Agenda and minutes

Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any pecuniary interest in respect of matters contained in this agenda.

If you have a pecuniary interest you must withdraw from the meeting. Normally you should leave the room before the business starts to be discussed. You do, however, have the same right to speak as a member of the public and may remain in the room to enable you to exercise that right and then leave immediately. In either case you must not seek to improperly influence a decision on the matter.

There were no declarations of interests received.

The Chair outlined the hearing procedure that would be used to conduct the meeting.

To consider the exclusion of the press and public for the following items of business on the ground that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

By Virtue of Paragraph 1: Information relating to any individual.

Condition:

Information is exempt to the extent that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Information is not exempt if it relates to proposed development for which the local planning authority may grant itself planning permission pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town & Country Planning General Regulations 1992(a).

RESOLVED – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Report of the Director of Early Intervention and Support (enclosed).

The Director of Early Intervention and Support submitted a report for the General Licensing Sub-Committee to review the Hackney Carriage (HCD) and Private Hire Drivers’ (PHD) licences. Members were to determine whether the licence holder remained a fit and proper person to hold HCD and PHD.

The licence holder and his representative were both present to make their representations to the Sub-Committee.

The licence holder applied for a PHD and HCD licence in February 2016. The application was processed and issued on 4 April 2016. The licence holder had completed the Council’s Mandatory Safeguarding training in September 2016. He received an SP30 motoring offence in August 2014, but this was now spent.

On 19 October 2017, the Council’s Regulatory Services Manager was contacted via email by the Compliance Manager of Integrated Transport Services at Lancashire County Council. The email outlined that a Chorley licensed PHD undertaking Lancashire County Council school contract work, had been recorded using his mobile phone whilst driving. The recording had been made by the child whilst being transported by the driver to school. A copy of the recording was viewed by Members of the Sub-Committee at the hearing.

Investigations took place that confirmed the licence holder concerned as the driver of the vehicle. Following this, an interview, jointly led by officers from Chorley Council and Lancashire County Council was conducted. The licence holder was shown the video clip provided by the passenger and confirmed that he was the driver of the vehicle when the recording was taken.

The licence holder accepted that the footage demonstrated that the vehicle was moving when the phone was being used however, he was unclear what he was using his phone for and states he had no recollection of using his phone. The licence holder confirmed that he had subsequently checked his phone for texts/calls made around the time of the incident but was unable to find anything.

The licence holder understood that it was not acceptable to use his phone whilst driving but could not provide an explanation as to why he chose to do so on this occasion. The licence holder was very embarrassed and ashamed of his actions and outlined that he had family friends who had lost their daughter as a result of an 18 year old texting whilst driving. It was reported that the licence holder was visibly upset during the interview.

The Lead Licensing Enforcement Officer advised the Sub-Committee that there was no motoring conviction against the licence holder for this incident. The evidence on which Members were to base their decision was on the information outlined in the report and the footage and representations provided at the hearing. It was reiterated to Members that there had been no previous concerns or no complaints made regarding the licence holder since being licenced with the Council.

Following queries, it was advised that there was no evidence from the licence holder’s phone provider to indicate that the phone was being used to send messages and make calls  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.LSC.134