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 Chairman.

The Chairman drew attention to the procedure to be followed for agenda items 8 and 9.

The Committee is asked to consider passing the following resolution:

“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, 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.   

RESOLVED that, 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, the public shall be excluded from the meeting for the following two  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 applicant confirmed that he had received and understood the taxi procedure.

The Senior Public Protection Officer summarised the report and stated that an enhanced DBS certificate showed no previous convictions or relevant information disclosed at the Chief Police Officers discretion. A statement submitted by the applicant and references given on his behalf were circulated. The hearing was adjourned to allow Members time to study these documents.

After the hearing was reconvened, Mr AE said that he had nothing further to add to his statement.

Members asked the applicant questions relating to the reported incidents.

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

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.

Members had to decide whether the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence taking into account all the circumstances.

Members took account of the applicant’s written statement, references and his oral representations and balanced these against the information disclosed in the Report.

Members noted that the applicant was first licensed by the Authority in November 2013 and that during that time no complaints were received regarding his conduct.  Members also noted that a Disclosure and Baring Service certificate showed no previous convictions or relevant information disclosed at the Chief Police Officer’s discretion.

Members noted that the applicant brought these matters to the authority’s attention and the Police took no further action on the matters. As he had not been convicted of any offence and had a good record as a licenced driver Members find he is a fit and proper person to hold a combined hackney carriage and private hire drivers licence.

The applicant confirmed that he had received and understood the taxi procedure.

The Senior Public Protection Officer summarised the report and stated that a DBS and DVLA check on Mr AT had revealed convictions. He circulated the DBS and a statement submitted by the applicant with references given on his behalf. The hearing was adjourned to allow Members time to study these documents.

After the hearing was reconvened, Mr AT said that he had nothing further to add to his statement except to say that he would take the profession of being a taxi driver very seriously.

The Sub-Committee RESOLVED that Mr AT was a fit and proper person to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence.

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.

Members had to decide whether the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence taking into account all the circumstances.

Members took account of the applicant’s written statement, references and his oral representations and balanced these against the information disclosed in the Report and DBS certificate.

The applicant stated he is a different person now, takes driving very seriously and the matters were not something that would occur again.

Members found the matters were historic and the applicant had moved on with his life. They therefore find him a fit and proper person and grant the licence.

The Chairman drew attention to the procedure to be followed for agenda item 11.

Applicant: Arron Whan (DPS and Manager), John Revell (Company Secretary)

Other Persons: Eric Howard, Susan Williams

The parties confirmed that they had received and understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection officer summarised the application. She explained that the applicant was seeking to vary the current premises licence as set out in paragraph 5.3 of the report. Representations received from the Other Persons related to the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance. She invited the Sub-Committee to determine the application.

Mr Whan addressed the Sub-Committee. He said that The Bell was known as a music venue and that it also held fund raising events. He said that there were no drink promotions at the premises, that they take an active role in the Challenge 21 programme and that signs are in place in order to ask customers to leave the premises quietly.

He added that he had received no complaints regarding the conduct of the premises and that the variation would not have a negative effect on the area.

He said he had written to local residents regarding the application and had met with some of them as part of the process.

Mr Revell addressed the Sub-Committee. He stated that The Bell was a professionally managed premises that since 2013 has been owned by a co-operative of 534 members. He added that the nine person Board of Directors meets on a monthly basis and that there contact details were available on their website.

In response to questions from Members Mr Whan stated that:

·  Chilled out music would be played by DJ’s if the extended time were granted.

·  The garden area would be monitored.

Eric Howard addressed the Sub-Committee. He said that the Paragon acted as a natural amplifier to noise within the area and that he could hear music from The Bell inside his home. He stated that he did not believe that the music played by the DJ’s would be quiet.

In response to questions from Members Mr Howard stated that:

·  He had not made any complaints regarding noise to the Council.

·  He had complained to the premises regarding noise on New Year’s Eve.

·  The Bell was an asset to the area, but there was no need for any later hours.

Susan Williams addressed the Sub-Committee. She said that she had complained to the manager regarding the same New Year’s Eve as Mr Howard and the level of noise from the premises.

In response to questions from Members Susan Williams stated that:

·  She had phoned Environmental Health on New Year’s Eve at 1.30am as she could not sleep. The music stopped at 2.30am.

·  Recently she felt that the music had been getting louder.

·  In her opinion the manager was not bothered by the complaints of residents.

Following an adjournment the Sub-Committee RESOLVED to grant the variation with modifications as detailed below.

Decision and reasons

Members have today determined an application to vary a premises licence at The Bell, Walcot Street, Bath.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.