Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services Officer advised the meeting of the procedure.

Apologies were received from Councillor Deirdre Horstmann, for whom Councillor Anthony Clarke substituted.

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 will, if required, explain the procedure to be followed for the next two items of business.

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

The applicant confirmed that he understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report. The issue was whether a vehicle over five years was suitable to be licensed as a private hire vehicle. The vehicle in question was previously licensed with the Authority until 17^th May 2018. On that date the applicant replaced the vehicle (a Skoda Superb) with a newer vehicle registered in 2018. The applicant now wished to re-licence the Skoda Superb, which was at the time of this application 6 years and 5 months old, as a private hire vehicle. The Council’s current policy provides “that all vehicles will normally be less than five years old when first licensed” and that applications for a licence for vehicles older than this will be referred to the Licensing Sub-Committee. The vehicle was not available for inspection because of the absence of parking space on account of the Christmas Market.

The applicant stated his case. He explained that the when originally licensed in February 2014 the vehicle was less than 2 years old. The vehicle had been damaged in an accident which had been entirely the fault of the other driver, who had been uninsured. His insurance company had provided a replacement vehicle. While his own vehicle was being repaired, he had transferred the licence plate to another vehicle. He now wished to re-license Skoda Superb and was surprised that its age should be an issue, since it was under five years old when first licensed. He suggested there was an ambiguity in the Council’s policy. Surely this was not the first time something like this had happened. He felt a sense of grievance at the unfairness of the situation. He had incurred significant expense. Because the other driver had not been insured, he had lost the excess on his insurance policy, lost his no claims bonus, had to make a claim on his own policy, and had lost three weeks earnings. As far as he was aware the other driver was not being prosecuted. The applicant wondered what he should have done. If he had kept the licence plate on the Skoda Superb, that would have been an additional cost for him. If he had insisted that his insurance company had provided a replacement vehicle, they would have incurred considerable cost, but this situation would not have avoided. An appointment for transferring the plate from the Skoda had been made with the claims management company, who had informed him that he to come to collect his vehicle. The applicant had arranged to meet the driver of his vehicle in advance, so that he could he could inspect it vehicle and check that everything was in order. The driver had turned up late, so that the applicant had to conduct an inspection of the vehicle while being under great pressure to transfer the licence plate. It had not occurred to him that if transferred the licence plate that his application to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

The applicant confirmed that he understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report. The applicant’s vehicle, a Peugeot 508, was licensed by the Authority as a Private Hire vehicle from 25^th November 2016 until 31^st October 2018. The applicant applied for a new licence for this vehicle on 14^th November 2018, at which date the vehicle was 6 years and 6 months old. The Council’s current policy provides “that all vehicles will normally be less than five years old when first licensed” and that applications for a licence for vehicles older than this will be referred to the Licensing Sub-Committee. All Private Hire Vehicle licenses in the Authority’s area expire on the 31^st October each year. Renewal letters were sent to all Private Hire licensees in the first week of September 2018 inviting them to renew their license before the expiry date. The applicant arranged a number of appointments to renew the licence, but these were subsequently cancelled by the applicant. The deadline of 31^st October had passed, so that this application has to be treated as a new application. According to information on the GOV.UK Check MoT website the applicant’s vehicle was first presented for a test on 29^th October 2018 and had failed. The vehicle was not available for inspection because of the absence of parking space on account of the Christmas Market.

The applicant stated his case. He stated that the vehicle had failed the MoT the first time because of a faulty engine light. The requirement for cars to have engine lights had only been recently introduced. Bath MoT do not have specific expertise in Peugeots and advised him to go to a Peugeot dealer, which he did.  The dealer gave him the error codes for the problem, but he decided to have the work by a colleague in Bristol. This colleague had completed all the necessary work, but had been unable to reset the engine light, which remained on. He went back to the Peugeot dealer, who downloaded and installed updated software for the car, which is a top-of-the range Peugeot and a diesel hybrid. He had emailed Licensing every time that he had had to rearrange an appointment. Delays had been caused by taking the car to his colleague in Bristol and having the software installed.

The Senior Public Protection Officer advised that the applicant’s vehicle had been tested at Bath MoT on 1^st November 2018 and that the applicant now held a MoT certificate for the vehicle.

Replying to a question from the Chair he explained that he had had to rearrange his appointment with Licensing five times and each time had sent an email explaining the reasons for the delay.

Following an adjournment the Sub-Committee RESOLVED that the applicant’s vehicle was suitable to be licensed as a private hire vehicle.

