northlincs.gov.uk

PRESENT: Councillor Barkworth in the chair.

Councillors Clark, Ellerby, Gosling and K Vickers

The sub-committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.

913 DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL OR PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AND SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS, OBJECTORS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) – There were no declarations of personal or personal and prejudicial interests.

914 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 February 2011, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chair.

915 (22) LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1982 APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT OF STREET TRADING CONSENT – Mr Brayshaw, T/A Tummy Stuff The Director Neighbourhood and Environment Services submitted a report concerning an application for a street trading consent. Details of the applications were outlined within the report, together with a letter of objection from Humberside Police for one of the intended sites.

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

Mr Brayshaw attended the meeting, and presented the submissions to the sub-committee. He explained that having had further consultation with Humberside Police, an alternative site had been recommended for Ealand, and a plan was circulated to all members of the sub-committee.

Humberside Police did not attend the meeting .

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 applications be granted and the standard street trading condition 6 should be varied, subject to confirmation from Humberside police that they are happy with the amended location in Ealand, and (b) that this be subject to the condition that Mr Brayshaw only trades in the locations detailed on the plans attached to the consent.

916 (23) LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1976 – TOWN POLICE CLAUSES ACT 1847 – APPLICATION TO RENEW OR REVIEW A HACKNEY CARRIAGE/PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE DRIVERS LICENCE – MR D COCHRANE – The Director Neighbourhood and Environment Services submitted a report advising members of an application for review of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Drivers Licence to be determined by the sub-committee.

The report 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 revoke a licence.

It was explained that since the meeting held on 17 February 2011, Mr Cochrane’s Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Drivers Licence had expired and that the sub committee was now considering an application to renew the licence. On this basis it was clarified that the options available to the sub-committee when considering the application were:

• To approve the application for a licence
• To refuse the application for a licence.

Should the sub-committee refuse the application 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.

The sub-committee was informed that this was the third time the matter had been before members. Mr Cochrane had not attended on the first occasion, on the second occasion he had requested an adjournment so that he could bring witnesses, and on this occasion he had turned up but then left again without explanation. The sub-committee adjourned for approximately 10 minutes whilst waiting to see if Mr Cochrane returned, as he had been observed leaving the premises without explanation.

Legal advice was subsequently sought and it was considered that Mr Cochrane had been given ample opportunity to put forward his case and that the sub-committee would be justified in hearing the matter in his absence.

The licensing officer explained that Mr Cochrane had been in possession of a valid licence at the beginning of the process but that it had since expired. The decision that the sub-committee was now being asked to make was whether or not Mr Cochrane was a fit and proper person to hold a hackney carriage driver’s licence and, consequently whether or not the licence should be renewed. He explained that Mr Cochrane had held a licence since March 2005 and that this was the first incident recorded against him.

The licensing officer outlined the reasons that the matter was being brought to the sub-committee. Members read all witness statements that had been submitted and asked questions of the civil enforcement officer who was in attendance.

Resolved – That the application be refused on the grounds that the sub-committee was not satisfied that Mr Cochrane was a fit and proper person to hold such a Licence under section 61 (1) (b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, in that the use of foul and abusive language and behaviour towards a council officer doing his duty was not acceptable.

917 (24) LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1976 TOWN POLICE CLAUSES ACT 1847 – APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF HACKNEY CARRIAGE/PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE DRIVERS LICENCE – MR S P DICKINSON – The Director Neighbourhood and Environment Services submitted a report advising members of an application for grant 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 applications were:

• To grant the licence as applied for with no additional conditions or restrictions other than those normally applied to such licences.
• To grant the licence subject to additional conditions or restrictions.
• To refuse to grant the licence.

Should the Sub-Committee refuse the application or impose additional terms, conditions or restrictions then the applicant may appeal to Magistrates Court within 21 days from the date on which he/she 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.

The Director Neighbourhood and Environment Services advised members of the sub-committee that Mr Dickinson had not arrived for the meeting and no apologies or explanation had been received. It was reiterated that this was the second occasion that Mr Dickinson had failed to attend.

Resolved – (a) That the application be withdrawn, and (b) that should the applicant with to pursue his application, he must notify the Licensing Team accordingly.