10 July 2013 Licensing and Appeals Committee Council Chamber

Please Contact: Linda Yarham

Please email: Linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk

Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019

10 July 2013

A meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee of North Norfolk District Council will be held in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on Monday, 22 July 2013 at

10.00 a.m.

At the discretion of the Chairman, a short break will be taken after the meeting has been running for approximately one and a half hours. Coffee will be available in the foyer outside the Council

Chamber at 9.30 a.m. and at the break.

Members of the public who wish to ask a question or speak on an agenda item are requested to arrive at least 15 minutes before the start of the meeting. It will not always be possible to accommodate requests after that time. This is to allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of members of the public. Further information on the procedure for public speaking can be obtained from Democratic Services, Tel: 01263

516010, Email: democraticservices@north-norfolk.gov.uk

Sheila Oxtoby

Chief Executive

To: Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mrs H Cox, Mrs A R Green, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr B Hannah, Mr

P W High, Mr B Jarvis, Miss B Palmer, Mr R Price, Mr R Reynolds, Mr R Shepherd, Mr B Smith,

Mrs A C Sweeney, Mrs L Walker, Mr J A Wyatt.

All other Members of the Council for information.

Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public.

If you have any special requirements in order to attend this meeting, please let us know in advance

If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact us

Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby

Corporate Directors: Nick Baker & Steve Blatch

Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005

Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk

Web site northnorfolk.org

A G E N D A

TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 1.

2.

3.

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

MINUTES

(attached – page 1)

To approve as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Licensing and Appeals

Committee held on 19 November 2012 and also the minutes of the meetings of the

Licensing Sub-Committees held on 14 November and 12 December 2012 and 22 January,

26 February, 26 March and 24 April 2013.

4.

5.

ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS

To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government

Act 1972.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest.

6.

CHANGES TO THE LAW AFFECTING SALE OF ALCOHOL AND ENTERTAINMENT

LICENSING AND OTHER TOPICAL ISSUES (page 35)

Summary:

This report updates Members on recent changes to the law and on consultation issues

Conclusions:

Recommendations:

Cabinet member(s):

Councillor John Lee

Licensing Committee Chairman

Councillor Richard Price

Contact Officer, telephone number, and e-mail:

Ward(s) affected:

All

Chris Cawley 01263 516252

Chris.cawley@north-norfolk.gov.uk

7.

CHANGES TO THE LAW AFFECTING SCRAP METAL DEALERS

Summary:

(page 39)

This report updates Members on recent changes to the law and the implications for the Local authority as licensing authority

Conclusions:

Recommendations:

Cabinet member(s):

Councillor John Lee




Ward(s) affected:

All



9.

8. TO RECEIVE UPDATES ON MEMBERS TASK AND FINISH GROUPS

EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

To pass the following resolution, if necessary:

“That under 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 involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph _ of Part I of

Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”

10. TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF THE

PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA

Agenda item _____3______

LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEE

Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee held at 10.00 am on 19

November 2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer.

Members Present:

Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds

Mrs A Green

Mrs P Grove-Jones

Mr P W High

Mr R Price (Chairman)

Mr R Reynolds

Mr R Shepherd

Mrs A C Sweeney

Mr J Wyatt

Also Present:

Mr J Lee, Portfolio Holder for Licensing

Officers in attendance:

The Licensing Manager, the Legal Advisor and the Democratic

Services Officer (AA).

18 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Mr B Hannah, Ms B Palmer and Mr B Smith.

19 PUBLIC QUESTIONS

None received.

20 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee held on 24

September 2012 and also the minutes of the meeting of the Licensing Sub-

Committee held on 22 October were approved as correct records and signed by the

Chairman.

Mr P High enquired whether any further meetings had been held with the Taxi

Forum. The Chairman said that one meeting had been held which he had attended but had to leave early. Mr J Lee updated Members on that meeting and said that he had had very positive dialogue with the taxi trade. Terms of reference had been agreed. He hoped to report further progress to Members at their next Licensing and

Appeals Committee meeting.

21 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS

None.

22 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

None received.

19 November 2012

23 LICENSING ACT 2003 – REPORT COVERING 2011-12

The Licensing Manager presented the report. There was a duty in licensed premises to ensure that they did not sell alcohol to young children. Young children had access to alcohol at home. The feedback from Police was that incidents associated with youth had been linked through that and not underage sales. The number of licensed premises had increased slightly. A few village halls had acquired a premises licence and a number of pubs in the District had closed and were being sold off. Several market towns were suffering as a result. Following the loss of village shops, there was concern that villages were losing their heart. Perhaps this was an opportunity for some premises to be taken into local ownership.

The Council liaised with neighbouring authorities and other authorities such as the

Fire Service and Police when undertaking investigations. Members had previously expressed concerns over no responses from other authorities to application consultations; these tended to be low priority for some because of resourcing issues.

Mr P High referred to a recent Sub-Committee meeting to consider granting a premises licence at which concerns had been expressed over access to the premises in case of emergency. The Chairman suggested that Local Members could be proactive in expressing their concerns about licence applications based on local knowledge.

The Licensing Manager responded to Mrs A FitchTillett‟s questions that the few incidents which took place at temporary events related mainly to noise. The doubling of fines for persistent underage sales was a sanction provided by the Government and it would be up to the courts to deal with these on the basis of prosecution.

Mr R Price considered that changes to the Licensing Act would result in many complaints as all licensed premises would be able to play live music until 11pm. The

Licensing Manager responded that the number of noise complaints which the Council received would reflect the situation. He had written to the owners of premises asking them to observe good practise and restrict activities to what the building was suitable for.

The Legal Advisor responded to Mrs P Grove-Jones that if there was a noise nuisance, an abatement notice may be served. A noise nuisance did not necessarily have to be over a certain level; sudden or low, base noises could also be included.

In response to a question from Mr R Reynolds, the Licensing Manager explained that live music at temporary events notices would require prior notification of events. The onus would be on the proprietor to advise the Council. He considered that it was events run by private individuals who were unaware of requirements which may cause issues.

The Licensing Manager explained to Mrs P Grove-Jones that there were a limited number of circumstances in which only 5 days‟ notice should be given for an event.

The Chairman thanked Officers for preparing the report. He also thanked Officers for dealing with licences and giving advice.

24 GAMBLING ACT 2005 – REVIEW OF GAMBLING POLICY

The Council was required to review its gambling policy every three years.

Discussions on the Policy had taken place between the seven District Councils in

19 November 2012

Norfolk which had originally drawn it up. A 12-week consultation period had taken place during which time only one response had been received. This was from the

Horse Racing Board which had suggested some amendments.

The Licensing Manager responded to Members questions. He explained in what situations tombalas and raffles required a licence. The heading “Fee setting - when appropriate” referred to some fees being set by local authorities and some by the

Secretary of State. In this particular case, the fees had been set by the local authority and later increased by the Cabinet. In some cases, there was a significant discrepancy of fees between local authorities. The Licensing Manager said he would make available to Members the proposed level of fees to be presented to the

Cabinet. In amusement arcades, children were allowed in family areas, but out of school time only – proprietors were aware that schools sometimes had different holidays to each other.

RECOMMENDATION to Full Council

To adopt the Gambling Policy including amendments suggested by The Racecourse

Association Limited.

25 TO RECEIVE UPDATES ON MEMBERS TASK AND FINISH GROUPS

Hackney Carriage and Private Hire

The Licensing Manager reported that he had met with taxi drivers and that the Taxi

Forum was likely to meeting quarterly.

Alternative Trading

Charitable Collections and Lotteries

The Licensing Manager said that these were two areas which the Council had a duty to oversee. At the last meeting, he had reported to Members that there was very little spare resources to deal with these two areas in order to move the policies forward.

The situation now was the same but worse in terms of Council Officers available. He suggested that these two areas be left for the time being as it would not be possible to move them forward in the foreseeable future.

Mr R Reynolds asked what was the situation with door to door collections and would the Council continue to issue licences. The Licensing Manager replied that these would continue to be issued when requested, provided that the organisation was bona fide. If Members considered that some were a higher priority, they could be looked at. Members could reflect on whether they felt resources should be allocated to looking into door to door collections whereby organisations requested donation by direct debit. Mr P W High supported Mr Reynolds concerns and suggested that

Cabinet be asked to provide more resources to look into door to door and street collections. The Chairman said that from his experience, „cold calling‟ was very difficult to police and may in some cases require the Police to intervene.

The meeting closed at 11.05 am.

___________________

Chairman

19 November 2012

LICENSING AND APPEALS SUB-COMMITTEE

Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Sub-Committee held on 14

November 2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at

10.35 am.

Sub-Committee Mr B Hannah (Chairman)

Miss B Palmer

Members in Attendance:

Officers in Attendance: The Legal Advisor, the Licensing Manager, and the

Democratic Services Officer (AA)

1

Mr B Smith

Mr P W High (for item 4)

2

APOLOGIES

None received.


3

None received.


4

None

APPLICATION FOR NEW PREMISES LICENCE – THE FOLLY TEAROOM,

4 HOPPERS YARD, BULL STREET, HOLT, NORFOLK NR25 6LN

The following were present:

In support of the Application

Mr A Walker – Applicant

Ms J West – Joint Proprietor

Mr N Dodds - Solicitor

The Chairman introduced the Panel and Officers. The Legal Advisor confirmed the names of those present and outlined the procedure for the

Hearing. She explained that, at a later stage, the Panel would withdraw to make a decision. She would accompany them to provide legal advice and to assist them to formulate their reasons but would not take part in the making of the decision.

The Licensing Manager presented the report. He drew attention to paragraph

3.2a of the report concerning a noise condition and suggested that this particular condition be more clearly worded in order to address the noise aspect which objectors to the application had concerns over.

The Chairman pointed out that whilst no objections had been received from any of the responsible authorities, some of them had not responded at all.

Mr N Dodds, Solicitor for the applicants put their case:

Licensing Sub-Committee 4 14 November 2012

When the application had originally been made for a new premises licence, this had been made by another firm on behalf of the applicant and had been for the sale of alcohol, recorded and live music during the hours of 8am and

8pm. The licence was not implemented and there was no need for the premises to have provision relating to live music. He believed the premises did not need provision for recorded music because it would be background music, with no huge amplification, inside the tearoom not outside. He considered that it did not require a licence because it was background music and people would be visiting the tearoom to eat and drink and not listen to music. Mr Dodd circulated photographs of the tearoom and surrounding area.

