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 Chair will, if required, explain the procedure.

The Chair drew attention to the procedure to be followed for agenda items 8 and 9.

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 two 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, 2 and 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended.   

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, RESOLVED that the public should be excluded from the meeting for the following two 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, 2 and 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended.   

Mr D A H confirmed that he understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer summarised the report and circulated a DBS certificate in respect of Mr D A H, a printout of his DVLA record and a written statement submitted by him. The meeting was adjourned to allow Members time to study these documents.

After the meeting was reconvened, Mr D A H made a statement and was questioned by Members. He made a closing statement.

Following a further adjournment the Sub-Committee RESOLVED that Mr D A H was a fit and proper person to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence, subject to the satisfactory completion of required tests. Authority was delegated to the Public Protection Officer accordingly.

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, oral representations and balanced these against the information disclosed by Disclosure and Barring Service and DVLA checks.

The applicant indicated that his previous caution arose out of situation where he was protecting his family. In relation to the speeding convictions these were not obtained whilst he was acting as a BANES licensed driver and were unfortunate incidents where he was wrong about the speed limits that were in force and had thought he was driving within the limits.  He also indicated that he was being put under pressure by his former employer to return from jobs quickly.

Members noted that Mr D A H’s caution was from 2011 and was not therefore, caught by the policy; he had been caution free for the period anticipated in the Policy.  In relation to the speeding convictions, Members noted that the Policy expects applicants will not have been convicted of three or more minor motoring offences during the previous three years however, Members also noted that they may depart from the Policy having had regard to the full facts of the case and having taken account of any mitigating or other circumstances put forward by the applicant.

In this case Members found that the speeding convictions were not obtained whilst Mr D A H was acting as a BANES licensed driver. Whilst Members take a dim view of motoring convictions, they were satisfied having heard from Mr D A H that he has learnt his lesson and would have to take extra care with his driving given that he has a number of DVLA penalty points hanging over him.

Accordingly, Members found Mr D A H 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Mr M A S confirmed that he understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer pointed out that the title of the report was incorrect and should be “Consideration of Conviction obtained”. He summarised the report and circulated a printout of Mr M A S’s DVLA record which had been obtained that morning. The meeting was adjourned to allow Members time to study this document.

After the meeting was reconvened, Mr M A S made a statement and was questioned by Members. He made a closing statement.

Following a further adjournment the Sub-Committee RESOLVED that Mr M A S continued to be a fit and proper person to hold a Combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence, but issued a warning as to his future conduct.

Reasons

Members have had to determine what action, if any, to take against the holder of a Combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence who it seemed had received three speeding convictions within a three year period. 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 licensee was a fit and proper person to continue to hold a licence considering all relevant circumstances.

Members took account of the licensee’s oral representations and balanced these against the information disclosed by the DVLA checks.

The licensee indicated that in relation to the speeding convictions he was only aware of having received two and had six DVLA penalty points on his licence. In relation to the complaint regarding his conduct he held his hands up for that and apologised for his wrongdoing.

Members noted that Mr M A S had received a written warning from BANES in February of this year for text messages that he had sent related to a contract he had been engaged in. In relation to the speeding convictions, Members found having considered an up to date DVLA print and oral representations from the licensee that on balance there only seem to be two motoring convictions on his DVLA licence and was not therefore, caught by the Policy. Members noted that Mr M A S had complied with the conditions of his licence by notifying the Council of a speeding conviction.

Accordingly, in all the circumstances Members found Mr M A S is a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence but warned him to take care with his conduct whilst dealing with customers and in relation to speed limits.

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 for Review: Mr Kenneth Jones

Other Parties: Cllr Liz Richardson and Mr Stephen Thier

License Holder: Joanna Drury, accompanied by her husband Mike Radford

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

The Public Protection Officer summarised the report. The Sub-Committee noted that the grounds for the review were the alleged undermining of the licensing objectives of the Prevention of Public Nuisance and the Prevention of Crime and Disorder. Two representations in support of the review and 102 representations in support of the premises had been received from Other Persons. There had been no representations from the Responsible Authorities. The Sub-Committee was invited to determine the application.

The Applicant for Review stated his case. He said that he was speaking on behalf of his wife and himself. Contrary to remarks made on social media by misinformed people, he did not wish the premises to lose its licence and be closed. However, the Rising Sun was a source of noise nuisance, which was impacting adversely on his wife and himself. People had moved away or had been deterred from purchasing property in the vicinity of the premises because of the noise. For three years he had requested the license holder and her husband in person and by telephone to close windows and doors when noisy events were taking place, or when amplified music was played. They had either ignored his requests, or had only closed doors and windows for a short period before reverting to the previous practice. New sash windows had been installed in about 2014, which had resulted in an increase in noise nuisance. The license holder appeared to have no regard or respect for those living in nearby properties. The volume of amplified music should be monitored and controlled. On one occasion the license holder told residents that the Environmental Health Team had advised that they should keep their own doors and windows shut, rather than the Rising Sun. This was unacceptable. Not even the application for a review had caused any change of behaviour at the Rising Sun; the previous day all the windows of the Rising Sun had been open. A wide variety of noise nuisance emanated from the premises. Some events, such as quiz nights, were accompanied by loud shouting and cheering. Sometimes he and his wife had to wear ear plugs in order to be able to sleep. They were also often woken by early-morning deliveries and waste collection vehicles, sometimes as early as 5.30am. These vehicles sometimes parked immediately outside his property and blocked the road, so that other vehicles had to mount the pavement causing damage to his property. On occasions customers coming from the pub had used his garden wall and front window sills as a table for their drinks. Because he had no response to his requests to the licence holder, he had had no option but to apply for a review of the licence. He did not wish to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

The Chair will, if required, explain the procedure.

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

Neither the applicant nor the objector was present. The objector had indicated that he would not be in attendance. Members heard from the Senior Public Protection Officer that the applicant had been notified of the hearing and had provided written representations in support of the application. Members considered whether or not they should proceed in the absence of the applicant and were satisfied that there was be no prejudice in doing so, as she was made aware of the hearing and had put her case in writing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer summarised the report and provided Members with a copy of the written representations from the applicant, which had been copied to the objector in advance of the hearing. This is attached as an Appendix.

Following an adjournment, the Sub-Committee RESOLVED to grant the application subject to the standard terms and conditions. Authority was delegated to the Public Protection Officer accordingly.

Reasons

Members have had to determine an application to place 3 tables along with appropriate seating on the highway to the front of the premises at 11 Old Bond Street, Bath. In doing so they took account of the Highways Act 1980 and the Human Rights Act 1998 and balanced the representations from the objector against the application and its background.

In reaching a determination members had to decide whether the application was likely to obstruct the free passage of pedestrians, cause a public nuisance in highway terms or be a hazard in its real sense.

Members considered whether or not they should proceed in the absence of the applicant however, they were satisfied that they had received notice of the hearing, following which they had submitted written representations in respect of their application. The objector had indicated they would not be in attendance and had been sent a copy of the applicant’s written representations. Whilst Members did not hear oral representations on behalf of the applicant or objector they took into account their written representations.

Members noted that there were no objections to the application from the highways authority.

Members noted that the conditions of the permit sought would address the concerns raised by the objector and in the event that those were not complied with, section 115K of the Highways Act 1980 makes provision for enforcing such non-compliance.

Members decided to grant the permit as proposed on the basis that they did not find that the application was likely to obstruct the free passage of pedestrians, cause a public nuisance in highways terms or be a hazard in its real sense.

Authority is delegated to the Public Protection Officer to issue the permit subject to the standard terms and conditions.