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 8-11.

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 four 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 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, RESOLVED that the public be excluded from the meeting for the following four 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.

Mr AUA confirmed that he understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report and provided Members with copies of a DBS certificate, a statement from the applicant and two references given on his behalf. The hearing was adjourned to give Members time to study these documents.

After the meeting had been reconvened, Mr AUA stated his case and was questioned by Members. He made a closing statement.

Following a further adjournment the Sub-Committee RESOLVED to grant Mr AUA a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence on the basis that he was a fit and proper person.

Decision and reasons

Members have had to determine 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.

Members noted that Mr A had remained conviction free for the period anticipated in the Council’s Policy however, as he has convictions on his record his application is deemed contentious. Members formed the view that Mr A had learned from his past mistakes and showed genuine regret for his actions. Members were satisfied that Mr A would be able to conduct himself appropriately if faced with a confrontational situation now and Members find him a fit and proper person to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence.

Mr RCP was accompanied by a friend. He confirmed that he understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer summarised the report and provided Members with copies of a record of convictions from the applicant’s country of origin, a statement from him and a reference. The hearing was adjourned to allow Members time to study these documents.

Mr RCP stated his case and was questioned by Members. He did not wish to make a closing statement.

Following a further adjournment the Sub-Committee RESOLVED that to grant Mr RCP a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence on the basis that he was a fit and proper person.

Decision and reasons

Members have had to determine 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, reference and balanced these against the information contained in the certified and translated documents relating to his previous convictions obtained in his country of origin.

Members noted that Mr P had been convicted of 5 minor motoring offences in Romania within the last 3 years. As such the Council’s Policy applies which says that Bath and North East Somerset Council will expect that an applicant will not have been convicted of three or more minor motoring offences during the previous three years. That said, Members took into account the nature of his minor motoring convictions and the mitigating circumstances that he faced in Romania and found they could depart from the policy on the facts of this case. Accordingly they find Mr P is a fit and proper person to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence but note that Mr P must be responsible for his own actions and that the road safety is of the utmost importance to the protection of the public. Members would take a dim view of any appearance before the LSC in the future should Mr P be convicted of motoring offences or any other offence.

Mr MM confirmed that he understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report and distributed copies of a DBS certificate, a statement from the applicant and two references. The hearing was adjourned to give Members time to study these documents.

After the hearing had been reconvened the applicant stated his case and was questioned by Members. He made a closing statement.

Following a further adjournment the Sub-Committee RESOLVED to grant  Mr MM a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence on the basis that he is a fit and proper person

Decision and reasons

Members have had to determine 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.

Members noted that Mr M had remained conviction free for the period anticipated in the Council’s Policy however, as he has a conviction on his application, it is deemed contentious.

Members formed the view that the conviction arose out of a one-off incident that was out of character for Mr M and that he had learned his lesson. Members were satisfied that Mr M would be able to handle a confrontational situation as a taxi driver. Members find him to be a fit and proper person to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence.

Mr MRC was accompanied by his partner. He confirmed that he understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer summarised the report and provided Members with copies of a DBS certificate and a statement from Mr MRC. The hearing was adjourned to allow Members time to study these documents.

After the hearing had been reconvened Mr MRC stated his case and was questioned by Members. He did not wish to make a closing statement.

Following a further adjournment the Sub-Committee RESOLVED to issue Mr MRC with a warning as they found that Mr MRC continued to be a fit and proper person to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence.

Decision and reasons

Members have had to determine what action to take against the holder of a combined Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence having received a formal police 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 his statement.  Members balanced this against the formal police caution on his record.

Accordingly Members had to decide whether the licensee continued to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence taking into account all the circumstances including his driving history and character.

Members noted that the licensee was first licensed in 1994 and that he had been a licensed driver without complaint until 2015.

Members had regard to the Council’s Policy which states that Bath and North East Somerset Council will expect that a licensee will not have been cautioned by the police for an offence during the previous two years however, members noted that they can depart from the Policy where there are reasons for doing so.

Members formed the view that the police caution arose out of what seemed to be a genuine misunderstanding and Mr C did not try to minimise his mistakes which he admitted and acknowledged. Members noted that Mr C had acted as a licensed taxi driver from 1994 to 2015 without complaint. Accordingly Members find Mr C is a fit and proper person to continue to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence but issued a stern warning that he needs to be fully aware of, and understand his legal responsibilities and obligations as a licensed taxi driver.

The Chair drew attention to the procedure to be followed for the next item of business.

 Applicant: That’s What She Said Limited, represented by David Holley (Licensing Agent) and Louis Lewis Smith

Responsible Authority: Avon and Somerset Police, represented by Geoff Cannon (Police Licensing Officer)

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

The Senior Public Protection Officer summarised the report. She reported that the Police had made a representation relating to the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder and had proposed additional conditions to further this objective.

Mr Holley stated the case for the applicant. He said the additional hours were being sought so that the premises could operate as a cocktail bar. He noted that the Police had not objected to the principle of the variation and said that the applicant had no objection to the conditions proposed by the Police. Mr Smith said that he had lived in Bath for twenty years and thought there were no premises offering what he wished to offer to customers. Free water would be available to customers at all times. He did not intend the premises to become a nightclub; he wanted to provide a calm and grown-up ambience in which business could be done over a relaxing drink. He was already doing the things required by the additional conditions proposed by the Police. They were the kind of things that suited the type of premises he wished the Dark Horse to be, and had no objection to their being made conditions.

The Senior Public Protection Officer drew attention to the new condition offered by the applicant that “all outside areas will be cleared of patrons by 23:00 each day” and pointed out that no outside areas were shown on the plan of the premises. Mr Smith confirmed that the premises had no outside areas and agreed that this proposed condition could be removed.

Mr Cannon presented the case for the Police. He said that Kingsmead Square is a particularly busy area of the city at night. It is situated on a route used by many late-night revellers. There is a takeaway nearby, which is likely to attract custom from patrons of the Dark Horse leaving the premises late at night. He believed that the application as originally submitted lacked clarity. He had had a serious conversation with Mr Smith, who had agreed to the conditions proposed by the Police. The lack of clarity in the application that he was concerned about included failure to specify the quality of the CCTV and the length of time that recordings would be retained. He would be concerned if food were not available when drink was being sold. Mr Smith had agreed that the original condition about the provision of hot food, which he had proposed to delete entirely, should be replaced with the condition proposed by the Police requiring light menu-based meals being available. Since the premises would be operating as a cocktail bar, the Police had proposed that the Challenge 21 condition  attached to the current licence should be replaced by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 171.