Questions were asked of the Applicant and Solicitor and the application was discussed: a) The Chairman said the Sub-Committee had concerns of safety over the size of the gate and whether the emergency services would be able to access the premises. Mr Dodds responded that the arch was to be made bigger although there had been no planning concerns over this. Norfolk

Fire Service had also raised no objection. The tearoom was a Grade II listed building in a conservation area and the Council’s Planning Officer had advised keeping the gate as it was. The applicants, however, wished to make it accessible and would take on board the SubCommittee’s views. The applicant added that the gate access would be raised and made wide enough for wheelchair access. Mr Dodds said that, on occasion, students of music from Gresham’s School may be present playing instruments. The applicant wished to live in peace with neighbours. Ms J West, Joint Proprietor, confirmed that what Mr Dodds had said was true. Mr Dodds considered that paragraph 3.2 was unenforceable and an amended condition was read out. b) Ms B Palmer asked whether there would be a limit on the amount of instruments playing. The applicant confirmed that there would and that there would also be a small choir at Christmas. c) The applicant confirmed to Mr B Smith that the lighting in the garden would be low key. d) Mr B Smith asked whether vehicles would be parked for any length of time along Bull Street. Mr Dodds confirmed that they would not as the applicant owned the house to the right of the tearoom. e) Mr B Hannah referred to one of the letters of objection which stated that the site was locked at 7pm. Mr Dodds said that this was incorrect as the

Planning Committee had stated that it should be locked at 8pm. f) The Licensing Manager asked for clarity on whether the venue was to be let out to a third party. Mr Dodds responded that the venue would not be advertised for outside lets, but should someone wish to hold a celebration there, it could be let out for an afternoon and be in keeping with the character of the place and would not be let out for a disco. g) The Legal Advisor referred to the original application for live music and asked for clarification on whether this aspect would be withdrawn. Mr

Dodds confirmed that this aspect would be left in but made clear that it was for background music only. h) Mr P W High, Local Member for Holt, said that he knew two of the objectors to the application but was encouraged by what he had heard concerning the outside of the venue and the increase in the size of gate.

He was happy with the application. i) Before the Sub-Committee retired to make their decision the Legal

Advisor explained that Member would consider only relevant representations and would disregard any comments which did not assist


5

6 with considering the likely effect of grant of the premises licence on the promotion of the licensing objectives.

The Sub Committee retired at 11.15am to consider their decision and returned at 11.30am.

The Chairman told the applicant that the Sub-Committee hoped they would continue to do what they had said they would do.

RESOLVED

To grant the licence with the following condition in addition to the mandatory conditions:

A designated premises supervisor or nominated representative shall ensure that no nuisance is caused by noise emanating from the premises by implementing a Self Policing Policy which shall include sound checks inside and out.

EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC

RESOLVED

That under 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 involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.

APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE TO DRIVE A HACKNEY CARRIAGE OR

PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES IN NORTH NORFOLK

The applicant was present.

The Chairman introduced the Panel and Officers. The Legal Advisor outlined the procedure. She explained that, at a later stage, the Panel would withdraw to make a decision. She would accompany them to provide legal advice and to assist them to formulate their reasons but would not take part in the making of the decision. The Applicant needed to satisfy the Sub-Committee that he was a fit and proper person to drive a hackney carriage or private hire vehicles in North Norfolk.

The Licensing Manager outlined the application. The applicant had a provisional offer of employment from a taxi firm. Two convictions recorded in the CRB check had not been shown on the application form. Two references relating to previous employment and character were included with the application.

The applicant explained that when completing the application form his employer had suggested leaving the form blank where it asked for details of convictions as it was not clear whether these concerned driving convictions or criminal convictions. The Licensing Manager explained that the application stated any convictions.

The applicant explained the circumstances of the convictions, but that he now had a family to support.


Mr B Hannah asked whether he had had a job at the time of the convictions.

The applicant responded that he had not.

The Sub Committee retired at 11.45 am to consider their decision and returned at 12 noon.

In response to the Chairman, the applicant told him the ages of his children.

The Chairman said that he was disappointed that the applicant had not filled in the application form correctly and should not have listened to advice telling him to do so. The Sub-Committee would grant the licence. The Chairman told the applicant that although the offences were not serious, he must not commit them again. He now had a family to think about. If he committed the offences again, his taxi licence would be taken away.

RESOLVED

To grant the licence.

The meeting concluded at 12.45pm.

__________________________

Chairman




December 2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at

10.10 am.

Sub-Committee Mrs H Thompson (Chairman)

Mr R Price

Officers in Attendance:

Also in Attendance:

1

2

3

Mr B Smith

The Legal Advisor, the Licensing Manager, and the

Democratic Services Officer (AA)

The Applicant and supporter

APOLOGIES

None received.


None received.


5

6

None


RESOLVED

That under 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 involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.

(WK/120034076) APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE TO DRIVE A HACKNEY

CARRIAGE OR PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES IN NORTH NORFOLK

The applicant and supporter were present.

The Chairman introduced the Panel and Officers. The Legal Advisor outlined the procedure. She explained that, at a later stage, the Panel would withdraw to make a decision. She would accompany them to provide legal advice and to assist them to formulate their reasons but would not take part in the making of the decision. The Applicant needed to satisfy the Sub-Committee that he was a fit and proper person to drive a hackney carriage or private hire vehicles in North Norfolk.

The Licensing Manager outlined the application. The application satisfied medical and DVLA requirements. The Applicant had not, however, indicated that he had committed any offences which he was required to do, but this had been identified in the CRB check. The Applicant had volunteered to amend

Licensing Sub-Committee 8 12 December 2012

his application to include this information. The amended application had been circulated to Members as it was felt that this warranted further consideration.

The Licensing Manager circulated the CRB form to Members to look at.

Mr B Smith commented that the application did not require the number of years driving experience to be shown. The Licensing Manager explained that this related to whether the applicant had previously been a taxi driver which would require further checks to be undertaken on his taxi licence history.

The Applicant explained the circumstances of the convictions. The company for which he wished to work had advised him that it was not necessary to include them in his application as they had been committed over ten years ago. The Chairman responded that the Council’s Licensing Manager encouraged applicants to supply information about any convictions. The

Applicant explained that he believed it was no longer necessary for him to include this information. He needed the job as a taxi driver in order to support his family. The A pplicant’s supporter agreed that this information should have been included. He added that the Applicant had been very persistent in pursuing the job to be a taxi driver. The Chairman added that there was a lesson to be learnt by the A pplicant’s supporter as an employer to ensure that this information was included in applications.

Mr R Price commented that the offences had been committed when the applicant was 21 not, 18 or 19 as he had stated. He asked the Applicant how many points he had on his driving licence. The Applicant replied that he had none. Mr Price asked for more information about one of the offences which the Applicant supplied.

The Applicant said that he needed the licence in order to be able to support his children.

The Legal Advisor explained the determination process; to grant a licence,

Members must be satisfied that the Applicant was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi in North Norfolk. They may consider that he did not supply information concerning his offences, the relevance of this, how long ago they were committed and his position in life now. The Sub-

Committee’s overall objective was the protection of the travelling public.

The Sub-Committee retired at 10.30 am to consider their decision and returned at 11.58 am.

The Chairman said that not disclosing information was a serious issue and the Council could refuse to grant a licence and even prosecute the applicant.

He had been encouraged not to disclose the information by his supporter but the Licensing Manager had encouraged him to disclose it. The Chairman considered that the incidents of the past should help the Applicant to understand due care in this matter and he would have a responsibility to the public. It was in the Applicant’s favour that he had been persistent in his pursuit of employment. His commitment was to being a proper taxi driver and being responsible for his actions. He now had a young family to support and it was important that he should have that responsibility to the public as well.

The Sub-Committee was duly minded to grant the licence, but would act accordingly on any misdemeanours.


RESOLVED

To grant the licence.

The meeting concluded at 11.02 am.

__________________________

Chairman




January 2013 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at

10.45 am.

Sub-Committee Mr B J Hannah (Chairman)

Mr R Price

1


2

Mr R Reynolds

The Legal Advisor, the Licensing Manager, and the

Regulatory Officer

APOLOGIES

None received.


3

None received.


4

None

APPLICATION FOR NEW PREMISES LICENCE – THE FUNKY

MACKEREL, THE PROMENADE, SHERINGHAM NR26 8BH

Neither the Applicant nor any members of the public were present for this item.

The Licensing Manager reported that the consultation period for this application had closed and, as objections had been received, it was necessary to hold a hearing within 28 days. However, there had been insufficient time to prepare a full report for this meeting and, as the next meeting would be outside the time limit, the matter was reported to the Sub-

Committee with a recommendation to adjourn the matter to the next meeting.

The Applicant had agreed to this course of action.

In response to a question from the Chairman, the Licensing Manager stated that no concerns had been raised by any statutory authority in respect of this application. All representations had been received from local residents.

RESOLVED

That this application be noted and adjourned for a full hearing on 26

5

February 2013.


RESOLVED

That under 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

Licensing Sub-Committee 11 22 January 2013

6 grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.

APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE TO DRIVE A HACKNEY CARRIAGE OR

PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES IN NORTH NORFOLK (WK/120046272)

The Applicant and supporter were present.

The Chairman introduced the Sub-Committee and Officers. The Legal

Advisor outlined the procedure to be followed. She explained that, after hearing the representations on this matter, the Sub-Committee would retire to make its decision. She would accompany the Sub-Committee to provide legal advice and assistance in formulating its reasons but would not take part in making the decision. The Sub-Committee needed to be satisfied that the

Applicant was a fit and proper person to drive a hackney carriage or private hire vehicle in North Norfolk.

The Licensing Manager stated that the Council dealt with very few cases involving consideration of fitness to drive for medical reasons. He explained that the Council had recently adopted the DVLA Group 2 standard of medical fitness for taxi drivers, which required taxi drivers to undergo the same medical tests as bus and lorry drivers. The Council had previously applied the DVLA standard for Group 1 drivers. This standard was being applied to new licence applications and licence renewals.