Decision and reasons

Members have had to determine an application for a Private Hire Vehicle Licence.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

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

Applicant: Brand Events TM Ltd, represented by Patrick Toland (Operations Manager), Neil Levene (Operations Director) and Jim Davey

Witness for Applicant: Peter Nash (sound consultant)

Other Persons: Cllr Sue Craig, Cllr Andrew Furse, Stephen Huard (Chairman of Marlborough Lane and Buildings Residents’ Association)

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

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report. Representations had been received from Other Persons relating to the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and the protection children from harm. There were no representations from the Responsible Authorities. Additional information from the applicant and other persons had been received and circulated before the meeting.

Mr Levene stated the case for the applicant. He said that Brand Events had been in operation for nearly twenty years and organised indoor and outdoor events throughout the UK as well as many events throughout the world. They had organised Pub in the Park in the Royal Victoria Park in June of this year. The company prided itself on putting on events to the very highest of standards. The Pub in the Park series of events had been awarded the National Outdoor Events Association 2018 award for the best live event. Pub in the Park was originally launched in Marlow by the river. The event had worked well, and the company felt that it would work well in other towns. They were planning to do eight events next year, including in Bath, St Albans, Leeds and Warwick. Pub in the Park is a unique event; it was not just a food festival or a music festival, but a combination of the two. Besides the pub, there are eight restaurants allowing attendees to sample conveniently-sized portions. Music is presented on stage in the evening. There are two music acts on Friday, each of about forty minutes in length. and about two hours of live music on Saturday morning, afternoon and evening. Generally about 3000-3500 people attend on a day. He drew attention to the conditions they had offered as detailed in paragraph 5.2(8) of the report. A noise management plan would be submitted to Environmental Health for them to approve it writing. The noise levels achieved at this year’s event were lower than those agreed in the noise management plan. Twenty-five stewards had been employed on site to keep people safe. No adverse reports about noise levels had been received after this year’s event. He noted that the Responsible Authorities had made no representations to this application.

Members put questions. Mr Levene said that he considered that the location that had been selected for the stage in Royal Victoria Park was the best possible from the noise control point of view. Mr Nash said that there were national guidelines for this type of event, with which the company complied. They also worked with the Environmental Health Department to minimise noise. An effort was made to focus sound for the benefit of attendees and to prevent noise nuisance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

The Chair will, if required, explain the procedure to be followed for the next item of business.

Applicant: Jimmy Deane’s Fruit, Veg and Salad Ltd, represented by Charlene and Simon Deane

Objector: Cleo Newcombe-Jones, Project Co-ordinator – Waterways and Public Realm, B&NES

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

The Public Protection Officer summarised the application.

Charlene Deane stated the case for the applicant and was questioned by Members. She said that Jimmy Deane’s had had a stall in Bath since 2006. They had had to move their stall because of redevelopment around Marks and Spencer’s. They wanted a pitch from which they would not have to move again and wanted to be in a more central area. They had worked closely with the Metro Bank and Transport and Highways about the siting of the stall. There had been a lot of support from the public. She referred to the plan and said that there would be more than the required minimum of 2.6 metres around the pitch for pedestrians and access to retailers’ premises. They might need not as much space as they currently have. They had plans to invest in a new improved look for the stall.

A Member said that from the hatched area on the plan it might look as though they were applying to occupy the whole of New Orchard Street, but that he supposed that what they wanted was the ability to move the stall within this area, so that did not have to make a new application if they had to relocate because of future works, and that wherever they were located within this area there would be a 2.6 metre clearance around the pitch. Mrs Deane confirmed that this was the case.

Cleo Newcombe-Jones stated her case and was questioned by Members. In response to a question from the Team Leader (Legal) she explained that she was representing the Public Realm Team, not Highways. She said that in general the location was a good one, but the hatched plan showed a very wide area. She felt it would be better for a fixed location to be designated. The main concern was about the footway of 66cm around the stall and wondered whether it would be large enough for retailers to be able to put A-boards outside their premises. The footway might be further reduced by people queueing to be served at the stall. The narrowest point of the area is where there is likely to be the greatest footfall.

The Team Leader (Legal) asked how it could be consistent to base an objection on the impact of this application on retailers’ ability to place A-boards outside their premises when there were many examples of the A-board policy not being enforced against retailers who were in breach of it. Ms Newcombe-Jones said that she was unable to answer, as enforcement did not fall within her job description.

Following an adjournment the Sub-Committee RESOLVED to grant the application as detailed below.

Decision and reasons

Members have had to determine an application to create  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.