Agenda and minutes

Minutes of the meeting held on 15 October 2015 (previously circulated). 

The Minutes of the meeting held on 15^th October 2015 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

In accordance with Section 100B (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), the Chairman ruled that the Committee should consider an item of urgent business relating to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 – Proposed New Hackney Carriage Stand in Lancaster.  The reason for urgency was that a decision was required prior to the next scheduled meeting of the Committee on 7^th January 2016.

The Chairman informed the Committee that the report would be considered following declarations of interest.

To receive declarations by Members of interests in respect of items on this Agenda. 

Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Localism Act 2011, they are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests which have not already been declared in the Council’s Register of Interests. (It is a criminal offence not to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest either in the Register or at the meeting.)

Whilst not a legal requirement, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10 and in the interests of clarity and transparency, Members should declare any disclosable pecuniary interests which they have already declared in the Register, at this point in the meeting. 

In accordance with Part B, Section 2 of the Code of Conduct, Members are required to declare the existence and nature of any other interests as defined in paragraphs 8(1) or 9(2) of the Code of Conduct. 

There were no declarations of interest.

The Committee received the report of the Licensing Manager to request that Members approve in principle the provision of a new hackney carriage stand for 8 vehicles to be operative between the hours of 1.00 a.m. and 3.30 a.m. from September through to the end of June in Lower St. Leonardgate car park in Lancaster opposite the rear entrance of the Sugar House.

The Licensing Manager reported that numerous complaints had been received regarding hackney carriage vehicles forming a rank in the Lower St. Leonardgate car park in Lancaster from approximately 1.00 a.m. on the days that the night club was in operation.  Five warning letters had been issued to hackney carriage drivers for breaching the Byelaw adopted by the Council.

Officers had liaised with the car park manager and an agreement had been reached for a rank to be established for a trial period, provided that provisions were put in place to ensure that any rank would not disrupt the workings of the car park and that it was made clear to drivers how the rank would operate.

“That the recommendations set out in the report be approved, and that there be a report back to Committee in April on how the rank is working.”

Upon being put to the vote, Members voted unanimously in favour of the proposition, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be clearly carried.

Resolved:

(1)        That the appointment of a new hackney carriage stand for 8 vehicles, to be operative between the hours of 1.00 a.m. and 3.30 a.m. from
1^st September until 30^th June every year, in the car park known as Lower St. Leonardgate, Lancaster, which is opposite the rear entrance of the Sugar House University Night Club, for 8 vehicles, be approved.

(2)        That the Chief Officer (Governance) be authorised, in accordance with Section 63 (2) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, to advertise the proposed change to the hackney carriage stand provisions in Lancaster, as set out in resolution (1) above.

(3)        That there be a report back to Committee in April on how the rank is working.

The Committee received the report of the Chief Officer (Governance) to enable Members to consider a referral from the previous meeting.

It was reported that at its meeting on 15^th October 2015, the Committee had requested that a report be presented to the next Committee meeting that considered the implications of two proposals tabled by two Members at that meeting.

The first proposal contained in the report was that the following be appended to paragraph 6.1(c) of the Licensing Enforcement Policy:

“A warning letter will remain on file for an indefinite period but it will not normally be referred to in any subsequent report to the Licensing Regulatory Committee if a period of 3 years has lapsed since it was issued and no other warning letter was issued within that period.

For example, if a warning letter was issued in June 2010 and then no further warning letters are issued until August 2013, the warning letter issued in 2010 would not be referred to.

However, if a warning letter was issued in 2010, a further warning letter in 2011 and then a warning letter in 2012, all 3 warning letters would be referred to in any subsequent report to the Licensing Regulatory Committee to show a pattern of behaviour.  If a person uses previous good character as a defence before the Committee, and refers to an earlier period during which one or more warning letters had been issued but omitted from the report, those warning letters would then be disclosed to Members for their consideration.”

The report indicated that officers supported the proposal, subject to the addition of the words “unless there are exceptional circumstances” at the end of the first paragraph.  Officers also recommended that the dates in the second paragraph be updated, and that the new words would be clearer if they were to form a new paragraph 7 in the Enforcement Policy.

The second proposal was that:

“A suspected offender in receipt of a warning letter shall have the right to request, within 21 days of receipt of the warning letter, an appeal hearing before the Licensing Regulatory Committee to ask for the warning letter to be withdrawn.”

It was reported that if Members were to consider an appeal against a warning issued by an officer, this would make the process for taxi licensing different from that which applied to warnings across the whole range of the Council’s enforcement functions.

Members were advised that Licensing Officers issued an average of three warning letters to hackney carriage and private hire drivers, and private hire operators each month.  This figure could be exceeded on occasions.