In the Applicant ‟s case, the Doctor had reported a number of issues which had been caught by the Group 2 medical examination. The Licensing

Manager had spoken to the GP who had carried out the tests and exchanged correspondence which was appended to the agenda, and had received a further letter from her. She had confirmed that she had no concerns regarding the Applicant ‟s fitness in terms of his surgery, treatment and medication. However, the applicant had not undertaken an exercise test as required in the detailed procedure under the Group 2 standard. Whilst the

Council had adopted the Group 2 standard, it had not adopted the detailed procedures and there was a question as to whether the Applicant should be required to undertake exercise testing or whether it could be waived.

The Licensing Manager circulated the further letter from the Applicant

‟s

Doctor and the relevant appendix to the DVLA‟s detailed guidelines to be followed by doctors when assessing medical fitness.

The Chairman referred to a document contained in the appendix to the report in which the Doctor had certified the Applicant as unfit. The Licensing

Manager explained that in terms of the guidelines the Applicant had not met all the criteria. In certifying him unfit, the Doctor was saying that she was aware of the Applicant ‟s fitness and condition, but he had not ticked all the boxes. The guidelines said that unless certified fit, an Applicant was required to undertake specific testing.

The Sub-Committee read the circulated documents.

Mr R Reynolds asked the Applicant if he would be willing to undertake exercise testing. The Applicant replied that he would, and added that he went to the gym four times a week. He considered that the GP would have certified him fit had he undertaken a fitness test.


Mr Reynolds referred to a statement on page 17 of the report which stated that the Applicant was fit, whereas page 24 of the report stated the opposite, subject to testing.

The Licensing Manager stated that the Council would receive an increasing number of such cases. There were many drivers who were on medication.

Fitness to drive now required more evidence than a straightforward check by a GP. This had to be recognised and followed through.

The Legal Advisor referred to a requirement in the appendix to the guidelines which required the licen ce holder to inform the DVLA “unless stated otherwise in the text” and asked if this section of the licence applied to taxi drivers, bus and lorry drivers, or to any driver regardless of the type of licence held.

The Licensing Manager explained that domestic drivers had to notify category

1 conditions. He stated that in terms of taxi licensing, the guidelines should be read as if they were for Local Authorities rather than the DVLA. He stated that they were guidelines. He circulated a paragraph of the guidelines relating to taxi licensing.

The Chairman asked the Applicant if he had anything he wished to add.

The Applicant stated that he needed to work and wanted to get back to work as soon as possible.

The Chairman asked if the Applicant was willing to undertake the exercise test.

The Applicant ‟s supporter stated that this issue had gone on for months and nobody seemed to know what they were supposed to do. The Applicant needed to earn money and the matter seemed to have been kicked into the long grass.

The Applicant stated that he was not warned of the fitness test before he went to his GP. He again confirmed that he was willing to take the test. He was concerned that if he passed the test, whether there would be anything else he had to do.

Mr R Price asked the Applicant about his eyesight and whether he wore lenses to drive. The Applicant confirmed that he wore glasses when driving.

The Legal Advisor explained that the Sub-

Committee‟s decision would be based on whether it was satisfied that the Applicant was a fit and proper person to drive taxis in North Norfolk and, in making that decision, Members would consider the Applicant ‟s right to earn a living as well as general public safety. In this case, the Sub-Committee would consider the Applicant ‟s medical issues. The options open to the Sub-Committee were to grant a licence with condition(s) or to refuse the application. The Sub-Committee had heard from the Licensing Manager and had considered the guidelines for medical practitioners. The Licensing Manager had emphasised that they were guidelines only and it was not necessary to follow them to the letter.

Members may take into account the information they had received.

At the request of the Chairman, the Applicant confirmed his date of birth as there was an anomaly in the paperwork received by the Sub-Committee.


7

The Sub-Committee retired at 11.05 am to consider their decision and returned at 11.10 am.

The Chairman stated that the Sub-Committee was prepared to grant a licence subject to the Applicant passing an exercise test in accordance with the

DVLA‟s current guidelines on fitness to drive. The Applicant should submit the information to the Licensing Manager once the test had been taken.

The Licensing Manager informed the Applicant that he had made enquiries as to where the exercise test could be undertaken. It would appear that Norwich

Airport Medical Centre was the likely venue but he would check and inform the Applicant accordingly.

The Applicant stated that he had enquired of his GP and Norfolk and Norwich

University Hospital and neither were prepared to carry out the necessary testing.

RESOLVED

That a licence be granted subject to the Applicant successfully undertaking an exercise test in accordance with the DVLA

Guidelines.

REPORTED BREACH OF CONDITIONS OF A VEHICLE LICENCE AND

LICENCE TO DRIVE HACKNEY CARRIAGE OR PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES

IN NORTH NORFOLK (WK/120040865)

The Appellant was not present. The Licensing Manager circulated an email he had received from the Appellant tendering his apologies for nonattendance.

The Licensing Manager outlined the case, which related to a breach of conditions by operating a taxi without displaying a licence plate and endangering passengers by having the licence plate loose in the passenger compartment. He stated that the matter could be dealt with by a points penalty, suspension or revocation of the licence. He stated that this was analogous with the way speeding drivers were dealt with. The Appellant had initially declined to accept points, which had resulted in this hearing.

However, he subsequently telephoned to say he was unable to attend the meeting and agreed to the case being heard in his absence and indicated his willingness to accept a points penalty.

In response to a question from the Legal Advisor, the Licensing Manager stated that this was not really an appeal against the decision, but it offered an appeal route by handing delegated powers back to the Sub-Committee.

The Licensing Manager explained that until the Council adopted the points system all such matters were brought to the Sub-Committee. There was an overlap and the Sub-Committee had jurisdiction, regardless of the Appellant ‟s attendance or non-attendance at this meeting, to impose points. If the Sub-

Committee decided to give a penalty above three points it could be argued that it was a harsh decision.

In answer to a question by Mr R Price, the Licensing Manager stated that it was a requirement of national law to display the licence plate. The plate rema ined in NNDC‟s ownership. Mr Price considered it strange that the


adhesive used by the Appellant to attach the plate to the vehicle had been so poor that it had failed on three occasions.

Mr R Reynolds considered that the Appellant had shown arrogance and there must be a way to fix the plate properly. It was obvious from the letter that the plate had been loose in the vehicle and could have become a projectile in an accident or even under harsh braking. He asked if in issuing points the

Appellant could be advised in a strong manner that this was not acceptable.

The Chairman asked if it was possible to suspend the vehicle licence until the

Council was satisfied that the plate was securely attached, as well as issuing points.

The Licensing Manager explained that there were two licences involved. The vehicle licence required the plate to be displayed, but it was the responsibility of the vehicle licence holder to ensure that it was done. The Appellant was therefore responsible under both licences. He had to ensure the car was properly plated and that it was not dangerous. It was up to the licence holder to decide how he wanted to fix the plate. He stated that licence holders could purchase brackets from the firm which supplied the plates, but in this case it appeared that the owner of the vehicle had decided to use adhesive.

In response to a question by Mr R Price, the Licensing Manager stated that the Appellant was a fairly new driver. Mr Price considered that the Appellant should have familiarised himself with the handbook and been aware of the conditions. The Panel considered drivers should familiarise themselves with the requirements of the Taxi Handbook.

The Licensing Manager explained the sanctions available to the Committee and answered questions. There were two licences in parallel; the vehicle licence and the driver‟s licence. Sanctions could be placed on either licence; by the issue of penalty points to the driver or suspension of the vehicle licence until the Licensing Authority was satisfied that it complied with the licensing requirements. The policy required the licence plate to be affixed to the rear exterior of the vehicle. He circulated copies of the drivers‟ handbook which explained the requirements.

The Sub-Committee then considered the evidence which had been placed before it and it was

RESOLVED

1.

2.

That three points be endorsed on the taxi driver’s licence.

That the licence on the vehicle be suspended until such time as it is presented to the Licensing Authority’s approved testing centre, namely Henries of Sheringham,

Weybourne Road, Sheringham and is assessed as meeting the standards required in Part 7 of the Taxi

Handbook regarding affixing the licence plate.


8 APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE TO DRIVE HACKNEY CARRIAGE OR


The Applicant was present.




The Licensing Manager outlined the application. The Applicant had not undergone a medical examination at this stage to avoid possible unnecessary expense, but would do so in the event of his application being approved. He stated that the Applicant ‟s history in relation to his driving convictions was relevant to this case.

The Applicant explained that he was not proud of his convictions. They were in the past and were part of his past. Subsequently he had held positions of responsibility including running his own business. He had run a public house which required him to consider drink driving very seriously. He did not agree with drink driving, for which he had two convictions, and realised it was not the right thing to do. He stated that in running a pub he regularly took car keys from his customers. In terms of other responsibilities, he now had a young family. He reiterated that he was not proud of his past, had no intention of repeating it, and was a responsible person. In response to a question by Mr R Reynolds, he explained his financial circumstances which meant he did not have money to waste on a medical examination which might be unnecessary. He confirmed his willingness to undertake the examination if his application was approved.

Mr Reynolds asked the applicant if he felt he had an alcohol problem. The applicant stated that he did not.

Councillor R Price sought clarification from the applicant regarding the length of his driving experience, stating that the applicant had been banned for 5½ years in total and therefore he had 13 years‟ experience and not as stated in the application. He had also indicated on the form that he had previously held a taxi drivers‟ licence. The applicant stated that he had not subtracted the years he had been banned. He confirmed that he had not previously held a taxi licence and had ticked the wrong box when completing the form.

At the request of the Chairman the applicant gave details of the public house which he had been running and the circumstances under which it had closed.

He also answered questions regarding his family circumstances and responsibilities. He gave details of the company for which he would be driving and the area covered in the event that his application was approved.

Mr R Reynolds asked the applicant if he understood the consequences of drink-driving and that those consequences could reverberate further than the individual. The applicant confirmed that he was very much aware of it.


In response to a question from the Legal Advisor, the Applicant stated that he could not remember his alcohol reading. He added that on the second occasion, on which he was imprisoned, he had been told to expect a community sentence but had been tried by a magistrate with a reputation for imposing prison sentences for drink driving offences. As for the reasons, the only answer was stupidity and he could not make any convincing excuses for what were „pretty tragic mistakes‟. He was thankful that he had not hurt anybody. He did not want to return to prison, or jeopardise anyone else or himself. He gave details of his typical alcohol consumption. He had become quite averse to drinking and now drank very little, and none at all if he had to drive.

