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.

No declarations of any interests were 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 ground that they involve 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 Public Protection, Streetscene and Community.

The Sub Committee which had adjourned on 16 March reconvened.  On 16 March the Licence Holder’s solicitor had only received instruction from his client the previous day and more time was required to prepare the case to ensure that his client had a fair hearing.  The Licence Holder’s solicitor made reference to the Human Rights Act 1998. 

The Licence Holder’s solicitor had said on 16 March that there were a number of papers which were material to the case which could be produced to support the licence holder’s case and there had also been technical difficulties in playing the DVD evidence.  Members felt that the receipt of this information was needed to help them decide on whether the licence holder was a fit and proper person and so had adjourned until 8 April.  When this proved impossible for the Licence Holder’s solicitor Chair had authorised a further adjournment to 12 April.

The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of Public Protection, Streetscene and Community to bring to the attention of Members matters relating to the conduct of the Licence Holder, in regards to the Private Hire Operator’s Licence, Private Hire Driver’s Licence, and Private Hire Vehicle Licences.

The Licence Holder came to the attention of officers on 27 August 2015, following a report from a member of the Taxi trade alleging that the Licence Holder was operating a vehicle in connection to his Private Hire Business and that vehicle was not a licensed Private Hire or Hackney Carriage Vehicle.

Officers had investigated the allegations and were satisfied that the circumstantial evidence, as presented, was sufficient to ask Members to consider whether the Licence Holder was a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Operator, Driver and Vehicle Licences.

Officers had prepared a prosecution file requesting that the offences highlighted within that file be reported to the Courts.  However, following legal advice, it was determined that the CCTV evidence might not be sufficient to enable a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt - therefore the file had not been progressed.  Members were informed that the burden of proof in Committee hearings was less onerous than that required of the criminal legal system.  Members need to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, and did not have to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt when reaching their decision.

The Licence Holder attended the meeting on 12 April with his solicitor. 

The Licence Holder had made an application for the grant of the Private Hire Vehicle Licence for the vehicle in question on 25 August 2015. 

The Sub Committee watched the CCTV footage from 26 August 2015 which showed four occasions where the freephone telephone was used by shoppers.  The telephone only called the Licence Holder’s taxi company.  On the four occasions the people were then observed to get into a vehicle which resembled a vehicle of the same manufacturer and model as that subject of the licence holder’s application.  Two further occasions were viewed when people got  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.LSC.68