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 item of business on the grounds that it 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 Customer and Digital (enclosed).

The Director of Customer and Digital submitted a report for the General Licensing Sub-Committee to determine whether the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

The applicant was present at the Sub-Committee.

The Council’s current records confirm that the applicant was previously licensed as a Hackney Carriage Driver at Chorley Council between 2011 and 2014. The applicant, in his representations, explained that he had been licenced from 2001 up until 2014.  The Council does not dispute this however the Council’s records do not go as far back as 2001 to confirm. As a result of the applicant’s failure to provide additional information on renewal in 2014, his application to renew was rejected and the licence lapsed.

On 20 August 2018 the Council received an application for a Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence. Following consultation, the Council’s Group 2 Medical expert provided advice which indicated no medical reason that the applicant should be refused a licence.

The applicant’s motoring convictions were outlined in the report. As a result of the “totting up” procedure, the applicant was disqualified from driving for a period of six months. The applicant applied to the Magistrates’ Court to suspend the disqualification pending an appeal against his conviction. This was granted. The applicant’s appeal against his conviction and sentence was heard and subsequently dismissed by the Crown Court.

The applicant advised Members that he had held a Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence from 2001 until 2014 throughout which time no complaints had been received about his driving or conduct, either from a member of the public or another taxi driver.

The applicant provided the Sub-Committee with an account of the incidents which led to his convictions. He explained that the MS90 received in 2015 was perpetrated by his daughter, who subsequently intercepted all post to the applicant relating to the incident. The applicant explained that, therefore, he remained unaware of the incident and of the need to submit any further information and only found out about in incident when the points were added to his licence.

The applicant also advised that although he originally lodged an appeal against the failure to provide further information, he withdrew this when it became apparent his daughter would then be liable for a criminal charge of perverting the course of justice.

The applicant then explained the SP30 conviction in 2016 was caused by his children borrowing his car and being caught speeding. Although naming his son as the driver at the time of the incident, the applicant advised he didn’t receive the letter requesting further information which led to its late submission. Although the applicant did appeal the verdict, the conviction was upheld.

The applicant stated that his DBS was clear, his convictions were now spent and since getting his driving licence restored by the DVLA in April 2018, he had not committed any further offences. He advised that his past Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licences had only lapsed in 2014  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.LSC.8