The Legal Advisor explained that she would retire with the Members but would take no part in determining this application. Members would consider whether the Applicant was a fit and proper person to drive taxis in North

Norfolk and would take into account the information provided and the answers he had given to questions. Members were in possession of a copy of his

CRB check and would consider all of the convictions which had been disclosed in relation to a person seeking to drive a taxi. They would take into account the nature and seriousness of the offences, when they had taken place, and the Applicant‟s statements in connection with them.

The Licensing Manager asked the Applicant to confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, whether he had held the licence for the public house. The Applicant stated that the licence had been held by his partner.

The Sub-Committee retired to consider its decision at 12.15 pm and returned at 12.30 pm.

The Chairman informed the Applicant that it had been decided to refuse his application on account of his drink driving convictions in 2002 and 2007 and the offence of being uninsured. The Sub-Committee had to take these offences into account and was not satisfied that the Applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence at this time.

RESOLVED

That the licence be refused.

The meeting concluded at 12.35 pm.

__________________________

Chairman




February 2013 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at

10.00 am.

Sub-Committee Mr J A Wyatt (Chairman)

Mr B Smith


Also in attendance:

1

2

3

Mrs A C Sweeney

Legal Advisor, Licensing Manager, Environmental

Protection Team Leader and Regulatory Officer

Applicant

Press

APOLOGIES

None received.


None received.


4

Cllr Mrs A C Sweeney stated that she had visited the premises as a customer on a number of occasions. The Legal Advisor advised that this did not constitute an interest that would affect her judgement of the case.

APPLICATION FOR NEW PREMISES LICENCE – THE FUNKY

MACKEREL, THE PROMENADE, SHERINGHAM NR26 8BH

Present: Miss TJ O’Neill (applicant)

No objectors were present.

The Chairman introduced the Panel and Officers. The Legal Advisor outlined the procedure for the Hearing. She explained that, at a later stage, the Panel would withdraw to make a decision, having regard to the four licensing objectives outlined on page 1 of the report. She would accompany them to provide legal advice and to assist them to formulate their reasons but would not take part in the making of the decision.

The Licensing Manager presented the report. The application related to a new premises licence covering a wide range of activities including on and off sales of alcohol 24/7, regulated entertainment 24/7, and late night refreshment between the hours of 2300 and 0500 daily. The premises would be open to the general public from 1000 to 2300 hours daily. Since the adoption of the Live Music Act 2012, the provision of live music indoors and outdoors between the hours of 0800 and 2000 on any day, which was included in the application, was no longer licensable. If granted, the licence would be subject to mandatory conditions and to conditions which were consistent with the operating schedule contained in the application.

Licensing Sub-Committee 18 26 February 2013

No objections had been received from the responsible authorities, with the exception of the NNDC Environmental Protection Team which had raised concerns regarding nuisance.

Fifteen letters/emails had been received from interested parties and had been appended to the report. The predominant issue of concern raised by those parties related to nuisance. A letter of objection had been received from

Sheringham Town Council. All interested parties had been informed of the

Hearing but none were present or represented.

Additional correspondence comprising two letters of support and three further letters of objection from previous objectors had been received. The Chairman had received an email from an objector. The Legal Advisor advised the Sub-

Committee that the additional correspondence should not be considered as it had been received outside the consultation period. The Licensing Manager confirmed that the further correspondence raised no additional issues.

The Legal Advisor stated that there was significant feeling on behalf of residents . She referred to relevant extracts from the Council’s Licensing

Policy and statutory guidance from the Secretary of State, and guidance from officers as to the approach the Sub-Committee might take with regard to conditions if it were minded to grant the licence.

The applicant had no questions with regard to preliminary matters.

Miss O’Neill put her case.

She had ticked every box on the application form and it had presented the worst case scenario. She had lived in Sheringham for several years, had brought up her children and now her grandchildren in the town and was well aware of the drinking culture. Her business was aimed at over 25s and her intention was to offer bottled beer and wine with snacks. She had received requests to hire her premises for adult parties, not children’s parties, and the licence would allow her to continue later if she wished to do so.

She stated that there was only enough room at the premises for 50 people and it would be impossible to get 250 people in as would be allowed by the licence.

She understood the concerns raised with regard to the use of plastic cups and the image it gave, but could not understand how it got out of context. She would not be serving takeaways. The small balcony outside the building would only accommodate six people.

The licence would allow her to remain open into the evening and cater for local people. She recognised the concerns but considered that the activities which had given rise to objections would not happen.

Miss O’Neill answered questions put to her by the Sub-Committee and

Officers: a) In response to a question by Cllr Smith, the applicant confirmed that there were toilets on the premises. b) Cllr Smith enquired as to whether there was an alternative means of escape from the premises. The applicant stated that there was an alternative escape route via windows in the toilets and store room.


c) d) e) f) g) i) j) k) l)

The Fire Service had inspected the premises and were satisfied with the means of escape.

Cllr Mrs Sweeney stated that she had used the premises on a number of occasions and was aware of the layout.

Cllr Mrs Sweeney asked if the building was soundproofed. The applicant stated that the building was double-glazed. She was willing to work with the Council in any way and to keep doors and windows closed.

Cllr Mrs Sweeney stated that the steps leading to and from the premises were not lit at night. The applicant stated that lights on the balcony would spill out onto the steps and the Council had put lights on the promenade. She considered there would not be many people using them in the winter and during the summer it was light until late.

Cllr Mrs Sweeney asked how the applicant proposed to stop drink being carried down the steps. The applicant stated that she would explain to her customers that they could not go further than the balcony. The Police patrolled the promenade and there was a byelaw which entitled them to confiscate alcohol.

Cllr Mrs Sweeney stated from her observations that the premises were used by dog walkers who were pleased they could take their dogs into the premises, and many families, but not teenagers. The applicant stated that the prices charged would not encourage teenagers. The business was aimed at a certain market and it was those people who used the business.

In answer to a question by the Chairman, the applicant stated that the landlords had objected to her application. She added that they were new landlords who were not local and had only bought the premises at

Christmas.

The Legal Advisor asked the applicant if she would agree to a condition which required alcohol to be served only with meals. The applicant stated that she would prefer to not have this condition but would accept it if it was felt necessary.

With reference to the applicant’s comments that she understood the concerns regarding plastic cups and did not wish to provide a takeaway service, the Legal Advisor asked the applicant if she would consider an on-licence only. The applicant confirmed her agreement.

In answer to further questions, she confirmed that she would not use plastic cups if this were the case, but would consider their use if it were the SubCommittee’s wish.

The Licensing Manager referred to safety issues associated with glassware being taken onto the balcony. There was a balance between these issues and the potential for off-sales as people could perceive that plastic cups did not belong to the premises and walk away with them.

The Legal Advisor stated that the Sub-Committee would consider the application with a view to the four licensing objectives, and in doing so would take into account all that had been said and the relevant letters of objection which were attached to the report. The options were to grant the application in the terms applied for, refuse the application, or to grant the application with conditions which the Sub-Committee considered were necessary and appropriate.

The Chairman invited the applicant to make her final submission.


The applicant made her closing statement. She recognised that her application had given people good reason for concern but she did not consider that their fears would be realised. The premises would not be run as a pub, and in her opinion it would not be possible to do so. She emphasised that the business was an eatery, not a pub. It would be low key, with people having a glass of wine with their food. She stated that every third person coming through the door asked for beer or wine as it was what they wanted and she would like to be able to offer it. In answer to a question by the

Chairman, she stated that she currently closed around 5-6pm. The business was situated on a very cold promenade, but was open all year round and successful. It had been licensed previously when it was known as

Shannocks.

The Sub-Committee retired at 10.35 am and returned at 11.35 am.

The Chairman stated that Sub-Committee had considered the oral and written evidence and the written representations which had been received, no objectors being present. In considering the application, the Sub-Committee had considered the four licensing objectives, the Council’s Licensing Policy,

Home Office guidance and the Human Rights Act.

The applicant’s intentions had been noted. The concerns of objectors had been taken into account, relating to the fear of littering from off sales and the use of plastic cups, and disorderly conduct in connection with alcohol.

However, the Sub-Committee believed the applicant intended to run the business where the licensable activities and sale of alcohol would be mainly in conjunction with the serving of food.

The Sub-Committee had therefore agreed to grant the licence subject to a number of conditions.

RESOLVED

That the licence be granted subject to the following:

1. All licensable activities with the exception of those contained in boxes H, K and L to be held indoors only and between the hours of 1000 to 2300, in order to promote the licensing objectives related to prevention of crime and disorder. H, K are not granted as this part of the application is considered to be too vague, and L is not granted in relation to the licensing objective related to prevention of crime and disorder.

2.

3.

4.

No take-away sales of food or alcohol.

No glass to be taken onto the balcony.

Clear notices to be displayed at the exit and on the balcony requesting customers to respect the needs of local residents and leave the premises quietly.


__________________________

Chairman




March 2013 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at

10.00 am.

Sub-Committee Mr R C Price (Chairman)

Mrs A R Green



Mr B Smith

Press

Legal Advisor, Licensing Manager and Regulatory Officer

1

2

APOLOGIES

An apology for absence was received from Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds. Mr B

Smith attended the meeting as her substitute.


None received.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3

4.

Mr B Smith declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest that he had knew Mr

Alexander. However this did not influence his judgement.

APPLICATION FOR VARIATION TO CLUB PREMISES CERTIFICATE -

NORTH WALSHAM FOOTBALL CLUB, GREENS ROAD, NORTH

WALSHAM, NORFOLK, NR28 0HW

Present: Mr Coop (applicant) and Mr Alexander (supporting)


Mr B Smith stated that he knew Mr Alexander. Mr Alexander confirmed that he had no objection to Mr Smith hearing this case.

The Licensing Manager stated that the land occupied by North Walsham

Football Club was owned by the District Council and leased to the Club to use as a sports facility. The lease was due to be revisited with a view to issuing a longer lease. He stated that the Club currently held a Club Premises

Certificate and the Club was seeking a variation to enable it to maintain the facilities and raise money, which would lead to the ongoing success of the

Club. The renewal of the lease and potential for grant aid for the facilities were intertwined with making better use of the premises.


