Agenda item ___3____
LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee held at 10.00 am on 2
March 2015 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer.
Members Present:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs H Cox
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr P W High
Mr P Moore
Miss P Palmer
Mr R Price (Chairman)
Mr R Reynolds
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mrs A Sweeney
Mr J Wyatt
Officers in attendance:
Head of Environmental Health, Legal Advisor and Regulatory
Officer
25
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr B Hannah sent apologies.
26
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
27
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee held on 10
November 2014 and also the minutes of meetings of the Licensing Sub-Committee
held on 19 November and 16 December 2014 and 21 January 2015 were approved
as correct records and signed by the Chairman.
The Chairman stated that this was the last meeting of the Licensing & Appeals
Committee under the current administration, and thanked everyone for their hard
work.
Mrs H Cox thanked Members who had substituted for her on the Licensing SubCommittees when she had to declare interests.
28
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None.
29
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None.
30
MODEL STANDARDS 2009 FOR CARAVAN SITES
Councillor R Reynolds declared a non-prejudicial interest as he was a member of a
number of electrical associations which were involved with the caravan industry.
The Head of Environmental Health introduced the report, which sought adoption of
the Department of Communities and Local Government “Model Standards 2008 for
Caravan Sites in England”, and set out a process for applying appropriate
standards/conditions to new and existing Caravan Site Licences within North Norfolk
for consideration by the Committee. He explained that the procedure would allow the
Public Protection Manager to agree and impose conditions on new sites, or existing
sites where the licence was being upgraded, if there were no representations from
the site owners. If there was disagreement, the matter would be brought before the
Committee. The Public Protection Manager could also disapply conditions if they
were not appropriate or relevant.
The Committee discussed the report. The Head of Environmental Health answered
Members’ questions and made the following points:













Standards would be applied to gypsy and traveller sites if they were occupied on
a permanent basis, subject to any necessary adjustments for cultural reasons.
The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act covered site licence
requirements for gypsies and travellers and agricultural workers. Some were
excluded from the requirements for a site licence. These sites would be
considered on their merits.
Permanent residences were caught by the legislation, but those sites which were
not occupied as a permanent residence were not.
No site licence would be issued without the necessary planning permission being
in place.
For sites where there was mixed usage, Officers would consider the most
appropriate conditions for the site. It would not be appropriate to impose different
conditions for different elements of the site and the higher standards would be
used where there was mostly permanent residential. They would be considered
on a case by case basis.
A “site” could be one caravan, but realistically it would tend to be more than one.
Legislation around caravan sites has always worked around who is occupying it.
Officers must have regard to who is occupying a caravan when deciding how it
should be licenced.
The old and new systems were not significantly different. The Government had
reviewed the model conditions taking into account the improvements in
technology, design and modern practices. There were differences in respect of
issues such as fire precautions, amenities and density. It was a case of updating
and refreshing of the standards and conditions, rather than a fundamental review.
Some site operators were very conscious of the need to comply with legal
requirements. Some were more interested in looking at ways to increase their
business and the last thing on their minds was notifying the licensing authority of
changes of layout etc. The adoption of the model standards was the first part in
the processes of a fundamental review of caravan site licences. All sites would
be checked in order to ensure they were complying with legislation and were up
to date with conditions..
A Licensing Enforcement Officer had been appointed and the authority was now
more proactive.
Guidelines could be produced for residential sites so that everyone was aware of
the requirements.
The Fire Service had responsibility for all premises. The only reason the
Licensing Authority would impose a fire safety condition would be as a fall back in
cases which were not covered by the Fire Service.





Concern was raised with regard to lack of clarity with regard to requirements
imposed by other agencies. The Licensing Team would try to address issues with
stakeholders to get clarity for site owners.
The Mobile Homes Act gave Licensing Authorities the ability to charge for
licences. A fee for permanent residential sites had been adopted. The Public
Protection Manager was carrying out work on this matter and it was anticipated
that a report would be brought to the Committee for further consideration on the
fee structure. Fees were not being imposed at the present time.
Concerns were raised regarding letters which had been sent out to people
concerning fees. The Head of Environmental Health stated that he did not have
up to date information and an update would be provided when the Public
Protection Manager returned from leave.
Park homes and static caravans which had bricked bases and services
connected met the definition of ‘caravan’ as they were in theory still capable of
being towed. They were no longer caravans if they exceeded a certain size.
There had been no serious incidents on caravan sites as far as the Head of
Environmental Health was aware.
The Head of Environmental Health explained that NNDC owned sites were not
licenced as legislation did not allow licensing of sites in the licensing authority’s
ownership.
