Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services Officer advised the meeting of 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 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 two item 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 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, RESOLVED that the public should be excluded from the meeting for the following two item 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 Chair drew attention to the procedure to be followed for the two taxi hearings.

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

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report. A DVLA check had revealed that Mr DMC had had been banned from driving for six months in 2014 after accruing more than 12 penalty points for speeding offences in a 3-year period. He had also been convicted of speeding offences during the term of his previous Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licences, most of which had not been disclosed the Council in accordance with the terms of his licence.

The Sub-Committee adjourned to allow Members time to study Mr DMC’s DVLA print, a written statement from him and a reference given on his behalf.

When the Sub-Committee reconvened, Mr DMC said that there was nothing he could add to his written statement. He acknowledged that he had been wrong not to disclose his convictions for speeding offences. He said this had happened during a short period of time when he been under stress because of his difficult personal circumstances. He was questioned by Members. He did not wish to make a closing statement.

Following an adjournment the Sub-Committee RESOLVED that Mr DMC was a fit and proper person to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence for the reasons set out below.

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 considering all relevant circumstances.

Members took account of the applicant’s written statement, reference and his oral representations and balanced this against the information disclosed on his BANES and driving records.

The applicant did not seek to go behind his speeding convictions and referred the Committee to his written statement. He referred to difficult personal circumstances as an explanation for his actions.

Whilst members viewed the convictions seriously they noted that he had not received three or more minor motoring convictions within the last 3 years and was not therefore, caught by that part of the Council’s Policy. Members felt having heard from the applicant that the offending related to a difficult period in his life and that he had moved on. Members felt he understood now, the importance of complying with the conditions of his licence.

Accordingly, on balance members found Mr D M C is a fit and proper person to hold a Combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence.

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

The Senior Public Protection Officer summarised the report. A DBS Certificate obtained by Mr JEJC in connection with his licence application had disclosed a formal police caution.

The Sub-Committee adjourned to allow Members to study the DBS Certificate and a written statement provided by Mr JEJC.

After the Sub-Committee reconvened, Mr JEJC said that he did not wish to enlarge on his written statement, which he thought clear. He was questioned by Members. He did not wish to make a closing statement.

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

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 considering all relevant circumstances.

Members took account of the applicant’s written statement and his oral representations and balanced these against the information disclosed on his DBS Certificate.

The applicant said that there was not a great deal that he could add to his written statement, but he had had no brushes with the law since the incident in 2012.

Members noted that the applicant had been referred to the Committee as his DBS results disclosed a caution on his record. That said, the applicant had remained conviction-free for the period anticipated by the policy and they were satisfied, based on what they had read and heard, that he was a fit and proper person to hold a Combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence.

The Sub-Committee will return to open session.

The Sub-Committee returned to open session.

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

Applicant: Team West Ltd t/a Domino’s Pizza, represented by Chris Grunert (John Gaunt and Partners) and Gary Coombes (Manager)

Other Persons: Ross Double, Joy Burt, John Branston, Nigel Locker and Councillor Will Sandry

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

The Chair asked the parties whether they were content for recent emails submitted by the other persons to be taken in evidence. Mr Grunert, for the applicant, said that he was, though he would make comments during his submission on the weight that he thought should be attributed to them. The Chair was content for the e-mails to be taken into evidence as well.

The Public Protection Officer summarised the report. The application was for the provision of late-night refreshment from 23:00 to 05:00 every day. It was proposed that takeaways and/or on-site consumption would cease at 02:00 and that only a delivery service would operate between 02:00 and 05:00. The proposed opening hours were 10:00 to 05:00 the following day. Representations had been received from other persons relating to the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder. The Sub-Committee was invited to determine the application.

Mr Grunert stated the case for the applicant.

He said that the applicant now wished to amend the application and reduce the hours sought for late-night refreshment to 23:00-00:00 on Sundays to Thursdays, with the premises closing at 00:00, and 23:00-01:00 on Fridays and Saturdays, with the premises closing at 01:00. Domino’s was already operating in Bath and had a track record that could be judged. There was a branch in London Road. There were also other premises in the surrounding area, all of which were operating a delivery service till 05:00. No enforcement action had ever been taken against these premises by officers of the Council or of other authorities. He submitted that it was relevant that the London Road premises were close to residential premises above and behind it. At the time of the application for a licence for London Road, Environmental Health had submitted a representation because of potential nuisance. The application had been granted with conditions and since then Environmental Health had raised no concerns about the premises.

The applicant had consulted with local residents both before making the application and subsequently. A meeting had been held with residents. Residents were not unanimous, but the applicant had felt that there was a consensus that the hours now proposed were acceptable to the majority. Some representations had suggested that this application was ‘the thin end of the wedge’, but the law required that each application be judged on its own merits. If at a future date the applicant wished to apply to extend hours, there would be the same statutory process and representations could be made. He submitted that the operation of the London Road premises established a track record for Domino’s in Bath, though he acknowledged that Moorland Road had its  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.