Licensing Sub-Committee 22 26 March 2013

The Licensing Manager presented the report. He explained that this was an application to vary the premises licence which the Club had held for many years. The Club wished to carry out additional activities to those allowed under the current Licence, to include plays, films, national sporting events live and recorded music and performance of dance. The Club had held a number of social events under Temporary Events Notices and now wished to regularise this by a permanent licence which, in addition to the Clubhouse, would include a limited external area away from some of the surrounding residential dwellings.

The Licensing Manager referred to a comment by the objector regarding the publication of the application. He stated that it was often the case that notices were posted but taken down by somebody else. He stated that the application had been advertised in the local press, and the applicant had assured him that notices had been posted around the site. A number of residents were aware of the application as they were members of the Club or had come into contact with the Club. The fact that one objection had been received proved that it had been published, but it was for the Sub-Committee to decide whether the publicity was adequate. Otherwise, the application was valid and statutory responsible authorities had been consulted.

Environmental Health had raised concerns regarding noise nuisance and had suggested conditions to be attached to the licence. The potential for noise nuisance would be greater than it would be under the temporary events licences.

Mr Coop presented the case on behalf of the Club. He stated that it had been drawn to the Club’s attention that there were a number of activities which had taken place which the current licence did not cover, such as the showing of training aid films. Most films which the Club wished to show were linked with football, mainly for youth members. He had been at the Club for three seasons and in that time, no events had gone beyond 11 pm. There had been no live music events within the Clubhouse as yet. It was not envisaged that there would be events serving alcohol until 1am but the licence, if granted, would enable the Club to do so if required. The Club was run on a voluntary basis and Committee members did not particularly want to stay until

1am. The application was to enable the Club to raise funds.

Mr Coop referred to the objector’s comments and considered that he did not fully understand the events. He stated that the Club was open throughout the year. He outlined the events which took place at the premises, including those run by Norwich City Football Club and the Forces. He stated that people travelled to use the Club’s facilities. There had never been any events which had carried on until 2am in the time he had been at the Club.

Mr Coop stated that there was a rubbish problem at the site. Whilst every effort was made to keep the site clear, it was not closed off and there was no control over children who came onto the site and left rubbish behind. The issue of fencing had been discussed with NNDC. Another issue was dog walkers who did not clear up after their dogs.

With regard to the objector’s comments regarding regulations, he considered that the objector had not been inside the building to check that everything was in place.


Mr Coop stated that he had received no complaints about members of the

Club parking inappropriately. The Club had sufficient parking. He considered that many of the problems associated with Queensway were falsely attributed to the Club. He stated that the Club requested a list of people attending events and had controls in place to ensure only those on the list were admitted.

He considered that both young and old enjoyed the Club’s facilities and there was a need to expand and develop. The emphasis was on providing sport in the community and sought the SubCommittee’s assistance in taking the Club forward.

At the request of the Chairman, Mr Coop supplied a plan indicating the external area to be licensed, for which further explanation was provided by the Licensing Manager. There would be most impact on residents of

Kingsway.

It was envisaged that eight events would be held per year, most of them to include music.

Mr Smith asked how the Club would control noise levels within the

Clubhouse. Mr Coop stated that doors and windows would be kept closed except when people went in and out of the building. He stated that noise could not be heard at the entrance to the site, approximately 50m from the

Clubhouse, even with an open door.

Mrs Green stated that it was an offence to leave dog waste and suggested that making people aware of the fact might deter them from leaving it. She asked what difference having a licence would mak e to the Club’s neighbours, and whether the premises were hired out for private parties.

Mr Coop stated that most events would still close at 11pm, except in exceptional circumstances. The premises were used mostly by Club members which helped the Club keep control over who attended and normally at least 6 to 8 Club members present at each event. If the premises were hired out, it would still be under the strict control of the Club and the bar manager would not be happy unless she was on the premises at any event.

The Legal Advisor sought clarification on the area for which the licence was being sought. Mr Coop confirmed that it applied to the clubhouse and area marked red on the plan.

With regard to litter, at the request of the Legal Advisor, Mr Coop explained the arrangements for disposal and stated that the main problem was with older children who left litter despite being asked to put it in the bins.

The Chairman asked if consideration had been given to designating any part of the site as dog free. Mr Coop referred to discussions with NNDC Officers who had agreed to patrol the site. However, he had never seen it patrolled.

Signs had been put up but they had been torn down. The Chairman suggested that further discussions take place with Environmental Health with regard designation of the site on grounds of the health needs of young people.

In response to a question by the Chairman, Mr Coop stated that the maximum number of attendees for an outside event was not known but it would be kept


5. down to a number the Club could handle. He considered that 70 people would be a good attendance for a normal event.

The Licensing Manager explained that the maximum number of people allowed under a temporary licence was 499. The licence would allow up to

200 people indoors. The current licence did not allow a marquee to be erected. However, if granted, the variation would allow a marquee to be erected if the Club so wished, which would restrict the number of people who could attend.

The Chairman referred to the conditions contained on pages 5, 6 and 7 of the report and stated that the Sub-Committee may consider other conditions.

The Chairman invited Mr Coop to make his closing statement. Mr Coop stated that he had nothing further to add.

The Sub-Committee retired at 10.45 am and returned at 11.15am.

The Chairman stated that the Sub-Committee had taken into account the relevant matters relating to noise and considered that the proposed conditions addressed the concerns, subject to the imposition of two further conditions which were considered appropriate to address the concerns of noise nuisance and to promote the licensing objective of prevention of a public nuisance. It was therefore

RESOLVED

That the variation to the Club Premises Certificate be granted, subject to the imposition of conditions as listed in the report and subject to the following conditions:

Condition 1

Prominent, clear notices shall be displayed at all exits requesting the customers to respect the needs of local residents and leave the premises and the area quietly.

Condition 2

A named member of the North Walsham Football Club committee, with a contact number, shall be displayed at the premises during events and shall receive and respond to complaints throughout the duration of noisy events and will have full control at all times over the sound amplification.

EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

RESOLVED

That under 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 involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 12A

(as amended) to the Act.


6. APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE TO DRIVE HACKNEY CARRIAGE OR


Present: Applicant and supporter




The Licensing Manager referred to the Criminal Record Check which had revealed a number of matters to which the Sub-Committee may need to consider. In addition, a reference had been received from a former employer.

These documents were circulated to the Sub-Committee. The applicant had a conditional offer of employment from an established taxi firm in the District.

The applicant explained that he was currently self-employed but a back condition, for which he had recently been hospitalised, meant that he could not continue with his current work. He was seeking a change of career and had been offered a job as a taxi driver by his supporter.

The Chairman asked why the applicant had stated on his application form that he had never been disqualified, when in fact he had. The applicant stated that he had forgotten.

In answer to questions by Mrs Green, the applicant explained that he had been employed by his referees as a maintenance man. He had driven his previous employer to help her out of a muddle.

The Sub-Committee scrutinised the references and criminal record document.

The Legal Advisor asked the applicant to comment on his previous offences, some of which related to violence and dishonesty. She stated that the Sub-

Committee needed to be convinced that he was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi.

The applicant stated that the offences were a long time ago and he had been stupid in the past. He was now selfemployed and went into people’s homes all over Norfolk and in London. He was sometimes left with the keys and there had been no reports of items going missing. He stated that it was necessary to build up a reputation if self-employed. It had taken him a long time to build up his business.

He explained the circumstances of his most recent offence in 2008, which had occurred as a result of provocation while playing football and for which he received a lifetime ban. He regretted the incident and realised it was a mistake he should not have made.

Mrs Green stated that the applicant had apparently become an honest man and asked if could control his temper. She referred to his long record of convictions.


The applicant responded that he could, and that he could not afford to do anything like that again. He had nothing then, but now had a wife and children. In answer to a further question by the Chairman, he replied that his children were 7 and 11.

The Chairman invited the applicant to make his closing statement.

The applicant stated that he hoped the Sub-Committee would grant him a licence as he needed to change his life around. He could not continue in his present work because of his back condition and had to do something completely different, not out of choice, but out of necessity. He recognised that he had not been well-behaved but had learned by his mistakes and assured the Sub-Committee that all would be fine in the future.

The Licensing Manager stated that the applicant had not yet undergone the necessary medical check. If the Sub-Committee were to grant the licence it would be subject to him undertaking the test.

The Legal Advisor stated that the Sub-Committee had to make a decision as to whether they were satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the applicant was a fit and proper person to drive taxis in North Norfolk. The main objective was to protect the public. A taxi driver came into contact with many people, including those who were unreasonable, and also vulnerable children. He would be in a position of trust and paid to carry people in a safe way. The Sub-Committee wo uld consider the applicant’s convictions and their relevance, the seriousness of the offences and how long ago they occurred. They would take into account the applicant’s statements regarding those offences. They would also consider the applicant’s right to work and the right of the travelling public to be safe.

As the applicant and supporter had to leave to attend a funeral, the applicant would be notified of the decision in writing.

The Sub-Committee retired at 11.45 am and returned at 12.05 pm.

In considering the decision, the Sub-Committee had considered the applicant’s wish to pursue a new career due to his back problems. The Sub-

Committee had taken into account 10 previous convictions for dishonesty and violence. Whilst some of them dated back to the 1970s and 1980s, the Sub-

Committee was concerned that there were repeated offences of violence, and an assault in 2008 was of particular concern. Whilst the applicant had made reference to his family circumstances and desire to do the best for them, at the time of the 2008 offence the applicant was a father to both his children.

The Sub-Committee had also been concerned that the applicant had not been full and frank with regard to his offending history on his application form and was not satisfied with his explanation that he had forgotten. The Sub-

Committee was not satisfied that the applicant was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi.

RESOLVED

That the application be refused.


7. INCIDENT INVOLVING LICENCED DRIVER (WK/130011964)

The licence holder was unable to attend due to illness.

The Licensing Manager stated that the evidence against the licensed driver was held by the Police and Social Services and there was little he could share with the Sub-Committee. Allegations had been made against the driver but investigations were ongoing and he had not been taken to court or convicted.

The driver had voluntarily agreed not to undertake duties as a taxi driver and his operator had agreed not to engage his services for the time being.

However, the driver was self-employed and was therefore not being paid.

Whilst no conviction had been made, there was an expectation upon the

Local Authority to be seen to protect the public. The driver was not present, there was no evidence which could be put to the Sub-Committee and the

Licensing Manager considered that the status quo should therefore prevail.

