Agenda, decisions and minutes

To appoint a Chair for this meeting.

That Councillor Richard Lloyd be appointed Chair for this meeting.

In the absence of the Chair of the Licensing Committee, nominations were sought for a Chair for this meeting.  On being put to the vote, Councillor Richard Lloyd was appointed.

RESOLVED:

That Councillor Richard Lloyd be appointed Chair for this meeting.

To receive any Declarations and advise Members accordingly.

None.

None.

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item as this was considered to contain exempt information by virtue of paragraphs 12 and 13 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

RESOLVED:

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item as this was considered to contain exempt information by virtue of paragraphs 12 and 13 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

For Members to consider and determine an application for a Private Hire / Hackney Carriage (Joint) Driver Licence.

The Sub-Committee considered all of the relevant matters together and on the balance of probability were not satisfied that the Applicant is a fit and proper person as under the meaning within the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 to hold a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence and that accordingly the application must be refused.

The Licensing Team Manager presented the report to consider an application for a Private Hire/Hackney Carriage (Joint) Driver Licence and to determine whether that person was a fit and proper to hold such a licence.  The Sub-Committee was also asked to consider whether any additional measures were necessary, should they decide to grant the licence.  The Licensing Team Leader then read out two character references in support of the application.

The Chair sought clarity from the Licensing Team Leader on the guidance and also aspects of the application process.

In response to a range of questions from Members, the Applicant provided information on the circumstances surrounding his application, the conviction  which was not disclosed on the form and his previous employment record.  Questions were also put to the Applicant by the Solicitor in respect of these matters.

On being asked if he wished to provide any supplementary information in support of his application, the Applicant made reference to his written representations.

When the Chair was satisfied that all relevant questions had been raised, he asked that the Applicant and the Licensing Team Manager leave the meeting to enable the panel to reach a decision.

Determination

Following the adjournment, the Applicant and Licensing Team Leader were invited to return so that the meeting could be reconvened.

The Chair advised that Members of the Sub-Committee had regard to the all the information including the Licencing officer’s report, the details of the conviction, the Council’s guidance on convictions and the statutory guidance as well as the explanations given and submissions made by the Applicant.

The Members considered that the conviction was relevant to the question of fitness and propriety.  In coming to this conclusion, they had regard to both the Council’s guidance on convictions and the statutory guidance.  Paragraph 4.18 from the Council’s guidance was considered more relevant to this application rather than the longer period within the DFT standard, given the type and circumstances of the offence and submissions made by the application.   This says that the Licensing Authority is unlikely to grant an application from a person convicted of an offence involving the use of violence resulting in actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, wounding, or assault, unless at least five years free of such convictions can be demonstrated.

The Members had regard to the explanations provided by the Applicant but were not satisfied that he had provided sufficient good reasons to depart from the guidance at this time.  The Members were also concerned that the Applicant had failed to disclose the conviction on the application form and whilst they considered that this was also relevant to the assessment of fitness and propriety, they accepted the Applicant’s explanation that this was a mistake so did not give much weight to this in their determination.

RESOLVED:

The Sub-Committee considered all of the relevant matters together and on the balance of probability were not satisfied that the Applicant is a fit and proper person as under the meaning within the Local Government  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.