Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - Guildhall, Bath. View directions

Contact: Mark Durnford  01225 394458

Items
No. Item

55.

EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

The Chair will draw attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out under Note 5 on the previous page.

Minutes:

The Democratic Services Officer drew attention to the Emergency Evacuation
Procedure.

56.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

Minutes:

There were no apologies or substitutions.

57.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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.

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

58.

TO ANNOUNCE ANY URGENT BUSINESS AGREED BY THE CHAIR

Minutes:

There was no urgent business.

59.

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: 11TH AUGUST 2022 pdf icon PDF 335 KB

Minutes:

RESOLVED that confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 11th August 2022 be deferred to a future meeting.

60.

LICENSING PROCEDURE pdf icon PDF 208 KB

The Chair will, if required, explain the licensing procedure.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair confirmed all parties had received the procedure for the meeting and outlined it.

61.

VARIATION OF A PREMISES LICENCE - LOCH FYNE pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Minutes:

In attendance – Matthew Phipps (TLT Solicitor) accompanied by Kyle Miller and Debbie Windybank from Greene King.

 

It was confirmed that two lots of additional information had been submitted to all parties before the meeting.

 

The Licensing Officer presented the report for consideration of a variation of the premises licence for Loch Fyne.

 

Matthew Phipps (Solicitor) explained that the premises had been shut for two years with the pandemic and subsequent lockdowns and the offer had evolved over that time but there would be no change to the hours or the activity.  The variations include a reconfiguration of the layout, creating storage, providing coverage to the outside terrace and to remove archaic conditions.  He confirmed that there were no objections from the responsible authorities.  The one objector expressed concern that the applicant’s proposals could undermine the Prevention of Crime and Disorder and Prevention of Public Nuisance Licensing Objectives.  However, he explained that the objection did not outline anything specific to this premises.  It also referred to other residents being affected, however, there were no other objections.

 

He outlined additional conditions that could be considered appropriate:

 

·  Membership of Nightwatch (or a similar organisation where it exists)

·  Premises laid out to tables and chairs

·  Having an incident book/log

·  Notices displayed reminding customers to respect the neighbours

·  Challenge 21

·  Training for all staff

·  A refusal log/register

 

Councillor questions followed and answers were as follows:

 

·  There was no representation from responsible authorities and no issues in relation to Challenge 21 and age being a concern at the premises

·  The Licensing Officer confirmed a few changes appropriate for the additional conditions, that Challenge 21 was more usually a concern in relation to nightclubs, any alcohol sold off-premises to be in sealed containers, the licence holder to supervise the incident register, the signage in respect of consideration for neighbours to be by the exits and be an appropriate size, photo ID with suitable signage, staff training to be commensurate with their duties

·  Important to be consistent with other licensed premises in the vicinity, though each application should be considered on its merits

·  There were no representations in respect of children and any significant risk or harm.

 

The meeting was adjourned for Members to consider their decision and reasons and it was RESOLVED

 

Decision and reasons

 

Members have determined an application to vary a Premises Licence at Loch Fyne Restaurant, 24 Milsom Street, Bath, BA1 1DG. In doing so they have taken into consideration the Licensing Act 2003, Statutory Guidance, the Council’s Policy which includes the Cumulative Impact Policy, Human Rights Act 1998 and case law.

 

Members are aware that the proper approach under the Licensing Act is to be reluctant to regulate in the absence of evidence and must only do what is appropriate and proportionate in the promotion of the licensing objectives on the information before them. Members reminded themselves that each application must be considered on its own merits.

 

The proposed premises falls within BANES’ Cumulative Impact Area which means that pursuant to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

62.

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

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 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.   

Minutes:

The members of the Sub-Committee agreed that they were 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 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.

63.

CONSIDERATION OF FIT AND PROPER – 22/00349/TAXI pdf icon PDF 122 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

In attendance – Licensee.

 

The Licensing Officer presented the report to the Sub-Committee (LSC).  He advised Members to consider the matters, determine the issues and take any action they may consider suitable after hearing the representation from the Licensee.

 

The Licensee explained the circumstances why he had not submitted his insurance documents on time and apologised for this.  He added it was on a fleet policy not individual so he was not aware the documents had not been received by the Council.  It was confirmed that the onus was on the proprietor to submit these documents not any third party.  It was also confirmed that the policy had not changed in this respect since 2018.  The Licensee confirmed he had been in business for 30 years and it was the first time this had happened.  He had had up to 40 vehicles licensed and he was only human and made an odd mistake.  Since COVID all the processes went on-line and he was not good with computers and sent his documents via his insurance broker.  He had not checked if they had been received.  The Licensing Officer confirmed that he had also missed submitting his MOT certificate on time so there were repeated breaches which was why the Licensee had been referred to the Licensing Sub-Committee.  He confirmed that each Licensee attended the office and received and signed a copy of the terms and conditions, so the Licensee did have a copy of the terms and conditions of his licence.

 

The meeting adjourned for Members to consider the representations.

 

All parties were invited back into the meeting.  The Chair stated to the Licensee that it was important for him to understand the severity of the situation, his cumulative behaviour of repeated breaches over a few years in non-compliance with not submitting his documents on time and losing his Operator’s licence.  Earlier he had only referred to the current breach when he had not submitted his insurance documents on time.  The Sub-Committee wanted him to have every opportunity to explain all of the issues not just having not submitted his insurance documents on time.