The Legal Advisor stated that the Authority was in a difficult position. Whilst the driver had a badge and had volunteered not to drive, he could change his mind and do so without sanction. Whilst the driver had not been convicted of an offence, the Licensing Authority could take into account allegations when considering issues relating to taxi drivers. The Sub-Committee had to consider public protection and the seriousness of the alleged offence. She referred to the report, which contained minimal information regarding the alleged offence. The driver had been arrested and released on Police bail while investigations continued.

The Licensing Manager referred to a case conference with the Police and

Social Services which he had attended on behalf of the Authority to review what was known at the time. It had been agreed that if any party pursued the matter further they would keep the other parties informed. He had received no further information. He did not know whether there was enough evidence to charge the driver. He could suspend the licence under his delegated powers but could not revoke it. Whilst this had been done in the past when an offence had been committed in live time, in this case the allegation related to something which had happened some years ago and information had only recently come to light.

The Chairman referred to the Authority’s duty to protect the public. The allegation was of sufficient weight for the Police to make an arrest. He considered that the only option was to suspend the licence until such time as charges were made or the case dropped.

The Licensing Manager considered that a regulatory authority would be expected to give formality to the voluntary arrangement. The driver was selfemployed and could, in theory, go out and earn a living himself, or seek work where the situation may not be known. The Licensing Manager had explored with the driver as to whether he would be prepared to voluntarily surrender his badge, but the driver had declined to do so.

The Sub-Committee discussed the options available for dealing with this matter. The applicant was unwell and no application for an adjournment had been made. The Sub-Committee took into account the need to protect the travelling public. On the basis of the limited information which was available, the Sub-Committee considered that the allegations appeared to be very serious and for these reasons it was considered necessary to formalise the voluntary arrangement by suspending the licence.


RESOLVED

That the licence be suspended.

The meeting concluded at 12.35 pm.

__________________________

Chairman




April 2013 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.30 am.

Sub-Committee Mr P W High (Chairman)

Mr R C Price



1

2

3

Mr R Reynolds

Legal Advisor, Licensing Manager, Environmental

Protection Team Leader and Regulatory Officer

Applicant

Press

APOLOGIES

An apology for absence was received from Miss B Palmer. Mr R Reynolds attended the meeting as her substitute.


None received.


4.

None declared.

Application for a new Premises Licence - Market Tavern, 18

Market Street, North Walsham, Norfolk, NR28 9BZ.

Present: Mr Callaway (applicant).



The Licensing Manager presented the report. He explained that the premises had formerly been a public house, prior to its previous use as a drop in centre.

The applicant now wished to re-open the premises as a public house and had submitted a comprehensive application for a premises licence. Consultations had been carried out as required. No objection had been received from the

Police or the Fire Service. A Fire Safety Audit had been carried out and the applicant was carrying out work identified as necessary. Concerns had been raised by Environmental Health with regard to possible noise nuisance. Four objections had been received from local residents, none of whom were present. North Walsham Town Council supported the application in principle.

Licensing Sub-Committee 30 24 April 2013

The Licensing Manager explained that the recent Live Music Act allowed performances of live music to take place in licensed premises until 11pm without further permission.

In answer to questions by Councillor R Reynolds, the applicant stated that he had previously been the licensee of The Jolly Farmers at Swanton Abbott for seven years and that he could comply with the requirements of Environmental

Health.

In answer to questions from the Legal Advisor, the Licensing Manager explained that under current law, permission was only required for the sale of food between 11pm and 5am. This legislation was primarily designed to cover takeaway premises etc, but in this case it would allow the applicant to cater for functions where a late night buffet was required. There was, however, no distinction in the legislation between on-sales and off-sales but conditions could be imposed or an undertaking sought from the applicant if there were concerns regarding possible take-away sales. The applicant had applied for a 24-hour licence for convenience.

In answer to a question by Councillor R C Price, the Licensing Manager stated that the premises had not traded as a public house for over ten years but had been in commercial use since then.

Mr Callaway put his case. He stated that he had researched other licensed premises, including takeaways, in North Walsham and had based his application on this research. His idea was to run a traditional tavern selling beers and wines with a pie and mashery to give a traditional feel. There was nothing of this type in the local area. He stated that it was necessary for businesses, even traditional taverns, to have add-ons.

He had applied for a 24 hour licence to avoid having to apply for Temporary

Event Notices. Normal opening hours would be in line with a traditional pub.

Food would generally be finished by 9pm because of the cost of staff. The layout would be traditional and there would be no discos unless requested for parties. He was of an age where he did not want to be up beyond 2am and did not envisage any events beyond this time.

He had read the letters of objection and seen the neighbours. He had had several meetings with Environmental Health regarding the concerns which had been raised. The fire door had been of particular concern, however this would be kept closed at all times, be independently alarmed, a notice would be placed on the door stating that it was only to be used in an emergency, and the door would also be padded to reduce noise.

Mr Callaway stated that he had undertaken works to soundproof the barn and to comply with Fire Service recommendations.

Live music performances would be by single musicians or duos as space was limited. There was insufficient space to accommodate a drum kit.

The proposed smoking area at the rear of the premises had been taken out and would now be used as storage for the kitchen. The smoking area would now be at the front of the premises and a bin would be installed.

The Environmental Protection Team Leader stated that on the basis of Mr

Callaway’s statements as to the work done to the barn, he was slightly


happier with it being used for regulated entertainment. The work had yet to be inspected and a noise assessment would need to be carried out prior to use. The removal of the smoking area was an improvement. He requested conditions to require regulated entertainment to end by midnight except for

New Year and standard conditions regarding closing of windows and doors, subject to final checks being carried out.

In response to questions Mr Callaway gave details of the extensive works that had been carried out to the bar. The Licensing Manager circulated a plan of the proposed layout which Mr Callaway explained in detail.

In response to a question by the Legal Advisor, the Environmental Protection

Team Leader confirmed the conditions that he wished to impose on the licence, if granted.

The Chairman invited Mr Callaway to make his closing statement.

Mr Callaway stated that he would always comply with any requirements by

Environmental Health and acknowledged the help he had received in respect of the regulations. He would do everything required by the Police and Fire

Brigade. He considered that the premises would be easy to manage as there was only one access into the premises, there was no car park or other obstructions and the premises were set out how he wanted them. He considered that with the pie and mashery it would fit together very well as a unit.

In answer to a question by Cllr Price, Mr Callaway explained that the Police favoured a CCTV camera facing insid e the door so clients could be ‘clocked’.

There was an operational town facility outside the premises. The Police has also asked for a digital system to be installed so that they could access it.

The Legal Advisor stated that the Sub-Committee would consider the application with a view to the four licensing objectives, and in doing so would take into account the information in the report, all that had been said and the relevant issues raised in letters of representation which were attached to the report. The Sub-Committee would not consider issues which were not relevant to the consideration of this application, such as the number of eateries in the town.

The Sub-Committee retired at 11.12 am and returned at 11.45 am.

The Chairman stated that Sub-Committee had considered the oral and written evidence and the written representations which had been received, no objectors being present. In considering the application, the Sub-Committee had considered the four licensing objectives, the Council’s Licensing Policy,

Home Office guidance and the Human Rights Act.

The SubCommittee had taken into account the applicant’s experience of running a pub, his intention to run it as a traditional pub, his consideration as to the layout and statement as to the works which had been undertaken. It had also taken into account the concerns which had been raised by local residents and Environmental Health, and balanced those concerns with the needs of the applicant. It had been agreed to grant the licence subject to a number of additional conditions which were considered necessary to promote the licensing objectives.


RESOLVED

That the licence be granted, subject to the following conditions:

Condition 1

An inspection and assessment of the premises is undertaken by the

North Norfolk District Council Environmental Health Department. No licensable activity is to take place at the premises until such time as you receive notice in writing form the Environmental Health Department that they are satisfied that works undertaken are suitable.

This condition is imposed to promote the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance

Condition 2

An adequate number of waste receptacles for use by patrons shall be provided in positions agreed with the Licensing Authority. The receptacles shall be emptied and the collected refuse dispose of at a frequency to be agreed with the Licensing Authority


Condition 3

After close of business a rubbish patrol should pick up any cigarette butts or rubbish which has been left in the vicinity by customers.


Condition 4

The Licensee/Designated Premises Supervisor shall ensure that no nuisance is caused by noise emanating from the premises or by vibration transmitted through the structure of the premises.


Condition 5

All external doors and windows must be kept closed, other than for access and egress, in all rooms when events involving amplified music or speech are taking place.


Condition 6

Prominent, clear notices shall be displayed at all exits requesting customers to respect the needs of local residents and leave the premises and the area quietly.


Condition 7

The Designated Premises Supervisor or a nominated representative shall receive and respond to complaints throughout the duration of all noisy events and will have full control at all times over the sound amplification.



Condition 8

A designated premises supervisor or nominated representative shall ensure that no nuisance is caused by noise emanating from the premises by implementing a Self-Policing Policy which shall include sound checks inside and out.



__________________________

Chairman


Licensing and Appeals Committee 22 July 2013

Agenda Item No______6______

CHANGES TO THE LAW AFFECTING SALE OF ALCOHOL AND ENTERTAINMENT

LICENSING AND OTHER TOPICAL ISSUES

Summary: This report updates Members on recent changes to the law and on consultation issues

Conclusions:

Recommendations:

Cabinet member(s):

Councillor John Lee


Ward(s) affected:

All





1. Introduction

1.1. Members will recall that the Government consulted about deregulation of regulated entertainment under the Licensing Act 2003. The Government has since brought in various reform orders to give effect to changes. One of these measures which amend the Licensing Act 2003 came into force on 26 June

2013. Other changes especially in relation to showing of films will be introduced this autumn as detailed below.

2. Key changes to the Licensing Act in force 26 June 2013

– Regulated entertainment and Premises Licences

2.1. The types of entertainment regulated by the 2003 Act [now amended by the Live

Music Act 2012 and the Licensing Act 2003 (Descriptions of Entertainment)

(Amendment) Order 2013] are:

35


• a performance of a play;

• an exhibition of a film;

• an indoor sporting event;

• a boxing or wrestling entertainment;

• a contest, exhibition or display which combines boxing or wrestling with one or more martial arts (“combined fighting sports”);

• a performance of live music;

• any playing of recorded music;

• a performance of dance;

• entertainment of a similar description to a performance of live music, any playing of recorded music or a performance of dance.

