Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services Officer drew attention to the Emergency Evacuation 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.

(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 4.4 Appendix 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 or a member of his staff before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

There were none.

There was none.

The Sub-Committee RESOLVED to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 6th March 2025 and they were duly signed by the Chair.

The Chair referenced the procedure that would be followed during the course of the meeting. Those that were present confirmed that they had received and understood the licensing procedure.

The Sub-Committee is asked to consider passing the following resolution:

“the Sub-Committee 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, RESOLVES that the public shall 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.   

The members of the Sub-Committee agreed that they were 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.

It was RESOLVED that the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items 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.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) introduced the report to the Sub-Committee. She explained that they were being asked whether the licensee remains fit and proper to have their combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Drivers licence renewed by this authority.

The Chair asked why the licensee had been previously suspended for a week in 2016 after a previous meeting of the Sub-Committee.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) referred to the minutes from the February 2016 meeting of the Sub-Committee and read that this was ‘in order to allow them to reflect on their behaviour and deter them from misconduct in the future.’

The licensee addressed the Sub-Committee and apologised for not declaring previous speeding offences the Licensing department. The licensee also stated that their vehicles have always been road legal despite some previous issues relating to the submission of paperwork.

The licensee said that they loved doing their job.

The licensee’s sister was also in attendance and addressed the Sub-Committee. She explained that the licensee had reached out to her after several years of struggling to say that they find all digital interactions difficult. She said that she intended to help the licensee in the future with correspondence and applications.

She informed the Sub-Committee that the licensee had installed the Waze app on their mobile phone to alert them when nearing the speed limit while driving.

The licensee said that they could not defend the offences, but said that they do not drive very fast around the city.

The licensee’s sister stated that many regular customers were willing to give a character reference for the licensee if required.

Councillor Toby Simon asked if the Waze app provided an audible warning for when reaching a speed limit.

The licensee replied that the speedometer on the app will turn red if you reach the speed limit and you get an audible alert.

Councillor Simon asked the licensee for further comment on why there had been a gap of 81 days in insurance cover in July 2020.

The licensee replied that due to the pandemic they had removed public liability insurance from their vehicle because they were not working at the time. The licensee stated that the vehicle was insured for private use at all times and had never driven a taxi without the required paperwork in place.

The Chair sought assurance from the licensee that they understood the reasons that they were before the Sub-Committee and the need for them to sure that they can drive safely whilst representing the Council.

The licensee stated that they understood why they were asked to attend the meeting of the Sub-Committee and made a brief closing statement.

The licensee said that they had found the change to digital communication really difficult, was sorry for everything that has happened and regrets that they are in this position.

The licensee explained that due to the lack of having a licence they have been unable to work for the past five weeks.

The licensee stated that they were proud  ...  view the full minutes text for item 147.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) introduced the report to the Sub-Committee. She explained that they were being asked whether the licensee remains fit and proper to have their combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Drivers licence renewed by this authority.

The licensee addressed the Sub-Committee and explained that they have Type 2 Diabetes and that it is controlled by taking medication. They added that they were currently wearing a device that monitors their blood sugar levels.

The Chair asked the licensee why there had been a period of time where they had not been testing their blood sugar levels on a regular basis as required.

The licensee replied that their Diabetes was under control and that there was no information on the forms they had that said that they needed to test as regularly.

Councillor Toby Simon asked the licensee what steps they took when they found out they had not met the DVLA requirements for visual acuity.

The licensee replied that they were initially unaware that they had failed the test they had taken at their doctors. They added that when they had been informed of this by the Licensing department, they arranged for a further test to be taken two weeks later at Specsavers.

Councillor Simon asked the licensee if they had stopped driving for the period of time in between the two tests and if not, do they consider now that they should have done so.

The licensee replied no to both questions.

Councillor Simon asked the licensee if they were fully aware of the symptoms of hypoglycaemia.

The licensee replied that they were.

Councillor Simon asked the licensee if they were now regularly self-monitoring their blood sugar levels.

The licensee replied that they were testing twice a week only. They added that they find it difficult to test prior to driving, especially when starting early in the morning. The licensee said that they could not commit to keep on wearing the monitor as it would cost them around £100 a month.

The Chair asked if it was a legal requirement for the licensee to test their blood sugar levels prior to driving.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) replied that they if they were not wearing a monitor they would have to test manually before driving.

The Legal Services Manager asked the licensee if they were currently paying to wear the monitor.

The licensee replied that they were not, but believed they would have to start paying for it soon.

The Chair commented that the licensee had previously agreed to test their blood sugar levels regularly and had not been doing so. He asked how the Sub-Committee could be sure that they would test as required in the future so that members of the public would be safe in their vehicle.

The Chair asked the licensee if they were aware of the conditions of their licence.

The licensee replied that they were.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) clarified that the licensee was required to test no more than two  ...  view the full minutes text for item 148.