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 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 Committee having been satisfied that the public interest would be better served by not disclosing relevant information the public shall be excluded from the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 for agenda item 8 and the reporting of that part of the meeting shall be prevented under section 100A(5A) of the Act, 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 Chair will, if required, explain the procedure.

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

Mr WRW, who was accompanied by his wife, confirmed that he understood the procedure to be followed for this hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report. He then circulated a DBS statement in respect of the applicant and a statement submitted by him. The Sub-Committee adjourned to allow Members time to study these documents.

When the hearing resumed, Mr WRW 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 Mr WRW was a fit and proper person to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence. Authority was delegated to the Public Protection Officer to grant the licence, subject to satisfactory completion of the required tests.

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 or not 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 the oral representations made by him and his partner and balanced these against the information disclosed by Disclosure and Barring Service checks.

The applicant indicated that his previous convictions followed the death of his mother during a period when he went off the rails and did not have the support of his father and the most recent offences, albeit over 30 years ago, were a case of being “in the wrong place at the wrong time”. He has had a stable home life and been conviction free ever since.

Members noted that Mr W R W’s convictions were historic and that he had remained conviction free for the period anticipated in the Council’s Policy.  Members found Mr W R W is a fit and proper person to hold a Combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence.

Authority delegated to the Public Protection Officer to grant the licence subject to satisfactory completion of the required tests.

The Sub-Committee will return to open session.

The Sub-Committee returned to public session.

The Chair will, if required, explain the procedure.

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

Applicant: Mr Levente Hadnagy and Mr Daniel Balica

Interested Parties: Louise Prynne (Chief Executive, Bath Business Improvement District) (present), Gemma Haines, Yvonne O’Neil, Daniel Carter and Peter Adlington (not present).

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

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report. He explained that the application was for a change of use of an existing street pitch from selling non-alcoholic hot drinks to Hot Food (Burgers).

Mr Balica stated the case for the applicant. He explained that the pitch was operated by HAVE!, a small family business. The business wanted to offer burgers at the pitch, using locally-sourced meat, cheese and bread buns. He summarised the letter of support from the applicant (agenda pages 56-60). He drew attention to the great similarity between the five representations. The first two were actually identical. The third contained a verbatim extract from the Council’s terms and conditions. He summarised the applicant’s response to the objections as set out in the letter of support, and emphasised that the applicant would have to abide by the terms and conditions of the Street Trading Consent.

Mrs Prynne stated the case for the Interested Parties. She said that she had not attended one of these hearings before, but she did not apologise if some the letters of objection were the same. She and her colleague, John Raby, had consulted a number of businesses, who had all said that they were concerned about this application. One of the reasons for objecting to the application is that there is an ongoing review by B&NES Economic Development Team of market provision in Bath, and it is important that the right strategy should be found. The business rate revaluation poses a significant challenge for local businesses. There are a number of businesses in very close proximity who are facing business rate increases; they are concerned about the potential impact of this application on their trade. There was significant footfall in the area near the pitch; the street could be very congested and it could be difficult to get past. Cooking food in the street would give to rise to odours.

A Member commented that five representations were five representations, even if they were identical.

In reply to questions from Members Mrs Prynne said that BBID was currently involved in discussion about how street traders could complement shops. Some shops were paying £2,000 per week in rates compared with the much lower charges paid by street traders. She was not opposed to street trading, but it needed to be managed strategically.

A Member commented on the problem with seagulls in Bath. The Applicant responded that the problems of seagulls and street cleaning remained the same irrespective of whether people bought food from shops or a street stall.

Following an adjournment, the Sub-Committee RESOLVED to grant the application.

Reasons

Members have had to determine an application for a Street Trading Consent at existing pitch 6C Union Street. This application involves  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.