2.2. However these broad categories are subject to a number of conditions, definitions and exemptions.

2.3. As a result of these amendments no licence is required for the following activities to the extent that they take place between 08:00-23:00 on any day:

• a performance of a play in the presence of any audience of no more than

500 people;

• an indoor sporting event in the presence of any audience of no more than

1,000 people;

• most performances of dance in the presence of any audience of no more than

500 people; and

• live music, where the live music comprises:

– a performance of unamplified live music ;

– a performance of live amplified music in a workplace with an audience of no more than 200 people; or

– a performance of live music on licensed premises which takes place in the presence of an audience of no more than 200 people, provided that a number of important conditions are satisfied.

2.4. So, for example, an indoor sporting event that takes place between 07:00 and

23:30 on a particular day is licensable in respect of activities taking place between 07:00-08:00 and 23:00-23:30. Similarly, where the audience for a performance of dance fluctuates, those activities are licensable if, and for so long as, the number of people in the audience exceeds 500. As most licensed venues in the District have a capacity of less than 200 these provisions will have a bearing on most pubs, clubs, hotels, guest houses and restaurants in North

Norfolk.

2.5. The amendments made to the 2003 Act by the Live Music Act 2012 affect

36

Licensing and Appeals Committee 22 July 2013 conditions relating to live music in licensed premises. Any existing licence conditions on relevant licensed premises (or conditions added on a determination of an application for a premises licence or club premises certificate) which relate to live music remain in place, but are suspended between the hours of 08:00 and

23:00 on the same day where the following conditions are met:

• at the time of the live music, the premises are open for the purposes of being used for the sale or supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises;

• if the live music is amplified, the performance takes place before an audience of no more than 200 people; and

• the live music takes place between 08.00 and 23.00 on the same day

2.6. In some instances, it will be obvious that a condition relates to live music and will be suspended, for example “during performances of live music all doors and windows must remain closed”. In other instances, it might not be so obvious: for example, a condition stating “during performances of Regulated Entertainment all doors and windows must remain closed” would not apply if the only entertainment provided was live music between 08:00 and 23:00 on the same day to an audience of up to 200, but the condition would continue to apply if there was a disco in an adjoining room.

2.7. However, even where the 2003 Act (as amended by the 2012 Act) has deregulated aspects of the performance of live music, it remains possible to apply for a review of a premises licence or club premises certificate if there are appropriate grounds to do so. On a review of a premises licence or club premises certificate, a licensing authority can lift the suspension and give renewed effect to an existing condition relating to live music.. Similarly, a licensing authority may add a condition relating to live music as if live music were regulated entertainment, and as if that premises licence or club premises certificate licensed the live music.

2.8. An application for a review in relation to relevant premises can be made by a licensing authority, any responsible authority or any other person. Applications for review must still be relevant to one or more of the licensing objectives and meet a number of further criteria.

2.9. More general licence conditions (e.g. those relating to overall management of potential noise nuisance) that are not specifically related to the provision of entertainment (e.g.signage asking patrons to leave quietly) will continue to have effect.

2.10. Similarly, while karaoke no longer needs licensing as the provision of entertainment facilities (and will generally be classed as a performance of live music) it might, for example, be possible on review to limit the use or volume of a microphone made available for customers, if a problem had occurred because of customers purchasing alcohol for consumption on the premises becoming louder and less aware of causing noise nuisance later in the evening. Another example might be a condition restricting access to a dance floor, where the presence of customers who had been consuming alcohol on the premises had led to serious disorder.

37


2.11. Clearly these changes in the law will mean that entertainment which has a potential to cause nuisance to residents will take place outside the licensing framework. Control and compliance of such activities under licensing law will be limited. It will become increasingly necessary for the Council to respond to and deal with nuisance complaints from a variety of venues using noise abatement legislation on a reactive rather than proactive approach. The resource implications of this cannot be quantified at the present time.

3. Key changes to the Licensing Act currently under consultation

– deregulation of film show licensing in certain premises

3.1. The Department for Culture Media and Sport has just issued a consultation document to deregulate aspects of film entertainment to remove unnecessary bureaucracy from community entertainment activities. The closing date for responses is 28 August 2013

3.2. The consultation seeks views on two main options: i. do nothing ii. deregulate “not-for-profit” film exhibitions in community venues between 8am and 11pm provided that the exhibitor ensures that each screening abides by age classification ratings.

4. Updated statutory guidance

4.1 In connection with the new legislation, the Secretary of State has issued updated statutory guidance under section 182 of the Licensing Act. Members will need to have regard to this updated guidance when determining future contested licence applications.

38


Agenda Item No______7_____

CHANGES TO THE LAW AFFECTING SCRAP METAL DEALERS

Summary: This report updates Members on recent changes to the law and the implications for the Local authority as licensing authority

Conclusions:

Recommendations:

Cabinet member(s):

Councillor John Lee



Ward(s) affected:

All




1. Introduction

1.1. The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 replaces the previous registration system for scrap metal dealers created by the 1964 Scrap Metal Dealers Act. In its place it creates a new licensing regime. This scheme will be run and administered by local authorities, and is based on the legislation for alcohol licences. Every scrap metal dealer will be required to have a licence, and operating without one will be a criminal offence. Under the new legislation the definition of scrap metal dealers is extended so it now includes motor salvage operators, and the previously separate system under which they operate will end once the new Act comes into effect.

1.2. Whereas under the 1964 Act local authorities have to register anyone who notifies them that they are operating as a scrap metal dealer, local authorities will be able to refuse to grant a licence where the applicant is judged not to be a suitable person to operate as a scrap metal dealer. This ability to regulate who is, and who is not, a scrap metal dealer is designed to improve the operating standards of those dealers who do not operate to the same standards as the majority of reputable dealers. The transition requiring dealers to hold a licence rather than merely registering with a local authority provides an opportunity to ensure that dealers who have been operating illegally are not able to do so.

39


1.3. The Home Office is looking to commence the new regime from 1 October 2013, but with a transition period lasting until 1 November 2013. That imposes a challenging timetable for local authorities in implementing the legislation.

2. Licences

2.1. In order for anyone to carry on in business as a scrap metal dealer they have to have a licence. These licences will last for three years. Trading without a licence is a criminal offence. If convicted of trading without a licence the offender can be fined. The fine will be at Level 5 on the standard scale.

2.2. There are two types of licence specified in the Act:

Site licence. All the sites where a licensee carries on business as a scrap metal dealer have to be identified, and a site manager has to be named for each site. This licence allows the licensee to transport scrap metal to and from those sites from any local authority area.

Collector’s Licence. This allows the licensee to operate as a collector in the area of the issuing local authority. It does not allow the collector to operate in any other local authority area, so a separate licence has to be obtained from each local authority the collector wishes to operate in. The licence also does not authorise the licensee to operate a site. To do so they will need a site licence from the relevant local authority.

2.3. It should be noted that a dealer can only hold one type of licence in any one local authority area. They have to decide whether they are going to have a site or a mobile licence in any one area. They cannot hold both a site and mobile collector’s licence from the same local authority

3. Timetable for transition to new regime

3.1. The new licensing regime will commence on 1 October 2013. In order to provide time for local authorities to process applications without existing businesses being in a position where they cannot operate, the Home Office is implementing a transition process. The transition arrangements will specify that any dealer currently registered under the 1964 Scrap Metal Dealers Act or a motor salvage operator already licensed under the 2001 Vehicles Crime Act will in effect be granted a transitional licence, provided that they submit an application for a licence under the 2013 Act by 1 September 2013. The transitional licence will then last until 1 November 2013, when licences issued under the 2013 Act will come into effect. Dealers will therefore be able to continue to trade without disruption during the transition period without fear of being prosecuted for operating illegally.

3.2. If an applicant is not registered under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 or does not hold a licence under the Vehicles Crime Act 2001 then they will not be able to trade legally while they wait for the local authority to decide whether or not to

40

Licensing and Appeals Committee 22 July 2013 grant a licence. Full enforcement of the provisions in the 2013 Act will commence from 1 November 2013.

3.3. There are two implications for local authorities arising from this transitional timetable. They will need to be in a position to accept applications for licences from 1 September. They will also need to have reached a decision on whether to grant a licence to an applicant who was already registered or licensed under the two existing pieces of legislation by 1 November.

4. Relevant Definitions

4.1. The Act defines a scrap metal dealer, a site, a mobile collector and scrap metal.

4.2. A dealer is defined as someone carrying on a business which consists wholly or in part in buying or selling scrap metal, whether or not the metal is sold in the form in which it is bought. However a manufacturing business that sells scrap metal created as a by-product of the processes it uses or because it has a surplus of materials is not caught by this definition

4.3. The definition of scrap metal dealer is deliberately quite widely drawn, and there are no further details provided in the Act or the explanatory notes about who potentially might have to apply for a licence. The Home Office’s view has been that road side waste collections that pick up metal items thrown out by households and which is to be recycled are not caught by these provisions. In other cases the answer will vary according to individual circumstances to a certain extent, but generally where the sale of the metal is incidental to the main type of work or business undertaken then a licence will not be needed. In the case of most builders and skip hire firms the majority of their earnings will come from things other than selling scrap metal, which will just provide some additional money but will not determine if the business is financially viable.

4.4. With municipal waste sites there is an argument that these should have to be licensed. It is the view of the Home Office that there is no requirement for municipal waste sites to have to have licences.

4.5. Dealers under the legislation are further divided into two categories based on the two different types of licence: those operating from fixed sites; and those who are mobile collectors. A mobile collector is defined as a dealer who does not operate from a fixed site; and regularly as part of their business collects scrap metal from door to door visits.

4.6. A site is defined as ‘any premises used in the course of carrying on business as a scrap metal dealer (whether or not metal is kept there)’.

4.7. A dealer also includes someone carrying on business as a motor salvage operator. This is defined as a business that: i. wholly or in part recovers salvageable parts from motor vehicles for re-use or re-sale, and then sells the rest of the vehicle for scrap;

41

Licensing and Appeals Committee 22 July 2013 ii. wholly or mainly involves buying written-off vehicles and then repairing and selling them off; and, iii. wholly or mainly buys or sells motor vehicles for the purpose of salvaging parts from them or repairing them and selling them off.

