Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services Officer drew attention to the Emergency Evacuation 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.

(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 4.4 Appendix 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 Officer or a member of his staff before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

There were none.

There was none.

The Chairman referenced the procedure for each of the applications before the Sub-Committee and stated that all parties would be given an equal opportunity to make their representations and give evidence.

All parties present acknowledged that they had received and understood the procedure that would be followed at the meeting.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) introduced the report to the Sub- Committee. He explained that they were being asked to determine the application for a new Premises Licence for Budo Ba, 3 Argyle Street, Bathwick, Bath. BA2 4BA.

He stated that a relevant representation had been received from the owner of a flat located above the premises within the statutory period.

Terrill Wolyn, the applicant’s agent, addressed the Sub-Committee and confirmed the application was for the Exhibition of Films (indoors), Late Night Refreshment (indoors) and the supply of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises.

In respect of the exhibition of films she said that the intention was to show Japanese films silently on screen. She added that the application does not include any request to allow live or recorded music to be played at the premises.

She explained that the concept behind the new premises had been trialled at another of the owner’s premises within the city, The Grapes in Westgate Street, and that this had not had any adverse effect on any of the licensing objectives, nor had it affected the lodgings directly above it.

She informed the Sub-Committee that BeerCraft had operated from the same premises in Argyle Street between 2017 – 2022 which included a taproom underneath the residential flat. She stated that no complaints had been made to the Licensing department regarding its use.

She said that a number of other premises in the area have either later or similar hours of operation to those that are being applied for and that the premises was not within the cumulative impact area.

She stated that there have been no objections received from the Police or any other of the Responsible Authorities and no direct objection from the tenant of the flat above the premises.

She said that it was anticipated that there would be minimal noise from customers leaving the premises and that the owner was willing to offer a further condition as follows.

·  No new customers will be allowed entrance to the premises beyond 23.30.

The Chairman asked if while the concept had been trialled at The Grapes whether films had been shown.

The applicant, Ellie Leiper replied that films had not been shown during the trial period.

The Chairman asked the Public Protection Officer (Licensing) if he could confirm the hours that the taproom at BeerCraft operated under.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) replied that they ceased their licensable activities at 23.00 every day.

Suzanne Evans had made a relevant representation and was present to address the Sub-Committee. She informed them that she owns the first floor flat above the premises and has let it on a long-term basis for the past eight years. She said that she feared her tenant would have problems if the premises operated after 23.00.

She said that the applicant had accompanied her to a visit to the flat whilst some music was played in the premises below and informed the Sub-Committee that some of the noise was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 124.

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.   

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.

It was 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.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) introduced the report to the Sub-Committee. He explained that they were being asked to determine whether a driver remains fit and proper to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Drivers licence.

He outlined the key points from the report and stated that additional information, correspondence between the driver and himself, had also been circulated to the Sub-Committee prior to the meeting.

The Chairman invited the First Complainant into the meeting. He and the Team Leader, Legal Services asked her to confirm that the content of the statement made on 27^th October 2022 was true and accurate and asked her to confirm some of the specific points from within it.

The First Complainant confirmed that the statement was true and accurate.

The driver was given the opportunity to ask questions of the First Complainant through the Chairman but he did not have any questions that he wanted to ask.

The Chairman asked the driver if his recollection of the journey involving the First Complainant was similar to the statement that she had made.

The driver replied that it was not.

The members of the Sub-Committee thanked the First Complainant for attending the meeting. She then left the room as the meeting continued.

The Chairman asked the driver to address them on why he believed he should remain considered as fit and proper to hold his licence and referred him to each of the annexes from the report.

The driver informed the Sub-Committee that he had a high rating as an Uber driver and that over 15 years he had provided journeys for around 200,000 customers. He added that he has a clean driving licence and has not been convicted of any action.

