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.

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

The Chair drew attention to the procedure to be followed for agenda items 8 and 9.

The Committee is asked to consider passing the following resolution:

“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 and the reporting of the meeting be prevented under Section 100A(5A) 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.”

RESOLVED that, the Sub-Committee having been satisfied that the public interest would be better served by not disclosing relevant information and 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 8 and 9 and the reporting of these items be prevented under Section 100A(5A), because of the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended.

Mr LH confirmed that he had received and understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer summarised the report. He said that a DBS check had revealed that Mr LH had previous convictions. He provided Members with copies of the DBS certificate, a statement from him and references given on his behalf. The Sub-Committee adjourned to allow Members time to read these documents.

After the Sub-Committee reconvened, Mr LH stated his case and was questioned by Members. Mr LH made a closing statement.

After a further adjournment, the Sub-Committee resolved to grant Mr LH a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence.

Reasons

Members determined an application for a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s 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.

In making a determination Members took account of the applicant’s oral representations, his statement, references and balanced these against the information contained in the Disclosure and Barring Service report.

The applicant stated that he has worked in a position of trust for 10 years and is looking to change career to do something more rewarding. He stated the incidents happened a long time ago and he had leant many personal skills in the time since then.

Members noted that the offending occurred many years ago and he had moved on with his life. Accordingly Members find him a fit and proper person to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire drivers licence.

Mr DRJ confirmed that he had received and understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer summarised the report. He provided Members with copies of a police caution and a witness statement from Mr DRJ. The meeting was adjourned to allow Members time to study these documents.

Mr DRJ stated his case and was questioned by Members. He made a closing statement.

Following a further adjournment the Sub-Committee RESOLVED that Mr DRJ continued to be fit and proper person to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence. They did, however, give him a stern warning about this future conduct.

Reasons

Members determined what action to take against the holder of a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence who obtained a conditional caution during the course of his 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 took account of the applicant’s oral representations and the information provided with the conditional caution when deciding whether the licensee continued to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence. In doing so Members took account of all the circumstances including his driving history and character but not his economic wellbeing as this is irrelevant as it is the protection of the public that is of the utmost importance.

The licensee stated he regretted the impact his behaviour had had on the community and that his behaviour had changed as a result of the course he had attended.

Members took a dim view of the offending behaviour more especially so because it took place in a licensed vehicle. Members, however, accepted that he had learned his lesson and now recognised the effect this behaviour was having on the community and could have on his family and his ability to continue to act as a licensed driver.

In the circumstances Members find the licensee fit and proper to continue to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence and warn him as to his future conduct.

The Chair explained the procedure to be followed for the next agenda item.

Applicant: Subway Store Development Ltd represented by Michael Parrott (Gregg Latchams Ltd), Sue Pasco (Director/Franchisee) and Stuart House (Franchise & Development Administrator)

Other Persons: Bryan Hussey, Daniel Byrd and Emily Luff

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

The Senior Public Protection Officer summarised the report. She explained that the applicant was seeking authorisation to provide late night refreshment from 23:00-03:00 on Thursdays and to extend the existing terminal hour for late night refreshment from 00:00 to 03:00 on Fridays and Saturdays. The applicant was also proposing additional conditions as set out in their operating schedule. Representations had been received in relation to the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance. Additional information from the applicant and the other persons had been received since the completion of the report and had been circulated to Members and the parties.

Mr Parrott stated the case for the applicant. Sue Pasco, the Director and Franchisee, said that she and her husband had a franchise which operates 25 Subway premises in the Bath and Bristol area. He invited the Sub-Committee to focus on the potential impact on the licensing objectives of the provision of hot food and drinks between 00:00 and 03:00 on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. The premises were already open and serving cold food during these times, so the issue was what the impact on the licensing objectives would be of Subway being allowed to use a toaster and a kettle for an additional three hours on Thursdays and an additional two hours on Fridays and Saturdays

He drew attention to the sales projections attached to his email to Licensing of 26 January, which were based on the experience of the Bath premises after the licence had been varied to allow late night refreshment till 00:00, and on the experience of the Bristol Queens Road premises after a successful appeal against a decision of the licensing authority in Bristol. There had been a small increase in the number of sales made. He submitted that the increase in sales, if the application were granted, would be “reasonably modest” and the impact on the licensing objectives small or non-existent. The majority of sales (65-70%) were made during the day, but the ability to provide late night refreshment after 00:00 was important, because Subway customers expected to be able to obtain hot food and drinks. The availability of hot food and drink was an important part of the Subway brand.

He suggested that Subway differed from the majority of take-away establishments, because its customers had to answer 4-5 questions before their order could be prepared. He suggested that this required a certain standard of behaviour and understanding on the part of the customer.

He said that as the premises were located at the end of the Southgate shopping centre not far from the bus station, there were people, particularly students making their way home, in the area already. He suggested it was unlikely that many people would go to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122.