Agenda and minutes

To appoint a Vice-Chairman for the 2016/17 municipal year.

The Chairman requested nominations for the position of Vice-Chairman of the Licensing Regulatory Committee for the Municipal Year 2016/17.

It was proposed by Councillor Metcalfe and seconded by Councillor Redfern that Councillor Pattison be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Licensing Regulatory Committee for the Municipal Year 2016/17.  There being no further nominations, the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Councillor Pattison be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Licensing Regulatory Committee for the Municipal Year 2016/17.

Minutes of the meeting held on 24 March 2016 (previously circulated). 

The Minutes of the meeting held on 24^th March 2016 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 9 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 Chief Officer (Health and Housing) to seek decisions about varying the licence conditions on the caravan site licence for Broadfields Park.

Under the Scheme of Public Participation, Mr. Edward Bamborough spoke in connection with the report and outlined in detail the problems associated with the drainage system at Broadfields Park and the impact they were having on the residents.

The Public Health and Protection Manager reported that Broadfields Park Caravan Site was a protected site, as defined by the Mobile Homes Act 2013, and was licensed by the Local Authority under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.  The Council had adopted the Model Standards for Caravan Sites in England 2008, which required a good standard of services, facilities and amenities provision.  Additional non-standard conditions could be placed on a licence, where appropriate, which were specific to a site.

It was reported that the Council had received numerous complaints from residents of Broadfields Park regarding toilets and showers backing up after periods of intense or sustained rainfall, and reports of residents having to wade through ponded surface water.  Although Britaniacrest Ltd, the operators of the site, had taken some action to resolve the issues on each of those occasions, these had not always been speedy or had a lasting effect, and a longer-term and more proactive solution was needed.

The Council had held discussions with Britaniacrest Ltd in 2015, and advised them that the drainage system was unsuitable, insufficient and/or defective, and warranted full investigation and permanent resolution.  The question had been raised as to whether specific conditions needed to be added in connection with the drainage to improve the existing licence conditions.

Britaniacrest Ltd had, however, given assurances that they would carry out the necessary works voluntarily and without the need for them to be added to the licence conditions, which was in keeping with the informal approach to enforcement, in the first instance, recommended by the Mobile Homes Act and the Enforcement Concordat and Regulator’s Code, which local authorities must have regard to when pursuing enforcement.

The Council had therefore agreed a number of actions and associated deadlines in writing, which were to be completed by 28^th February 2016.  In response to the agreed actions, Britaniacrest Ltd had carried out a drain survey of a small section of the onsite sewerage network.  However, there was still uncertainty as to where the site sewerage drained to, and the Council was working with United Utilities on this issue.  Britaniacrest Ltd had also carried out partial improvement works to the surface water drainage in the worst impacted location of Broadfields Park, but had not completed all the actions, and the problems complained of by site residents had not been adequately resolved.

On 14^th April 2016, the Council had written to Britaniacrest Ltd to inform them of intentions to request a Formal Licence Review and alter site conditions, and giving them 28 days to make any representations.  Representations had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The meeting adjourned for 5 minutes.

The Committee is recommended to pass the following recommendation in relation to the following items:

“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 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.”

Members are reminded that, whilst the following items have been marked as exempt, it is for Committee itself to decide whether or not to consider them 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.

Report of the Licensing Manager

The Committee received the report of the Licensing Manager to enable Members to consider what action, if any, to take in respect of Mr. Stocks’ 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. 7, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

Decision of the Committee:

That Mr. Stocks be issued with a warning for failing to notify Licensing Services about the penalty points at the time they were imposed.

Report of the Chief Executive

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

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. Rodrigues’s hackney carriage and private hire dual driver’s licence be revoked and that the revocation be with immediate effect in the interests of public safety.

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

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

Report of the Licensing Manager

The Committee received the report of the Licensing Manager to seek Members’ approval of the adoption of the updated draft Convictions Policy.

It was reported that the Council had a duty to ensure, so far as possible, that drivers and operators were fit and proper persons to hold licences.  One aspect of that was the extent to which previous convictions indicated that a person was not a fit and proper person.  One of the checks in place to determine whether a person was a fit and proper person was the requirement to carry out an enhanced criminal record check, known as a Disclosure and Barring Check (DBS Check).

It was best practice for Councils to have a Convictions Policy to ensure that decisions were transparent and consistent, whilst still considering applications on their individual merit. The Council’s current Convictions Policy had been introduced in January 2007.  Following the serious case review in Rotherham, the Local Government Association had advised that all Local Authorities should review and update their Convictions Policies to ensure that they were fit for purpose.

Members considered the updated draft Convictions Policy, which was attached to the report and had been prepared in accordance with the principles of good enforcement and relevant Regulatory Compliance Codes.

It was proposed by Councillor Pattison and seconded by Councillor Charles:

“That the draft updated Convictions Policy for Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Licensing be approved.” 

Upon being put to the vote, Members voted unanimously in favour of the motion, which the Chairman declared clearly carried.

Resolved:

That the draft updated Convictions Policy for Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Licensing be approved.

Report of the Licensing Manager

The Committee received the report of the Licensing Manager, which gave feedback about the recent Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) presentation delivered to the hackney carriage and private hire trade, and asked Members to determine what fee, if any, should be charged to those who failed to attend any of the fifteen free sessions.