 

 At the request of the Chair, the Legal Adviser went through each breach of the licensing terms and conditions with the Licensee, in order to give him the opportunity to provide his account.  On 23rd January 2020 the Licensee had received a final warning for failure to explain a gap in MOT cover.  He had been advised that if he came before the Sub-Committee again he would be at risk of revocation of his licence.

 

The Licensee stated he always told the truth and did not lie but this was dismissed.  He added that he was under a lot of pressure, not sleeping as his livelihood was at stake.  He was more concerned about his drivers.  He stated he had asked for a full copy of the terms and conditions of the licence.  The Licensing Officer confirmed that there was a copy on file of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

64.

CONSIDERATION OF IMPACT OF MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS - 21/02531/TAXI pdf icon PDF 118 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

In attendance – Licensee.

 

The Licensing Officer presented the report to the Sub-Committee.  He advised Members to consider the matter and determine any action.  The Licensee had informed Licensing that there had been a change in treatment for his medical condition.  The DVLA process allows for a suspension from driving and a reinstatement of a licence, provided the licensee can demonstrate that the treatment is well-managed and the licensee is fully aware of the condition and takes appropriate steps to monitor it.

 

In response to questions the Licensee stated the treatment had started a month ago and he needed to be monitored for another 2 months.  The treatment was manageable.  He recognised the importance of public safety as a licensed driver in respect of his medical condition

 

The Licensing Officer stated that the Licensee had done everything as he should and there had never been any complaints about him.  The Chair commented that there was a process laid down in respect of medical conditions like this.

 

Following an adjournment it was RESOLVED

 

Decision and reasons

Members have had to consider whether or not the Licensee is fit and proper to continue to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence in light of the disclosure of a medical condition. In doing so Members took account of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, Human Rights Act 1998, case law, Council’s Policy, conditions and the linked DVLA guidance.

Members reminded themselves that each case is considered on its own merits and regarding medical fitness the licensee must meet the higher standard of medical fitness for Group 2 (Vocational).

Members heard that the Licensee had notified licensing in advance that he would be commencing insulin therapy, and this had been confirmed by his Practice Nurse.

Members noted the conditions attached to a Combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence recommend immediate revocation of a licence on public safety grounds in these circumstances. Members also note however, that the DLVA process allows for suspension from driving and a reinstatement of a licence, providing the 3-stage process has been completed before a Licensee may resume driving.

Members gave credit to the Licensee for voluntarily ceasing to drive whilst recording the required blood sugar levels, for his clear acknowledgement of the importance of public safety and they commend him for his conduct in dealing with his medical circumstances. In all the circumstances Members find it reasonable and proportionate to follow the DVLA guidance and depart from the Policy so that a suspension is imposed here instead of revocation.

Accordingly, Members suspend the licence until the satisfactory conclusion of the 3-stage process. Authority is delegated to the Licensing Officer to reinstate the licence on receipt of a satisfactory consultant’s report and to issue future licences on a 12 monthly basis subject to satisfactory medical reports.

65.

CONSIDERATION OF FIT AND PROPER – 22/00326/TAXI pdf icon PDF 123 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

In attendance – Licensee and his wife.

 

The Licensing Officer presented the report to the Sub-Committee.  He advised Members to consider the matters, determine the issues and take any action they may consider suitable after hearing the representation from the Licensee.

 

The Licensee and his wife presented his case together.  They stated they had to amend the insurance mid-term to add a family member and had to do it on the phone before they went on holiday.  Once they were away and he forgot about it.  Previously the Licensee had worked for someone else and they had sorted all the paperwork out, sending reminders to submit insurance and MOT certificates.  The Licensee acknowledged that he should have known as he signed the terms and conditions.

 

With respect to the MOT, that was also before a holiday and when the vehicle had failed the MOT it had not been used as a taxi.  However, when they needed to be picked up from the airport a family member had used the vehicle to collect them.  He thought he was able to drive as the car was less than 3 years old so would not usually need an MOT.  The Licensee used a different garage for the MOT, for the repairs he had used the main dealer so had driven the vehicle between the two garages.  Though his car was relatively new it had been recalled to the main dealer 3-4 times.  The Licensing Officer confirmed that any taxi needed an MOT after one year and was considered a taxi 24 hours a day 365 days of the year.  Moving forward the Licensee confirmed he would be working for his previous employer again.  This way there would be no further breaches as he would get daily reminders for insurance and MOT documents.  The Chair stressed that ultimately the responsibility was the Licensee’s.

 

The Licensing Officer confirmed that he had dealt with the Licensee for a long time and he always engaged with him and was good with the public.

 

Following an adjournment for Members to consider their decision it was RESOLVED

 

Decision and reasons

Members have had to consider whether or not the Licensee is fit and proper to continue to hold his combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence in the light of failures to comply with the conditions of his Hackney Carriage Proprietors licences. In doing so Members took account of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, Human Rights Act 1998, case law and the Council’s Policy.

Members heard from the Licensee and his wife in oral representations who acknowledged the errors that had been made and provided Members with credible explanations, albeit wrong, for what had happened. They explained that they had put measures in place to ensure that this would not happen again, and these measures include daily reminders, for each of the 7 days prior to expiry of their MOT, for example.

Members noted that the Licensee had been licensed with the authority since 2010 and acknowledged the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.