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 Officer 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 will, if required, explain the procedure.

The Chair drew attention to the review procedure, copies of which had been made available to those attending the meeting.

Applicant for Review: Bath and North East Somerset Licensing Authority, represented by Michael Dando (Licensing Enforcement Officer)

Premises Licence Holder: Jamie Brian, also known as Jamie Koc (licence holder until 2^nd August 2013), Florian Batrin (licence holder from 2^nd August 2013), represented by David Holley (Licensing Agent)

Other Persons: Lynda Passmore (local resident)

With the agreement of the parties, this item was taken after items 23-26.

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

The Licensing Officer summarised the application. She explained that currently the premises licence allowed the provision of late night refreshment between 23:00 and 01:00 Sundays to Thursdays and between 23:00 and 03:00 on Fridays and Saturdays. The conditions attached to the licence were listed in paragraph 4.3 of the report. An application for review had been received from Mr Michael Dando, Licensing Enforcement Officer for the Council on the following grounds:

• a history of the Police being called to the premises to deal with threats of violence and fighting

• persistent breaches in respect of the hours that the provision of late night refreshment is allowed to take place

• public nuisance caused by noxious odours

• public nuisance caused by noise

She stated that the website of the premises appeared to state that hot food was provided until 03:00 daily. Further, that representations had been received from local residents, one of whom had asked to remain anonymous, and that a notice of suspension of the licence had been served on Mr Batrin on 5^th August 2013 to take effect on 8^th August, because the annual renewal fee of £180 had not been received.

She said that she had received additional documents from the Applicant for Review. With the agreement of all parties, the Chair accepted these as evidence to be considered at the hearing.

Mr Dando stated the case as the Applicant for the Review. He stated that a premises licence had been granted to Mr Brian for the Mix Grill in 2007. Since then there had been a steady stream of complaints about the premises as detailed in his application. Licensing Officers had made four visits to the premises between 13 July 2012 and 16 March 2013, and on each occasion had found that the premises was providing hot food after the terminal hour. He had visited the premises on the morning of 6^th August, the same day as the hearing, and had found that the premises had been open at 02:00 and had observed a member of staff cutting meat from the Doner at the rear of the shop and serving a customer with it. The premises licence holder had been sent final warning letters about providing hot food outside the permitted hours on 28 April 2009 and 10 February 2012. In addition, he had been given several verbal warnings. A statutory notice to prevent the continuation of an odorous smell nuisance (under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) been served on the premises on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

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

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 two items of business because of the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 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 MM M for the grant of a combined hackney carriage/private hire driver’s licence.

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

The Licensing Officer presented the report and stated that as part of the application process a Disclosure and Barring Service check was undertaken, which had revealed a number of previous convictions. He circulated the Disclosure and Barring Service check, personal statement and references for Mr MM M. The applicant and officer withdrew from the meeting while Members took time to consider these documents.

Mr MM M put his case and was questioned. Mr MM M then made a closing statement.

Following an adjournment it was

RESOLVED to refuse Mr MM M a hackney carriage/private hire driver’s licence.

REASONS

Members have had to determine Mr MM M’s application for a combined licence to drive hackney carriage 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. Members had to consider whether Mr M.M. M was a fit and proper person and therefore asked themselves whether they would allow their son, daughter, spouse, partner of any one they cared about to travel alone in a vehicle driven by the applicant.

To assist them in making a determination Members listened to the applicant’s oral representations and took account of his written references, statement and balanced this against the information provided by the Disclosure and Barring Service (D&BS) which disclosed two convictions for violence against the person and a public order matter. Whilst, noting that the information provided by the D&BS was at odds with Mr MM M’s statement he was asked to confirm whether or not the D&BS information was accurate to which he replied the D&BS was correct. Accordingly, Members sought an explanation as to the Norwich Crown Court matter, however, no further information was offered than already contained in his written statement. With regard to the matters dealt with at Bath Magistrate’s Court Mr MM M suggested, after some questioning, that it may have resulted from the breakdown of his business. However, he repeatedly stated that ‘it all happened a long time ago’ and he ‘had no clue.’

Given Mr MM M’s reluctance to volunteer an explanation for his offending behaviour, despite being given repeated opportunities to do so, Members were left with no alternative other than to conclude Mr MM M was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence having been offered nothing to satisfy them that their friends, family or loved ones would be safe in a licensed vehicle driven by Mr MM M Accordingly, and given Members primary concerned is the protection of the public, the application was refused.

The Sub-Committee considered the report, which sought determination of an application by Mr DA P for the grant of a combined hackney carriage/private hire driver’s licence.

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

The Licensing Officer presented the report and stated that as part of the application process a Disclosure and Barring Service check was undertaken, which had revealed a number of previous convictions. He circulated the Disclosure and Barring Service check, personal statement and references for Mr DA P. The applicant and officer withdrew from the meeting while Members took time to consider these documents.

Mr DA P put his case and was questioned. Mr DA P then made a closing statement.

Following an adjournment it was

RESOLVED that a hackney carriage/private hire driver’s licence be granted in respect of Mr DA P, subject to the standard terms and conditions.

REASONS

Members have had to determine Mr DA P’s application for a combined licence to drive hackney carriage 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. Members had to consider whether Mr DA P was a fit and proper person and therefore asked themselves whether they would allow their son, daughter, spouse, partner of any one they cared about to travel alone in a vehicle driven by the applicant.

To assist them in making a determination Members took account of the applicant’s oral representations, written references, written statement and balanced this against the information provided by the Disclosure and Barring Service which showed the application had a previous conviction and a police caution.

Members found the offences disclosed were historic, the applicant had a long and solid employment record and had a good familial support network. Members were convinced that he had turned his life around for the better and accordingly was a fit and proper person to hold a combined hackney carriage/private hire driver’s licence.