4.8. Scrap metal itself includes any discarded metal or metallic material or products which are made of or contain metal and is regarded as having reached the end of its useful life. This includes platinum and a range of other rare metals now being used in catalytic converters but does not include gold or silver. Jewellers or businesses trading in second hand gold and silver jewellery or products are not therefore caught by this definition.

5. Licence applications

5.1. Schedule 1 of the Act sets out what information must accompany an application for a scrap metal dealers’ licence. This includes:

The full name, date of birth and usual place of residence of an individual applicant, anyone proposed as a site manager for a site or every partner where a partnership is applying for a licence.

The company name, registered number and registered office address where it is the applicant.

Any proposed trading name for the business.

The telephone number and email address (if any of the applicant).

Where it is a site licence the address of each proposed site to be included on the licence.

The address of any site in another local authority area where the applicant already carries on business or proposes to do so.

Details of any relevant environmental permit or registration held by the applicant.

Details of any other scrap metal licences issued to the applicant within the three years before making this application.

Details of the bank account to be used for cashless transactions.

Details of any relevant conviction or enforcement action that relates to the applicant.

5.2. Local authorities are entitled to request any further information they regard as relevant to considering the application. In the event the applicant does not supply the information that has been requested the local authority can refuse to proceed with the application. This may be of relevance when considering the suitability of the applicant.

6. Application fees

6.1. Any application must be accompanied by a fee. The fee is set by the local authority having had regard to guidance issued by the Government

6.2. The Local Government Association will shortly be producing a toolkit on setting licensing fees under the EU Services Directive which may provide assistance in

42

Licensing and Appeals Committee setting fees for scrap metal dealer licences.

22 July 2013

6.3. A further report on fees will be submitted to Members in due course.

7. Assessing the suitability of the applicant

7.1. A local authority must not issue a licence unless it is satisfied the applicant is a suitable person to carry on business as a scrap metal dealer

– the ‘suitability test’. In the case of a partnership this means assessing the suitability of each of the partners in the partnership, while in the case of a company it means assessing the suitability of any directors, company secretaries or shadow directors.

7.2. In assessing an applicant’s suitability the local authority can consider any information it considers relevant. Applicants’ behaviour in the operation of their business such as the fact they have been operating for a considerable period of time without planning permission for their site could be a factor that is considered. This would not on its own be enough in our view to arrive at the view an applicant is not suitable to hold a licence. Instances of this sort would have to be part of a range of behaviour and activities that suggest an applicant is unsuitable. Evidence of unsuitability can in particular be drawn from the information listed in the legislation that a local authority might want to consider.

The list includes:

Whether the applicant or site manager has been convicted of a relevant offence, or subject to any relevant enforcement action.

Whether the applicant has previously been refused a scrap metal dealers licence or an application to renew a licence has been refused.

Whether the applicant has previously been refused a relevant environmental permit or registration.

Whether they had previously held a scrap metal dealers licence that had been revoked.

7.3. Much of this information should be set out in the application form, and it is an offence for the applicant to make a false statement or recklessly make a statement which is false in a material way. However local authorities will undoubtedly want to satisfy themselves that an applicant is a suitable person by checking that they do not have previous relevant convictions, been the subject of any relevant enforcement action or have been refused a licence. There are benefits from the industry’s perspective in there being a standardised process when it comes to assessing applicants’ suitability, and in having a consistent approach applied to each application.

7.4. As part of the application process the applicant would be asked to provide a

Basic Disclosure certificate with the application form. Refusing to provide a Basic

Disclosure result would be grounds for the local authority to decline to proceed with the application.

7.5. The Basic Disclosure will only reveal any unspent convictions on the Police

43


National Computer (PNC). It will not necessarily contain details of convictions for relevant offences secured other authorities. It is recommended that local authorities consult these other organisations when assessing the suitability of an applicant. Where for example the Basic Disclosure certificate reveals an unspent relevant conviction the local authority may well wish to seek additional information from the police to enable them to better assess the applicant’s suitability.

7.6. When it comes to considering whether an applicant has been subject to relevant enforcement action such as where a person has a pending prosecution for any relevant offence, or where an environmental permit has been suspended. A pending prosecution means where a person has been charged with a relevant offence but not convicted. The reason for including the suspension of a permit in relevant enforcement action is that if someone is deemed not to be suitable to hold an environmental permit then you are unlikely to be a suitable person for a scrap metal dealers’ licence.

7.7. Finding out if there has been any relevant enforcement action by another local authority is in some senses more problematic. Local authorities have for some time been encouraged to notify their local force of prosecutions for recordable offences so these can be entered on the PNC

7.8. To assist local authorities in the role of assessing the suitability of applicants the

Home Office would like to see a proactive exchange of information, with the police and Environment Agency/Natural Resources Wales advising local authorities when they are prosecuting a scrap metal dealer for a relevant offence so a local authority may have regard to this information when considering applications for a scrap metal dealers licence, or when considering whether to instigate procedures to revoke a licence.

7.9. It is important to bear in mind when considering any application that even if an applicant has been convicted of a relevant offence this is not automatic grounds for refusing to grant a licence. The local authority has discretion in this matter and could decide after receiving further information from an applicant or other bodies, and considering the matter further, that they can grant a licence, or grant the licence with conditions. For example the local authority could take into account the nature of the relevant offences and enforcement action; the seriousness of the offence or enforcement action; when the offence was committed or the enforcement action was taken; along with any other relevant information

8. Representations

8.1. Where a local authority proposes to reject an application (or revoke it or vary it) the applicant has to be notified what the local authority proposes to do and the reasons for it. If having conducted an initial assessment of an applicant’s suitability the local authority is minded to refuse the application it must to let the applicant know this.

8.2. The notice from the local authority has to give the applicant (or licensee) the

44

Licensing and Appeals Committee 22 July 2013 opportunity to make representations or let the local authority know they wish to.

The notice must also specify a period of time in which the applicant does this, which cannot be less than 14 days from the date on which the notice is given to the applicant. If the applicant does not make any representations or does not say that they wish to in that time period then the local authority can refuse the application or revoke or vary the licence. Where the applicant states they want to make representations the local authority has to give them a further period in which to do so, and only if they fail to do so can they refuse the application or revoke or vary the licence.

8.3. Where the applicant makes representations the local authority has to consider them and if the applicant states they want to make oral representations the local authority must provide them with the opportunity to appear before a person appointed by the local authority for this purpose

9. Application hearings

9.1. The requirement on local authorities to allow an applicant to make oral representations means that it will be appropriate to refer relevant applications to a licensing committee. Those applications where there are no questions about the suitability of the applicant can be delegated to licensing officers to make the decision on whether or not to grant the application. Before that can occur, local authorities will need to have the appropriate delegations in place. A further report on this will be submitted to Members in due course.

9.2. The most obviously instance where an application should be referred to a licensing committee is where there is information available to the local authority which suggest that the applicant is not suitable to hold a scrap metal dealers licence. Existing good practice around the consideration of applications by licensing committees should be applied to the consideration of applications for scrap metal dealers licences.

9.3. In the event the committee is minded to refuse the application then it will need to carefully consider the reasons that it has decided to do so. The applicant has to be given the reasons an application has been rejected (see the next section) and if there is an appeal the local authority will want to have robust grounds on which to defend its decision not to grant a licence.

10. Notices of decisions

10.1. Where a local authority has refused an application, revoked a licence or varied a licence it must give the applicant or licensee notice of the decision, which also sets out the reasons for the decision.

10.2. The notice also has to inform the applicant or licensee of their right to appeal the decision; the timeframe for making that appeal and where the licence has been revoked or varied the date under which that comes into effect.

45

Licensing and Appeals Committee

11. Appeals

22 July 2013

11.1. Appeals against a decision by the local authority to refuse an application, to impose a condition on the licence or to revoke or vary the licence are to the magistrates’ court.

11.2. The dealer has 21 days from the day on which they were given notice of the decision in which to appeal that decision. The magistrates’ court then has the power to confirm, vary or reverse the local authority ’s decision and issue any directions it considers appropriate having regard to the Act.

12. Including conditions in the licence:

12.1. Compared with alcohol licences, a local authority ’s ability to impose conditions on a licence are very limited. Conditions can only be imposed where the applicant or any site manager has been convicted of a relevant offence. For the majority of applicants therefore it is unlikely that a local authority will be in a position of being able to consider imposing conditions. The only circumstances where conditions could be imposed, is where the applicant or a site manager has a relevant criminal conviction. In considering whether to issue a licence where the applicant or a site manager has a relevant conviction, the local authority might decide to do so on the basis that a condition is imposed on the licence.

12.2. Local authorities can only impose one or both of two conditions. These conditions specify that the dealer can only receive scrap metal between 9.00am and 5.00pm on any day, in effect limiting th e dealer’s operating hours; and that any scrap metal received has to be kept in the form the dealer received for a set period of time. That period of time cannot exceed 72 hours.

13. Varying the licence

13.1. Dealers can apply to vary a licence from a site licence to a collector’s licence or vice versa, and have to apply to vary the licence where there is any change in the details on the licence. The application has to be made to the local authority that issued the licence and has to set out the details of how the licence needs to be amended. A variation in a site licence has to be applied for where there are any changes relating to the name of the licensee on the licence; any change in the details relating to the identity of the sites from which the licensee is authorised to carry on business; and any change in the details of a site manager.

13.2. In the case of a collector’s licence a variation has to be applied for where there is a change in the details relating to the name of the licensee.

13.3. Local authorities have to be aware that variations related to changes in the name of the licensee on the licence for a site or a collector’s licence cannot be used to affect a transfer of the licence from one person to another. Anyone wanting to hold a licence to be a scrap metal dealer has to apply for their own licence, they cannot take over an existing licence.

46


13.4. Failure on the part of the licensee to apply for a variation is an offence punishable by a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

14. Notifications to the National Register

14.1. The Scrap Metal Dealers Act creates a national register of scrap metal dealer licences which will be open to the public. Establishing and maintaining this national register will be the responsibility of the Environment Agency and when local authorities issue a licence they are obliged to pass on information to enter on the register.

47

10 July 2013 Licensing and Appeals Committee Council Chamber

If you have any special requirements in order to attend this meeting, please let us know in advance

If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact us

LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEE

Related documents

Products

Support

10 July 2013 Licensing and Appeals Committee Council Chamber

If you have any special requirements in order to attend this meeting, please let us know in advance

If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact us

LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEE

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib