LICENSING AND APPEALS SUB-COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Sub-Committee held on 21
August 2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at
2.00 pm.
Sub-Committee
Mrs H Thompson (Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Observing:
Mr R Reynolds (a Member of the
Licensing and Appeals Committee)
Officers in Attendance:
The Solicitor, the Licensing Manager and the Democratic
Services Team Leader (MMH)
1
APOLOGIES
None received.
2
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
3
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
4
EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC
RESOLVED
That under S100 A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and
press be excluded from the meeting for Agenda Item No 4 on the grounds
that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in
paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (a) of the Act.
5
WK/120011182 – APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE TO DRIVE HACKNEY
CARRIAGE OR PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES IN NORTH NORFOLK
This was a re-convening of the Hearing adjourned on 18 July 2012 and, as
such, was being heard by the same Members.
The Applicant was not present. He had given notice by email that he agreed
to the Hearing proceeding in his absence. The Licensing Manager advised
that it was in the interests of the Applicant for the matter to be heard as soon
as possible unless Members had reasons for an adjournment.
RESOLVED
to proceed with the Hearing in the absence of the Applicant.
Licensing Sub-Committee
21 August 2012
The Licensing Manager informed Members that, since the adjournment on
July 18 2012, further information had been sought and received:
a) A documentary evidence sheet had been compiled and was attached at
Appendix A of the report. This summarised the contents of the Applicant’s
CRB disclosure.
b) References had been received and were attached at Appendix B of the
report.
c) Enquiries of Norfolk Fire Service had confirmed that the Applicant was
employed as a whole-time fire fighter in Norwich from 2 May 2000 to 20
August 2004 when he resigned to seek alternative employment.
d) Broadland District Council had confirmed that they had licensed the
Applicant as a Taxi driver in 2005 for 3 years (expiring on 17 February
2008) conditionally with a written warning as to future conduct as a result
of his conviction record. The paperwork from Broadland had been
archived. It would have been desirable to have more information, but this
was not practically possible.
The Applicant had made his application before the new Handbook had
been approved by Full Council. He now had the choice between applying
for a one-year or a three-year licence. This was something Members
might wish to consider if they were minded to grant the licence.
Questions were asked of the Licensing Manager:
a) Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds asked where the Applicant intended to work
since he lived in Norwich. The Licensing Manager replied that it was
not unusual for taxi drivers to live outside the area where they were
licensed. The Applicant had not indicated if he intended to work for an
operator or become self-employed.
b) Mrs Claussen-Reynolds expressed concern that one of the references
was received by email with no identification to show that it was bona
fide. The Licensing Manager said that the Licensing Team had further
information about that particular referee.
c) Concern was expressed about discrepancies between the Applicant’s
application form and the offences listed on his CRB. The Democratic
Services Team Leader read back the notes she had taken at the
Hearing of 18 July 2012. The notes suggested that the Applicant was
aware of the matters on his CRB but was trying to mitigate them by
telling the Panel about more recent activities that were indicative of
good character.
d) The Solicitor to the Council asked if there were conditions the
Licensing Manager would want to see attached if Members were
minded to grant the licence. The Licensing Manager replied that he
would require clarification if the Applicant was seeking to work for an
operator or intending to become self-employed. Working for an
operator would be preferable from the point of view of public
protection. A one-year licence would also be preferable to a longer
term.
It was noted that the 2 references had been read by Members and that
the information provided by the Applicant at the previous meeting had
been taken into consideration.
The Sub Committee adjourned at 2.45 pm and returned at 3.10 pm.
Licensing Sub-Committee
21 August 2012
The Chairman gave the decision of the Sub Committee.
The Sub Committee thanked the Applicant for his updated information and
noted his commendation from the Fire Service and second reference.
The Sub Committee also noted that the Applicant had held a taxi licence
with Broadland District Council from 2005 to 17 February 2008,
conditional, with a written warning as to future conduct because of his
conviction record.
However, having reviewed all the further documentation, the Panel still felt
there were discrepancies and inconsistencies between the information
supplied on the application form dated 17 April 2012 and the CRB
documentation. The Sub Committee considered that in view of the
previous driving offences and disqualification the Applicant did not
adequately fulfil the Licensing requirement to be a fit and proper person to
hold a private hire and hackney carriage driver’s licence, particularly as
the offences and disqualification were not disclosed in full by the Applicant
on his application form.
The Sub Committee had, therefore, decided not to grant the licence on
this occasion.
There would be a right of appeal against this decision to the Magistrates’
Court. An appeal must be commenced within 21 days beginning with the
day on which the notification of the decision was received.
RESOLVED
Not to grant the licence.
The meeting concluded at 3.15 pm.
Licensing Sub-Committee
21 August 2012