northlincs.gov.uk

PRESENT: Councillor Swift in the chair.

Councillors Clark, Ellerby, Jawaid and Vickers

The sub-committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.

822 DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL OR PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AND SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS, OBJECTORS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) – The following member declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following matter:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1982 APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT OF STREET TRADING CONSENT – The Service Director Neighbourhood and Environment submitted a report concerning two applications for a street trading consent at the locations below. Details of the applications were outlined in the report, together with letters of objection from the Principal Traffic Officer, North Lincolnshire Council and Humberside Police.

The Service Director in his report reminded the sub-committee that the options available to it under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 when considering such applications were:-

• To grant the consent as applied for with no additional conditions or restrictions.
• To grant the consent, subject to different conditions or restrictions.
• To refuse the consent, as applied for.

823 (23) Karen Coultard, Land Off A18 Queensway (West) (Near Lakeside Retail Park) – Karen Coultard attended the meeting, and was accompanied by her husband who presented the submissions to the sub-committee. He explained that further to the decision of this sub-committee made in October 2009, an alternative site had been found which had prompted this subsequent application.

Members received further clarification that trade would be conducted from the rear of the layby, which would enable vehicles to move freely to the front of the proposed site.

Ian Jickells, Principal Traffic Officer, North Lincolnshire Council explained that road safety concerns were presented as the reason for objection and these included:

• The site was not clearly visible from the road, and concerns were that if customers missed the entrance they would then enter the layby via the exit.
• A ‘No U Turn’ order on the junction of Dudley Road junction, and the activity would increase the probability of drivers carrying out this illegal manoeuvre.
• Indiscriminate parking on the highway causing obstruction to other road users and reducing flow and capacity. There are no parking restrictions to prevent parking on the dual carriageway.
• Increased risk of pedestrian conflict and unusual crossing patterns due to additional parked vehicles and the desire of pedestrians to cross the road to purchase wreaths.
• Distraction of drivers due to trading and increasing the risk of conflict.

Humberside Police did not present any objection to the proposed trading site.

The sub-committee members engaged in further discussion with the applicant and then adjourned for deliberation. When it reconvened the sub-committee –

Resolved – (a) That the application be granted with the addition of the standard street trading conditions, subject to the vehicle being placed to the rear of the site, and (b) that the sub committee had listened to the objections put forward by the Highways team and noted however, that there were no objections forwarded by the Police.

824 (24) Melanie Taylor, A18 Layby, Broughton Crossroads, Broughton, North Lincolnshire – The sub-committee was advised that Melanie Taylor was unable to attend the meeting due to sickness.

Resolved – That the application be deferred until the next scheduled meeting of this sub-committee on 28th January 2010.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1976 TOWN POLICE CLAUSES ACT 1847 – APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF HACKNEY CARRIAGE/PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE DRIVERS LICENCE – The Service Director Neighbourhood and Environment submitted reports advising members of two applications for review of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Drivers Licence to be determined by the sub-committee.

The reports contained background information on the process for determining such applications, the information to be taken into account and the circumstances in which the sub-committee could refuse a licence.

The options available to the sub-committee when considering the application were:

• To revoke the licence.
• To suspend the licence for a set period of time.
• To take no action.

Should the sub-committee refuse the applications or impose additional terms, conditions or restrictions then the applicant may appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days from the date on which he was notified of the decision. Should the Magistrates uphold the decision of the council, the applicant had further recourse to the Crown Court.

The procedure for dealing with such applications at meetings of the sub-committee had previously been circulated to members.

825 (25) Mr A J Broughton

Mr Broughton entered the room for consideration of the application. It was at this point that Councillor K Vickers declared a personal and prejudicial interest as he was known to the applicant. Councillor K Vickers left the meeting and took no further involvement with the discussions or decisions relating to this item.

Mr Broughton attended the meeting for consideration of the item, made submissions and answered questions relating to previous convictions and other matters.

Resolved – (a) That the applicant be allowed to retain his licence, (b) that the applicant receive a severe warning as to his future conduct and be advised that any further failure to disclose information will be taken seriously, and (c) that the sub-committee advise that any further incidents would result in his appearance before this sub-committee again where a more severe decision may be taken.

Councillor K Vickers re-entered the meeting, for consideration of the following item.

826 (26) Mr Z Raja

Mr Raja attended the meeting for consideration of the item, made submissions and answered questions relating to previous convictions and other matters.

Members engaged in further discussions with the applicant and questioned the number of points that had been accrued, why the applicant had not been previously disqualified from driving and whether the applicant had applied for a license in his home town. The sub-committee then adjourned for deliberation. When it reconvened the sub-committee,

Resolved – (a) That the applicants license be revoked on the grounds that the sub-committee was not satisfied that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold such a license under section 51 and section 59 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, in that there had been a pattern of offences over the last three years, (b) that the sub committee considered that the number of penalty points accrued were excessive and gave rise for concern in respect of public safety, and (c) that this decision was with immediate effect.