Agenda and minutes

These were accepted as a correct record of the meeting and signed by the Chair.

RESOLVED that a Vice-Chair was not required on this occasion.

Apologies were received from Cllr Donal Hassett, Cllr Caroline Roberts and Cllr Karen Walker. Cllr Neil Butters substituted for Cllr Roberts.

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 Licensing and Environmental Protection Team Manager presented the report. She introduced Ian Millership, author of CTS’s Taxi unmet demand survey.

She said that some years ago the Council adopted a policy of limiting the number of taxis in Zone 1, corresponding to the area of the former Bath City Council, whereas there is no limit in Zone 2, which has the same boundaries as the former Wansdyke District Council. When the number of taxis in an area is regulated, it is best practice to test regularly whether there is significant unmet demand for taxis in that area and to consider whether the limit should be raised. After the survey conducted in 2011, it was concluded that there was no significant unmet demand in Zone 1 and the limit remained 122. Following the 2014 survey, it had been concluded that there was significant unmet demand and that the limit should be raised to 125.

Ian Millership gave a PowerPoint presentation about the survey. A copy of his slides is attached to these minutes. In reply to a question about the usage of new taxi ranks, he referred to the table on page 25 of his report (agenda page 47).

Members suggested that the signage of the taxi rank in Southgate Street could be improved. They also suggested that signage for taxi ranks could give information about which rank was best for travelling to a particular destination, as it would assist in reducing traffic congestion in the City if taxis could travel by the most direct route.

A Member asked why there was variation in the charges made taxi drivers for baggage. The Senior Public Protection Officer advised that there was a set charge for luggage, but that drivers had discretion about what they classified as luggage.

A Member asked about the response of groups representing disabled people to the consultation. Mr Millership referred to the list of consultees in Appendix 2 of the report, and said that there had been no specific complaint from a disability group about facilities for disabled people. There did not appear to be a business case for the provision of more taxis that could accommodate wheelchairs; larger taxis tended to be used by parties rather than wheelchair users.

A Member said that while he was aware that the area where the taxi rank was located in front of Bath Spa Railway Station was a private, this rank was probably the most important one in Bath and usage of it was likely to increase following the electrification of the Great Western main line. He wondered whether there was dialogue between the Council and First Great Western about this. The Senior Public Protection Officer confirmed that there was. Bob Hollingdale of Bath Taxi Association said that the number of places at this rank had been increased three years ago; driving off the rank into the street was very difficult because of traffic congestion.

Replying to a question from a Member, the Senior Public Protection Officer said  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

The Health and Environmental Manager will make an oral report to the Committee.

The Licensing and Environmental Protection Team Manager presented the report and made a PowerPoint presentation. A copy of her slides is attached.

She said that there had only been two responses to the previous consultation. The gambling policy would be considered by a PDS Panel and would be brought back to the Committee in October before being taken to Council.

A Member expressed surprise at the low number of betting shops in the BANES area. In reply to questions from Members officers advised:

• a betting shop had to have planning permission as well as a betting premises licence; if there were representations about a premises licence application, there would have to be a hearing before the Licensing Sub-Committee

• all betting shops in BANES had been assessed as low-risk following inspections

• inspections had to be risk-based and not annual

• there were different regulations for gaming machines in pubs and clubs; clubs are premises not open to the general public (eg Tesco’s canteen) and were allowed to have higher stakes and prizes

• there was no evidence about the level of gambling addition in BANES

RESOLVED to note the update.