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 4 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 Private Hire Driver Licence (PHD).

The applicant was present at the hearing alongside his representative.

The applicant applied for his PHD licence on 3 July 2018 and had completed his medical. His application revealed speeding convictions on 16 and 19 September 2017 for Exceeding Motorway Speed Limit (SP50) both of which resulted in 3 fixed penalty points and £40 fines.

The applicant had previously held a PHD Licence and Private Hire Operators (PHO) Licence with Chorley Council. However, at a General Licensing Sub-Committee meeting in April 2016, both licences were revoked on the grounds that the applicant was not a fit and proper person. The applicant appealed to the courts regarding this decision, but the appeal was dismissed at Preston Magistrates’ Court in November 2016. The District Judge raised concerns regarding the applicant’s behaviour stating he was untrustworthy and held that his operator records did not comply with the conditions attached to his operator licence and fell below the required standards. The applicant appealed this decision at Preston Crown Court however he withdrew his appeal a few days prior to the hearing of the Appeal.

The court awarded costs to Chorley Council in regards to his Appeal at Preston Magistrates Court and his abandoned Appeal at Preston Crown Court. The applicant had outstanding balances for the costs in regards to the abandoned Crown Court appeal and for the appeal at Preston Magistrates’ Court. Chorley Council has also had to incur additional costs by appointing bailiffs to try and recover this money.

The applicant’s representative reminded the Sub-Committee that the applicant had not come to attention of the Council during the period of his previous licences. It was stated that Chorley Council did not convict the applicant via the courts and therefore there were no convictions held against him. Members were reassured that the applicant had considered his position over the last three years since his licence revocation and was moving forward. It was later confirmed that it was only since April 2017 that the revocation in respect of the applicant’s PHD and PHO licences has been enforce.

The applicant’s representative reminded Members that the applicant was not applying for a PHO, only a PHD, therefore reassured the Sub-Committee that the previous incident would not happen again as he would be supervised by an Operator and surrounded by other drivers. The applicant’s representative believed that the applicant had moved on and wanted to get back into driving.

When questioned by Members, the applicant explained the circumstances of his speeding offences, stating that it was for his own safety due to other vehicles on the motorway and hadn’t realised the cameras. The offences took place on the motorway under average speed limit measures. The applicant’s representative suggested that £40 was a relatively low fine and reassured the Sub-Committee that the applicant was a safe  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.LSC.160