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 no urgent business.

The Sub-Committee RESOLVED to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 19^th October 2023.

The Chair made reference to the procedure and stated that all parties would be given a fair amount of time to make their statements and give their evidence to the Sub-Committee,

The licensees, applicants and other parties that were present confirmed that they had received and understood the licensing procedure.

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 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 driver confirmed that he had read the papers for the meeting which had been sent to him.  A printed copy of the agenda papers was provided for the driver, and he was then given time to read through these with the aid of an interpreter.  He then confirmed that he understood the licensing procedure and was happy to go ahead with the hearing.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) presented the report to the Sub-Committee.  He explained that they were being asked to determine the driver’s fitness to continue to hold a combined hackney carriage/private hire driver’s licence.

The driver addressed the Sub-Committee and referred to the littering offence that he had been accused of.  He stated that the time of the CCTV of the incident was not consistent with the time stated on the letter sent to him by the Council.  The Licensing Officer confirmed that the fine for the littering offence had been paid in full.

The driver stated that he is a good taxi driver and has received no complaints in relation to his work.  He stated that he had previously worked for a school in Italy.  He explained that he had been concerned by the behaviour of the child he was transporting as she had pulled the escort’s hair and kicked her, she had also kicked the chair and punched the windows.  He felt that it would be unsafe to drive while this behaviour continued which is why he made the comments to the child as set out in the report.  No concern was expressed by the escort or the parent at the time.

He then spoke about the incident where he had been issued penalty points for waiting at a taxi rank and stated that this had been a mistake and had been unintentional.

When stopped by the Civil Enforcement Officer regarding a littering offence the driver stated that he had been angry at the time and had apologised for his behaviour.  This had been a mistake and he did not feel that it was a serious criminal offence.

Cllr Steve Hedges asked whether the driver felt it was acceptable to raise his voice to a child and to say what he had said.  The driver stated that he had been trying to calm the child down and to assist her escort.  He noted that there was also a language barrier which could have added to the confusion.  He had concerns about being able to drive safely due to the behaviour of the child. 

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) noted that the driver’s behaviour had caused the escort to make a complaint and report him.  He also referred to the safeguarding course which the driver had subsequently attended.

The driver stated that he had not understood everything on the safeguarding course due the language barriers.  He did not remember much about the course.

Cllr Toby Simon asked the driver what type of work he was doing now.  The driver explained that he is working as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) introduced the report to the Sub-Committee.  He explained that they were being asked to determine the driver’s fitness to be able to continue to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence.

The driver addressed the Sub-Committee and confirmed that he had provided the blood test and medical information which they requested at the last meeting.  He confirmed that he hardly drinks any alcohol at the present time.

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 a Conditional Caution from the police obtained during the currency of his licence. In doing so Members took account of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, Human Rights Act 1998, case law and Council’s Policy.

The Licensee appeared before the Licensing Sub Committee on 07.09.23 when there was a decision to defer the hearing to a later date. This was so that the licensee could liaise with his GP to provide a view in relation to whether or not the licensee continues to meet the Group 2 DVLA driving standards, and this could include the licensee obtaining a Carbohydrate Deficient Transferrin (CDT) test.

Members reminded themselves that each case is to be considered on its own merits.

Members heard from the licensee who indicated that he had done what Members had asked of him since the last hearing.

Members had regard to the fact that the licensee has had no complaints from members of the public in the eight years that he had been licensed, they also noted that he complied with the conditions of his licence in that he reported his arrest the day after the incident. Conversely, they noted the that he received a caution from licensing in March 2019 for driving a Private Hire vehicle whilst not holding a valid Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence. Members noted however that the licensee was on his way to the licensing office to renew his licence when he committed the offence.

Members note that the Policy provides any new applicant is expected to have been caution free during the previous two years and that a serious view will be taken of any convictions occurring whilst the person holds a current licence. For the purposes of the Policy ‘conviction’ is taken to include a caution. Members can depart from the Policy where there are cogent reasons for doing so. In relation to the caution administered by Licensing in 2019, whilst he had committed an offence this was done out of ignorance, and that offending behaviour alone does not call into question his fit and proper status. In relation to the incident on 11.01.23, they find that to be an out of character isolated incident. Having considered the results of the CDT DVLA approved blood test, Members note that his current levels as of 20.09.23 show that they fall within the category of those who consume little  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

The Sub-Committee will return to open session.

At this point the Sub-Committee returned to open session.

The Sub-Committee confirmed that they had received copies of the additional information circulated by the Licensing Consultant.  They were also provided with paper copies of the documents at the meeting. 

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) presented the report to the Sub-Committee.  He stated that they were being asked to determine an application for a variation of a Premises Licence for Raincheck, 7 Edgar Buildings, Bath, BA1 2EE.  He confirmed that no comments had been received from the responsible authorities.  Two relevant representations had been received, one from a local resident and one from the Chair of the Circus Area Residents’ Association.  He also explained that the premises is located within the B&NES Cumulative Impact Policy which is relevant to the application.

Cllr Toby Simon asked whether any complaints had been received regarding this premises.  The Public Protection Officer confirmed that no complaints had been received in the last two years.

Terrill Wolyn, Licensing Consultant, presented the case for the applicant and explained that Raincheck is a high-end premises with professional people as its clientele. She pointed out that there have been no concerns or complaints received since the licence was granted.

She explained that the issues raised by the objectors were not relevant to the licensing objectives.  She stated that there is no evidence that groups of revellers in the proximity had left a licensed premises.

She stated that there is no evidence that Raincheck creates a serious disturbance.  There is also no evidence to suggest that family life for residents would be detrimentally affected as the clientele and circumstances would be the same on Monday to Wednesday as on Thursday to Saturday.  No issues have been raised regarding the clientele with regard to noise, public nuisance or crime and disorder.  This is a testament to the way that the premises is managed.  The current conditions under which the premises operate are appropriate.

Ms Wolyn also explained that the general principles of the Licensing Act must apply and that a variation must be granted if there are no relevant objections.

In response to a question from Cllr Toby Simons it was confirmed that Raincheck is a cocktail bar and not a food establishment.  The applicant also explained that on weekdays they operate a table service for around 30 to 50 people with no large groups.  It was also noted that there are generally no hen or stag parties mid-week and that these groups would have to pre-book and door staff would then be provided.

Cllr Steve Hedges asked whether there was music at the premises.  The applicant stated that there is relaxed music which is not too loud and that there is no dance floor.  Notices are provided asking people to respect neighbours.  Ms Wolyn explained that there is a wind down period to ensure that people do not all leave the premises at the same time.

Ms Wolyn summed up by stating that this is a stylish and well-run establishment which is part of Bath’s vibrant and diverse  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.