Agenda and minutes

Minutes of the meeting held on 26 November 2015 (previously circulated). 

The Minutes of the meeting held on 26^th November 2015 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

There were no items of urgent business.      

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 is recommended to pass the following recommendation in relation to the following item:

“That, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business, on the grounds that it could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information, as defined in paragraph 1 of Schedule 12A of that Act.”

Members are reminded that, whilst the following item has been marked as exempt, it is for Committee itself to decide whether or not to consider it in private or in public. In making the decision, Members should consider the relevant paragraph of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, and also whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.  In considering their discretion Members should also be mindful of the advice of Council Officers. 

In accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public were excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information, as defined in paragraph 1 of Schedule 12A of that Act.

The Committee received the report of the Licensing Manager to enable Members to consider whether to renew Mr. Hinchey’s private hire driver’s licence.

Details of the individual case and the Chairman’s summary of the decision are set out in Exempt Minute No. 57, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

Decision of the Committee

That Mr. Hinchey’s private hire driver’s licence be revoked and that the revocation be with immediate effect in the interests of public safety.

Councillor Edwards joined the meeting at this point.

Report of Chief Officer (Governance)

The Committee received the report of the Chief Officer (Governance) to inform Members of a decision taken by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chairman of Licensing Regulatory Committee.

Details of the individual case and the decision are set out in Exempt Minute No. 58, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

Decision of the Committee

That the decision taken by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chairman of Licensing Regulatory Committee, in relation to the following matter, be noted:

That Mr. Blackwood’s hackney carriage driver’s licence be revoked and that the revocation be with immediate effect in the interests of public safety.

Report of the Chief Officer (Governance)

The Committee received the report of the Chief Officer (Governance) to inform Members of a decision taken by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chairman of Licensing Regulatory Committee.

Details of the decision are set out in Exempt Minute No. 59, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

Decision of the Committee

That the decision taken by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chairman of Licensing Regulatory Committee, in relation to the following matter, be noted:

That Mr. Boyd’s private hire driver’s licence be revoked and that the revocation be with immediate effect in the interests of public safety.

The press and public were readmitted to the meeting at this point.

The Committee received the report of the Chief Officer (Governance), at the request of a Member, to enable the Committee to consider the delegation of decisions to refuse the grant of a hackney carriage or private hire driver’s licence.

It was reported that a Member had asked whether:  “in the interests of streamlining the work of the Committee and reducing the deficit, it would be reasonable to delegate officers to deal with all driver’s licence applications, and provide that a driver has a right of appeal to the Committee within 21 days if he/she does not accept the officer decision.  This would (to some extent) reduce the number of applications that had to be brought before the Committee and reduce administration costs for the licensing service”.  Details were set out in the report to enable Members to consider the suggestion.

The options open to Committee were to delegate to officers the authority to refuse new applications for hackney carriage and private hire driver licences, to delegate the decision to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chairman, or to maintain the current position, whereby only the Committee had authority to refuse new applications.  Members were advised that, in the event of a refusal, the statutory right of appeal would be direct to the Magistrates’ Court.

The officer preferred option was for the Scheme of Delegation to be amended to authorise the Chief Officer (Governance) and the Licensing Manager to refuse new applications for hackney carriage or private hire driver licences. 

Officers recommended that the decision not to renew a driver’s licence should remain with the Committee. 

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

“That the recommendation set out in the officer’s report be approved.”

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

Resolved:

That the Scheme of Delegation be amended to authorise the Chief Officer (Governance) and the Licensing Manager to refuse new applications for hackney carriage or private hire driver licences, where satisfied that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.  

Report of Licensing Manager

The Committee received the report of the Licensing Manager to enable Members to consider the responses to the recent consultation about the perceived problem in relation to the availability of wheelchair accessible vehicles.

On 3^rd September 2015, the Committee had resolved that a consultation should be undertaken with the hackney carriage & private hire trade and stakeholders on potential solutions to the perceived problems relating to the availability of wheelchair accessible vehicles.  A consultation letter had been sent to all stakeholders and the Committee had met with representatives of private hire operators to discuss the issue.

A total of 22 responses had been received to the consultation.  Most of the responses acknowledged that there was a problem in relation to the availability of wheelchair accessible vehicles.  However, there was no consensus as to any sort of workable solution, and officers did not consider the responses to be conclusive.

One of the responses suggested that two additional hackney carriage plates for wheelchair accessible vehicles could be allocated to each of the three large operators in the district, who would then be required to employ drivers specifically to drive those vehicles.  The drivers would be on an hourly rate, which would eliminate the problem of drivers losing money on dead mileage and so on. 

It was reported that if Members decided that this solution should be explored, the co-operation and agreement of the operators would be required, together with further consultation and discussion.  Any arrangement would have to be properly documented to ensure that appropriate and enforceable licence conditions were imposed.  In the interests of fairness, consideration should be given as to whether such an arrangement could be extended to other operators.

Another option would be to wait until the unmet demand survey next year, and to authorise the Licensing Manager, when commissioning that survey, to request a specific assessment of the demand for and availability of wheelchair accessible vehicles, and to request that the survey report include possible solutions based on that assessment.

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

“That the Committee waits until the unmet demand survey next year and authorises the Licensing Manager, when commissioning that survey, to request a specific assessment of the demand for and availability of wheelchair accessible vehicles, and to request that the survey report include possible solutions based on that assessment.”

It was then proposed by way of amendment by Councillor Hamilton-Cox:

“That officers be asked to explore the solution suggested in one of the responses that two additional hackney carriage plates for wheelchair accessible vehicles could be allocated to each of the three large operators in the district, who would then be required to employ drivers specifically to drive those vehicles, and that the drivers be on an hourly rate.” 

There was no seconder for the amendment and therefore the Chairman did not put it to the meeting.

Councillor Gardiner then proposed by way of amendment:

“That the requirement for drivers of registered wheelchair accessible vehicles to undergo  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.