It was reported that the Committee had approved an amendment to the Rules, Regulations and Procedures for Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing in relation to drivers, proprietors and operators, in recognition of the importance of the role of licensing in safeguarding vulnerable children and adults highlighted by recent events in Rotherham, Rochdale and Oxford.

The condition stated that all licence holders, including drivers, proprietors and operators, must undergo CSE training before the first renewal of their licence after the end of January 2016.  It had been determined that the first few sessions would be provided free of charge and, after that, there would be a fee associated with attending.

It was reported that licensing officers had subsequently delivered 15 sessions of the CSE presentation over 3 full days in January, February and April, spread out over the day to try to provide adequate opportunity for everyone in the trade to attend.  Each session had lasted approximately 30 minutes.  All members of the trade had been written to and asked to contact licensing to make an appointment to attend one of the presentations.

After the sessions in February, all members of the trade who had not already attended were contacted and told that the last free day would be held in April and that they would need to book on to one of the five sessions.  Over the fifteen sessions, 545 members of the trade attended.  Only 61 members of the trade did not attend any of the presentations.  It was reported that eight of those 61 members had said that they did not intend to renew their licence.

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

(1)        That the information in relation to the numbers of the hackney carriage and private hire trade that attended the recent Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) presentations be noted.

(2)        That a fee of £10 be charged to each member of the hackney carriage and private hire trade, who failed to attend any of the initial fifteen free presentations, to attend a future presentation.”

Upon being put to the vote, Members voted unanimously in favour of the motion, which the Chairman declared clearly carried.

Resolved:

(1)        That the information in relation to the numbers of the hackney carriage and private hire trade that attended the recent Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) presentations be noted.

(2)        That a fee of £10 be charged to each member of the hackney carriage and private hire trade, who failed to attend any of the initial fifteen free presentations, to attend a future presentation.

Report of the Licensing Manager

The Committee received the report of the Licensing Manager to inform Members of the results of the consultation with hackney carriage proprietors in relation to the proposed variation of the current level of hackney carriage fares.

It was reported that, at its meeting on 24^th March 2016, the Committee had authorised the Licensing Manager to carry out a ballot of all hackney carriage proprietors in relation to a variation of the table of fares. 

Due to the low rate of RPI, two options had been put to the proprietors.  The first option was for an increase in line with the current Retail Price Index of 1.3% across all of the fares.  The second proposal was that 10 pence be added to each flag fall rate.  This effectively meant that the cost of every taxi journey would be increased by 10 pence.

Ninety-eight papers had been sent to the owners of the 108 hackney carriage vehicles currently licensed and 14 ballot papers had been returned.  Of the 14 papers returned, 12 elected to vote for the 10 pence increase on the flag fall.  There had been no votes for an increase in line with the RPI and 2 had voted for no increase at all.

The majority of those who had voted were in favour of the 10 pence increase in the flag fall.

Resolved:

(1)        That the results of the ballot of hackney carriage proprietors in relation to a fare increase be noted.

(2)        That it be noted that the proposed table of fares would be advertised in line with the current legislation; any objections received within the 21 day representation period would be reported back to the Committee; if no objections were received, the table of fares would come into force at the end of the representation period or as soon as it was practicable for the proprietors to have their meters calibrated to the new rates.

Report of the Licensing Manager

The Committee received the report of the Licensing Manager to enable Members to consider objections to the proposed variation in licensing fees in relation to hackney carriage and private hire vehicle licences approved in principle by the Committee.

It was reported that on 24^th March 2016, the Committee had considered a proposed variation of the current level of fees in relation to hackney carriage and private hire licences and miscellaneous licences.  The Committee had approved in principle the variation in fees, as set out in the report.

The proposed fees had been duly advertised and objections had been received from seven hackney carriage proprietors.  Two of the emails received did not set out any reason for objecting and nothing had been forthcoming. 

The objections did not provide any evidence of figures to indicate why the fees should not be increased, and appeared to be objecting to the difference between the cost of a private hire vehicle licence and a hackney carriage vehicle licence.  One of the objectors made reference to the increase being higher than the rate of inflation.  However, there was no requirement to set any of the fees in line with inflation.  Fee setting should be based on cost recovery and inflation was not the only factor influencing the cost of each licensing function.

The March report clearly set out why the fees for hackney carriage vehicle licences and private hire vehicle licences should be different, based on actual allocations of cost, including the provision, control and supervision of ranks with regard to the setting of fees for hackney carriage vehicle licences, and the administering of hackney carriage vehicle licences, due to the requirement to set and advertise fares and to administer the hackney carriage unmet demand survey.  The cost of controlling and supervising ranks had been quite high due to the high rate of non-compliance, and this would be continuously monitored.  If a reduction in enforcement in that area due to better compliance resulted in a reduction in cost, the fees in relation to hackney carriage vehicle licences would be reviewed accordingly.

One of the objections was partly in relation to the reduction in private hire vehicle fees.  However, these had been set at cost and it would be unlawful to charge more.  Not to reduce these fees would leave the Council in danger of legal challenge by charging more than the actual cost.

The fees in relation to operators’ licences had already been implemented as no objections had been received in relation to them.

It was reported that the Council was required to consider the objections and then set a date not later than 2 months after the first specified date on which the variation of fees should come into force with or without modification as decided after consideration of the objections.  The first specified date in this instance was 29^th May 2016.  Although ordinarily the variations to fees had come into force from 1^st April in line with other Council fees and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.