He said that on the journey of 17^th October 2022, it was 5/6 months ago, and he does not remember word by word the conversation, he only engaged in usual small talk with the First Complainant and that you can judge if some customers will want to talk or not. He added that many times the customer will say please I don’t want to talk, I have just broken up with my boyfriend or something like that.

He denied saying that the First Complainant ‘…can read men’s minds and you’re beautiful’ and that he did not offer her his mobile number. He added that he could not recall the whole conversation.

The Chairman asked the driver if he had said that he would ‘…lay his seat back’ when nearing the home of the First Complainant.

The driver replied that he did not.

The Chairman explained that a statement had also been made by a friend of the First Complainant who was at home at the time of the journey and that she had received a text message to say that ‘…her driver was acting a bit weird and that she felt uncomfortable’. He added that the friend had agreed to meet the First Complainant at home after asking to be dropped at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) introduced the report to the Sub-Committee. He explained that they were being asked to determine whether a driver remains fit and proper to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Drivers licence.

He outlined the key points from the report.

The Chairman asked the Public Protection Officer (Licensing) if there had ever been any gaps in insurance cover or MOT status of the driver’s vehicle.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) replied that there had been none.

The Chairman asked the driver to address them on why she believed she should remain considered as fit and proper to hold her licence.

The driver replied apologised and said that she had simply forgot to do this part of the process. She added that she had been quite unwell over the past two years, having caught the Covid virus 5 times.

Councillor Steve Hedges asked how she would make sure that this does not happen again.

The driver replied that she would now set herself multiple reminders to fulfil the process and said that she was now more aware of how serious this situation had become.

The Chairman asked the driver if she felt she had given the Sub-Committee as much information as she could regarding her case.

The driver replied that she had.

Decision & Reasons

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

Members heard from the Licensee in oral representations who indicated that she had had completely forgotten, she had had Covid 5 times and health problems over the last two years. In order to stop this happening again she will make sure that she gets reminders and because she is here today, she will be more careful and aware of the consequences.

Members noted that compliance with the conditions relating to MOT and insurance certificates is vital so that the Council can be assured that the safety of the public when travelling in a BANES licensed vehicle is not compromised. Indeed, compliance with all licence conditions is of the utmost importance.

Members noted that this concerned a purely administrative failure to comply with the conditions of her licence and there had not been a gap in insurance cover.

With that in mind, on balance, Members find that the Licensee is fit and proper to continue to hold the combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence, but they issue a warning to the Licensee in the strongest possible terms that:

1. She must comply with the conditions on her licences in all matters as they are an important safeguard to ensure the safety of the travelling public.

2. She must take care to ensure that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) introduced the report to the Sub-Committee. She explained that they were being asked to determine whether an applicant should be granted a combined licence to enable them to drive Hackney Carriage/Private Hire vehicles.

She outlined the key points from the report and distributed copies of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) Certificate and a statement that had been written by the applicant to the Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee paused for a few moments to allow the Members to read the content of the DBS Certificate and the accompanying statement.

The Chairman asked the applicant to address them on why he believed he should be granted a licence.

The applicant explained that since 2017 he had not had an alcoholic drink and that at this present time he did not feel that he would ever do so again. He added that he was currently a part-time bus driver.

Decision & Reasons

Members have had to determine an application for the grant of a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence where the applicant has a previous conviction. In doing so Members took account of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, Human Rights Act 1998, case law and the Council Policy.

Members took into account the applicant’s oral representations, the contents of the report and the results of the Disclosure and Barring Service check.

The applicant addressed Members in oral representations and indicated that he had voluntarily decided not to drink alcohol since 2017 and that he drives part-time as a bus driver.

Members noted that this previous conviction was not caught by the Council’s Policy which provides that a period of 5 years should have elapsed since the last conviction of this nature, which had been in 2015. Members further noted that he was currently driving on a professional basis as a part-time bus driver.

Members determine that the applicant is fit and proper to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence.

Accordingly, authority is delegated to the licensing officer to grant the licence subject to satisfactory outcome in respect of the remainder of the licensing process.