To deal with an appeal would require thorough consideration of evidence, and increase the workload of the Committee significantly.  It was possible that additional meetings would be required.  There would be an increase in demands on staff resources in terms of preparing reports, publishing agendas, and attending meetings and preparing minutes.  This would mean that there would be less time for staff to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

Councillor Novell left the meeting at this point.

The Committee received the report of the Chief Executive to enable Members to review the arrangements for Licensing Surgeries. 

It was recommended that, in reviewing any future arrangements, consideration should be given to the terms of reference of the Surgery and which Members should attend.  It was proposed that the remit of the Surgery should be to consider general policy issues relating to the licensing of hackney carriage and private hire vehicles, and that it be made clear that it was not within the remit of the Surgery to consider individual cases or operational matters.  Any issues raised should be referred to officers, the Committee or Cabinet, as appropriate.

It was suggested that the Surgery would be more focused and effective if it were to be held by the Chairman alone, or by the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, with officer support, which would make a clear distinction between the Surgery and the formal Committee.  Once an issue was raised at the Surgery, the Chairman could then, if appropriate, request officers to prepare a report for the Committee, provided that the issue was properly a matter for consideration by the Committee.  This would ensure that all the relevant information could be provided to enable the Committee to consider the matter and make any necessary decision.

Each Surgery would be supported by one or two chief officers of the Council.  Licensing officers would not be in attendance.  This would emphasise that it was not the role of the Surgery to consider operational matters, or to provide immediate explanations or responses, but rather to ensure that issues raised were followed up and referred to the appropriate decision-maker.

The above changes would make the role of the Surgeries clearer and their operation more effective. It was reported that Members might also wish to consider whether an appointment system should be introduced for each Surgery, with a maximum of two individuals attending each appointment.

It was proposed by Councillor Hartley and seconded by Councillor Redfern:

“That the recommendation set out in the report be approved, namely:

(1)        That the terms of reference of the Surgery be clarified so that they provide an efficient and effective mechanism for individual hackney carriage and private hire licence holders to raise issues, which may then be referred for further consideration by officers, the Committee, or Cabinet, as appropriate. 

(2)        That future Surgeries be attended by the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, supported by officers.”

It was then proposed by Councillor Mace, by way of amendment, and seconded by Councillor Guilding:

“(1)      That the terms of reference of the Surgery be clarified so that they provide an efficient and effective mechanism for individual hackney carriage and private hire licence holders to raise issues, which may then be referred for further consideration by officers, the Committee, or Cabinet, as appropriate.

(2)        That:

(a)        future Surgeries be attended by the Chairman/Vice-Chairman;

(b)        any other member or substitute member of the Licensing Regulatory          Committee be       entitled to attend future Surgeries;

            (c)        a Surgery be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

Report of the Licensing Manager

The Committee received the report of the Licensing Manager to seek approval from Members for the proposals set out in the report in relation to the delivery of Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) training to all members of the hackney carriage and private hire trade; and to approve an amendment to the Rules, Regulations and Procedures for Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing to include a condition making it a requirement for all holders of hackney carriage and private hire licences (drivers, operators and proprietors) to undergo the CSE training before a licence can be renewed.

At the meeting on 3^rd September 2015, the Committee had resolved that the Licensing Manager be authorised to develop a suitable CSE training package, in conjunction with the Safeguarding Officer and the Lancashire Officers’ Group, which could be delivered to hackney carriage/private hire drivers and Members, and to report back to the Committee at a later date to seek approval of implementation of the training.

As a result of this resolution, officers had developed a package in liaison with neighbouring authorities and police officers from the Lancashire Constabulary Public Protection Unit, which was in the form of a presentation, followed by questions, and aimed at encouraging discussion and thought, rather than being a pass/fail situation. 

It was proposed that existing licence holders, including operators, proprietors and drivers would be invited to attend one of five free training sessions, which would be held one day in January with the support of DCI Tony Baxter of the Lancashire Constabulary Public Protection Unit.  Members of the Committee would also be invited to attend.

It was further proposed that two more free training days would be offered, one in February and one in March.  Both days would offer five sessions for members of the trade to book on to.  In total, 15 free training sessions would be offered.  The training sessions in February and March would be carried out by Licensing Officers who had been trained to deliver the sessions.

Following delivery of the free training sessions, it was proposed that a cost should be associated with further training sessions for those who had not taken advantage of the offer of free training to encourage a greater uptake of the free training.  The cost would need to be calculated and would be included in the fees report due to be submitted in the New Year.

It was proposed that new drivers would be given a booklet, which was being produced by Lancashire County Council, as part of the application pack.  CSE would form part of the knowledge test, which was already carried out, and would not require a change of condition.

It was proposed by Councillor Mace and seconded by Councillor Gardiner:

“That the proposals set out in the report be approved, subject to the word ‘training’ being replaced by the word ‘presentation(s)’”

Upon being put to the vote, 6 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 2 against, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.