Members expressed concern that there were no licensing requirements applied to
NNDC’s sites whereas commercial sites had to be licensed. The Chairman
considered it would be failing in the Council’s duty of transparency to adopt model
standards for other sites which could not be applied to the Council’s own sites. He
suggested that Full Council be requested to consider seeking an independent
assessment of the Council’s sites with the findings reported back to an appropriate
Committee.
With regard to the Council’s site at Pudding Norton, the Head of Environmental
Health stated that a great deal of work had been done with Property Services to
ensure that they were aware of the requirements. Miss B Palmer, local Member for
the Pudding Norton site, stated that although much work had been done, some
problems, such as rats, remained.
Mr P Moore asked what the Council’s legal position would be if there was a serious
incident on its own sites and whether the Council had a duty to ensure that the sites
were safe and healthy.
The Head of Environmental Health stated that even though NNDC sites were outside
the licensing regime, they had to comply with rules and regulations which applied to
any other business. Eg. gas cylinders were within the remit of Health and Safety
legislation. As a local authority NNDC would not wish to be in a position of knowingly
operating outside the law.
Mr R Reynolds stated that there were already requirements and conditions in place,
both statutory and non-statutory. He suggested that these should be looked at and
documented.
The Legal Advisor advised that these issues were outside the remit of the report and
that the Committee should consider the adoption of the recommendations with regard
to licensed sites.
The Head of Environmental Health suggested that discussions take place with the
Head of Assets and Leisure issues regarding compliance with the standards. If the
model standards were adopted, the Council should move towards these standards
for its own sites. He suggested that an update as to the current position be sought
from the Head of Assets and Leisure and a report be brought to the Committee as an
alternative to pursuing the matter through another Committee or Full Council. The
Committee indicated that it was agreeable to this suggestion.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor Mrs H Cox and
RESOLVED
1. That the Model Standards 2008 for Caravan Sites in England for caravan
sites within North Norfolk for permanent residential use be adopted.
2. That the Public Protection Manager be given delegated authority to agree
and impose conditions on new Caravan Site Licences or to revise
conditions on existing Caravan Site Licences where no representations
have been received or on agreement with the site operator following receipt
of representations from the consultation process.
3. That in the event of agreement not being reached with the site operator
following receipt of representations from the consultation process, a
Licensing Panel be convened to determine the imposition of conditions on
new Site Licences or alteration to the conditions on an existing Caravan
Site Licence.
4. That the Public Protection Manager be given delegated authority to
disapply one or more conditions for specific sites where considered
necessary.
31
UPDATE ON GENERAL LICENSING ISSUES
The Head of Environmental Health updated the Committee on the following issues:
Changes to Delegated Authority – Hackney Carriage/Private Hire drivers’ licences
No incidents had occurred which had resulted in the revocation of hackney carriage
or private hire drivers’ licences under the delegated powers granted at the meeting
on 10 November. However, a serious allegation had been made against a driver and
the process had been commenced, but he had voluntarily surrendered his licence
prior to revocation.
Changes to the Disclosure and Barring Service
The new system was working very effectively and had speeded up the process,
although the cost to customers was slightly higher.
Taxi testing
The taxi test station contract was due for renewal, with the option to extend it for one
year. Tender documentation was in the course of preparation and a notice had been
published seeking expressions of interest.
Comments had been received from the taxi trade regarding the lack of choice as to
where they took their vehicles for testing, which involved a great deal of down time
for some firms in bringing their vehicles to Sheringham. There was now an
opportunity to explore the possibility of having a number of testing stations across the
District.
Workload issues
Some of the cases heard by the licensing panels recently had involved a significant
volume of preparation because of the complexity of the cases. Some cases which
had not been heard as they had been withdrawn or circumstances had changed had
also involved a large amount of preparation. The Head of Environmental Health paid
tribute to the Licensing Team for their work on these cases.
Mr R Shepherd referred to an application for a dog breeding establishment which
raised issues which he considered should be dealt with elsewhere, rather than by the
Licensing Sub-Committee.
The Legal Advisor stated that this had been an application for a dog breeding licence
and a great deal of work had been done by Officers as was required in connection
with such an application, and the application had been withdrawn prior to the hearing,
possibly as a result of this work. Issues had been raised which could possibly
constitute a criminal offence and Officers were liaising with other organisations.
Mr Shepherd considered that, having gathered the evidence, the Legal Advisor
should be requested to consider if it raised issues which should be dealt with by
another body.
The Head of Environmental Health stated that it was necessary to ensure that the
Licensing Sub-Committee only received information which was relevant to its
determination of a licensing application. This did not preclude working with other
organisations in dealing with related issues.
32
UPDATE ON TASK AND FINISH GROUPS
The Alternative Trading Task and Finish Group met in December 2014. No other
groups had met.
The Public Protection Manager was conscious of the need to move forward with the
remaining groups. However, other issues had taken precedence over some of the
development work.
The meeting closed at 11.27 am.
___________________
Chairman