item of business.

Members noted the procedure to be followed for the next part of the meeting.

Applicant: Mr D Scaramanga

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report. He explained that this application had been brought to the Sub-Committee because the age of the vehicle (7 years and 11 months) fell outside the Council’s general policy that a private hire vehicle should not be more than 5 years old.

The Sub-Committee, accompanied by the Principal Solicitor and the Senior Public Protection Officer, adjourned to inspect the vehicle. After the Committee had reconvened, the applicant stated his case. He said that the vehicle was fully accessible to wheelchair users and had a hearing loop and aids for those with impaired vision. He said that only 2% of the private hire vehicles in Bath were fully accessible to disabled users, so that this vehicle would be valuable addition to the facilities available to them. In reply to a question from a Member, he said that that the vehicle had formerly been in service as a taxi in Swindon. In his closing statement he said that the cost of fully accessible vehicles was very high, so that not many were being brought into service.

Following a further adjournment, the Sub-Committee RESOLVED to grant the application.

Reasons

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. Having inspected the vehicle Members consider it is suitable in size, type and design to be granted a licence and delegated authority to the Licensing Officer to issue a Private Hire Vehicle licence subject to the ‘taxi’ signs being removed and the necessary safety inspections and certification.

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 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.

Members are invited to note the procedure to be followed for the next item of business.

Members noted the procedure for the next item of business.

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

The Licensee was present and accompanied by her father. She confirmed that she 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. An email from a member of the public making a complaint against CJ’s conduct while driving her licensed Hackney Carriage.
2. A statement from CJ to the Public Protection Service.
3. A letter from the Police to the complainant advising her of CJ’s conviction at Bath Magistrate’s Court.

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

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

Following an adjournment, it was RESOLVED that 4 penalty points be added to CJ’s licence.

Reasons

Members have had to determine whether to take any action against the licensee having obtained a conviction during the duration of her licence.  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.

Members heard that the licensee had been convicted of a public order offence arising from a verbal altercation with a member of the public whilst driving her licensed vehicle. Members noted her representations, written statement and although taking a dim view of the offence gave her credit for disclosing the offence in compliance with the terms of the policy, credit for her driving history and noted the genuine remorse shown.

Whilst Members found her behaviour fell short of that expected from licensed drivers they resolved to add 4 points to her licence.

Members are invited to note the procedure to be followed for the next application.

The Chair drew attention to the procedure to be followed for the next item of business.

Applicant: Bath Rugby Football Club, represented by Mark Edwards (proposed Designated Premises Supervisor)

Other Person: Susan Traill

Witnesses for the Other Person: Alex Schlesinger and David Dunlop

The parties confirmed that they had received and understood the licensing procedure.

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

Mr Edwards stated the case for the applicant. He explained that he was currently the Chairman of Bath RFC, which was the amateur, not the professional Bath club. Bath RFC had returned to Lambridge after a 10-year absence, during which the Lambridge ground had been used exclusively for training for the professional club. He thought that the Lambridge club ground was probably the only rugby club ground in the country without a bar. All the other grounds he visited were able to offer hospitality and the club wanted to be able to do that at Lambridge. The alternative of having a club licence had been discussed with the Police, but the difficulties of administering it had been pointed out. As there was no admission charge, it would be difficult to distinguish members from non-members; it therefore appeared simpler to have a premises licence. There was no intention of running a pub, or of using all the hours applied for. The application stated how the club intended to further the licensing objectives. He noted that there was a great deal of comment in the representations about the possibilities of drug sales and use at the premises, but the fact was that drugs were simply not tolerated in rugby. Most members of the club were aged 7-18, and adult members were mostly the parents of younger members. The club provided a well-ordered family environment. Strict controls were in place. Attendances were in the low 100s, not in the 1000s. A starting hour of 06.00 had been applied for because international matches in the southern hemisphere were often broadcast at this time, and the club would like to be able to provide hospitality for such events, without having to keep applying for Temporary Event Notices (TENs).

In response to questions from Members Mr Edwards stated:

• 3 TENs had been applied for in the past 6 months; in a normal season he expected that there would be a need for about 4 TENs a week

• full breakfast was available at early-morning events

• extensive discussions had taken place with the Police about the appropriate hours to be applied for; a high degree of flexibility was required because some internationals were retimed at short notice, which mean that it might not be possible to provide hospitality for a particular event at the club; it was also planned to have a regular Friday event at the club; the hours applied for would give the maximum flexibility, but there was absolutely no wish to serve alcohol from 06.00 to 23.00 every day

Ms Traill asked why off-sales had been applied for. Mr Edwards explained that this was simply to allow customers to take  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Members are invited to note the procedure to be followed for the next item of business.

The Chair drew attention to the procedure to be followed for the next item of business.

Applicant: the Private Shop, represented by Mr Clive Sullivan (Management Consultant), Mr Colin Mason (Director), Miss Janice Singleton (Licensing Administrator)

Representation and Petitioners: Miss Jo-Ling Chew (making representation), Ms Charlotte Barnes (Petitioner), Ms Jona Wiskowski (Petitioner), Mr John Smythe (Petitioner)

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

Mr Sullivan submitted that the procedure to be followed for this item was not compliant with a High Court judgement, that the objectors should not be present during the hearing of the application and should not be able to question the applicant. The Sub-Committee adjourned to consider his objection. When the Sub-Committee had reconvened, the Chair drew Mr Sullivan’s attention to the fact that the report that had been circulated to the parties in advance, and to the Council’s procedure where it stated that “the hearing will take the form of a discussion” and that “formal cross examination will be discouraged and, should they be necessary, supplementary questions allowed for clarification purposes only”. She said that she would allow the objectors to remain present and question the applicant after the statement of their case, but would not allow cross examination. Mr Sullivan accepted this whilst reserving his position.

Mr Sullivan submitted that the Court of Appeal had distinguished between an application for renewal and an application for grant and that in the case of a renewal due weight must be given to the fact that a licence has been granted. He said that there had been a sex shop on this site for thirty-five years. He further submitted that the Act distinguishes between mandatory grounds for refusal and discretionary grounds for refusal, and that in turn the discretionary grounds were subdivided into the suitability of the applicant and the suitability of the premises. As far as the suitability of the applicant was concerned, the Private Shop owned one hundred premises in the UK and had never received a conviction and had no prosecutions pending against it. Turning to the suitability of the premises, he submitted that to apply one of the discretionary grounds there had to be a more than ordinary degree of the condition to which the ground referred. For example, it was not sufficient reason to refuse an application because the premises would be passed by children, as this was usually the case with all such premises. He cited the statement of a Minister in the House of Lords to the effect that it was not for Local Authorities to decide whether or not sex shops should be permitted; Parliament had decided that they should be. The Private Shop was a legal operation selling legal products. He submitted that the only objection made by the objectors that the Sub-Committee could take into consideration was the proximity of schools to the shop. He submitted that in fact the schools were at some distance and pointed out that it was an offence to allow underage people to enter the shop. In conclusion he said  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.