Agenda and draft minutes

The Democratic Services Officer drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out on the agenda.

Councillor Bryan Chalker sent his apologies, Councillor Chris Watt was his substitute.

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.

There were none.

There was none.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 9th April 2013 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair(person).

RESOLVED that the procedure for this part of the meeting be noted.

The Sub-Committee considered the report which sought permission to provide facilities on the highway for recreation/refreshment at the Porter Public House, 2 Miles's Buildings.

The applicant was present.  He confirmed he had read and understood the procedure for the meeting.  There were several objectors present.

The Licensing Officer presented the report and confirmed the application was for 21 tables and a number of chairs, every day from 10am – 11pm and the usual consultation had taken place.  Several objections had been received to the application.  He also informed Members that one objector Gillian Ryan, had requested that a witness speak in support.  Following discussion Members agreed to allow the witness, Ian Perkins.

The applicant put his case, he highlighted that the Porter would soon be closing for refurbishment and there would be a significant change in the operation and he was aiming for a different clientele.  He had met with local residents to see if there could be some agreement on his plans.  He added that thought there was an increase in the numbers of tables and chairs there was no increase to the area.  Following questions the applicant stated that he was willing to remove the tables and chairs at the front of the building and one at the far end in Miles’s Buildings and reduce the number of tables to 16.  He showed Members, Officers and Objectors on the plan.

The Licensing Officer confirmed that the current permission had expired on 31^st March 2013 but the area applied for was the same with an increase in tables and chairs.

The objectors put their case as follows:- 

Robin Davies: highlighted that Miles’s buildings was a beautiful part of the city and the tables and chairs blocked the view.  He stated that in 2009 planning permission had been refused so there had been a contravention in planning terms.  With an increase in the number of tables the smokers could be pushed further up into Miles’s Buildings.  There did not seem to be enough room for tables at the front of the building. Where would the tables and chairs be stored?  The applicant had engaged with the residents but if he reduced the hours they would believe him to be more genuine.

Henry Brown: his concern was the encroachment on the highway as the area applied for was over half of the width of Miles’s Buildings and he suggested the stone channel in the middle of the highway was a more suitable boundary.  He believed that to have tables and chairs at the front of the building would restrict the area for pedestrians.  In respect of the increase in numbers of tables and chairs, he commented that if the second rank of tables on Miles’s Buildings was taken out of the application there would still be twice as many tables and chairs as previously permitted.

Gillian Ryan (spoke for the Dougalls in their absence): her objection was the encroachment which seemed to be increasing into Miles’s Buildings leaving less space  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

RESOLVED that the procedure for this part of the meeting be noted.

The Sub-Committee considered the report which sought approval of a Chrysler Voyager vehicle for use as a Private Hire Vehicle.  The vehicle falls outside of the age requirements a stipulated in the current Private Hire Vehicle licence conditions.

The applicant was present.  He confirmed he had read and understood the procedure for the meeting.

The Licensing Officer presented the report and stated that the vehicle fell outside the age requirements as stipulated in the private hire vehicle licence conditions.  He added that Officers could exercise some discretion when the vehicle was between two and five years old.  This vehicle was just over five years old, therefore the application was presented to the Sub-Committee for determination.  The vehicle had been visually inspected by the Licensing Officer and was in very good condition.

Members adjourned the meeting to inspect the vehicle, then the meeting continued.

The applicant put his case and was questioned.  He stated that currently he had three vehicles and this vehicle would replace the one that had broken down with a serious defect and had a high mileage.  The Chrysler Voyager was in good condition with very low mileage for a car of its age and he would convert it to LPG likes his other vehicles.  He then made a closing statement.

Following an adjournment it was

RESOLVED that the Chrysler Voyager be approved for use as a Private Hire Vehicle subject to the standard conditions.

Reasons for decision

In determining the matter Members had regard to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the Council's Policy, the Human Rights Act 1998 and case law. Having inspected the vehicle Members found it to be suitable in size, type and design to be granted a licence and therefore delegated authority to the Licensing Officer to issue a Private Hire Vehicle licence subject to the necessary safety inspections and certification.

RESOLVED that the procedure for this part of the meeting be noted.

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 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”.

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 items(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 determination of an application by Mr ADN for the grant of a combined hackney carriage/private hire driver's licence.

The applicant was not present.  He had requested that the application be heard in his absence.  Members had to consider whether or not to proceed in Mr ADN’s absence.  The Licensing Officer stated that Mr ADN had not been able to attend the Sub-Committee on two previous occasions.  Members took account of the lengthy email exchange in which the applicant consented to it proceeding in absence and his acknowledgment that it might. Having confirmed that all the information forwarded by Mr ADN was available to them, Members concluded that the matter should therefore proceed in his absence. 

The Licensing Officer presented the report, outlined the application and the details of the caution.  He circulated the email exchange with the applicant and a letter from the National Illegal Money Lending Team.  Members took some time to consider the documents. 

The Licensing Officer then called witnesses.  The witnesses put their case and were questioned.

Following an adjournment it was

RESOLVED that a hackney carriage/private hire driver's licence not be granted to Mr ADN.

Reasons for decision

Members had to consider Mr ADN’s application for a licence to drive hackney carriage and private hire vehicles.  In doing so they had to consider a Police caution obtained for the offence of lending money without a licence and a final warning letter sent to him by the licensing authority.  Members therefore had to consider whether Mr ADN was a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

Members had to consider whether or not to proceed in Mr ADN’s absence. Members took account of the lengthy email exchange in which he consented to it proceeding in absence and his acknowledgment that it might.  Members having confirmed that all the information forwarded by Mr ADN was available to them concluded that the matter should therefore proceeded in his absence. 

Members took account of Mr ADN’s written statement, the information provided by the National Illegal Money Lending Team and the final warning letter. Members also heard from the witnesses who gave an account of their experiences of Mr ADN’s illegal money lending activity.

Members found that Mr ADN was arrested under suspicion of engaging in activities that require a licence when not a licensee pursuant to s39(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and accepted a caution. In the paperwork Mr ADN stated the offence resulted from a misunderstanding of the law and said his accountant told him it should be alright.  Mr ADN also apologised for what he says was a mistake saying nothing was done with criminal intent.  Mr ADN also stated that since his arrest he had become a victim because drivers stopped paying, cars got damaged and one was fraudulently transferred into another’s name.  Mr ADN stated as a result his business had gone downhill and being able to work would help provide his family and young child with a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.