Licensing (Miscellaneous) Sub-Committee – 15 January 2015

Chair: Councillor K Vickers
Venue: Civic Centre, Ashby Road, Scunthorpe
Time:  10am

AGENDA

1. Substitutions.

2. Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests and Personal or Personal and Prejudicial Interests, and significant contact with Applicants, Objectors or Third Parties (Lobbying), if any.

3. Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 application for grant of street trading licence – Dinky Donuts, Site A, Gilliat Street, Scunthorpe.

4. Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 application for a Private Hire Vehicle Drivers Licence – Baldev Singh Bhullar.

5. Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 Town Police Clauses Act 1847 – Application for a Hackney Carriage/ Private Hire Vehicle Drivers Licence – Mr Heman Norei Mohammad.

6. Any other items which the Chair decides are urgent by reason of special circumstances which must be specified.

MINUTES

PRESENT:  Councillor K Vickers in the chair

Councillors Armitage, Clark, Swift and P Vickers.

The sub-committee met at the Civic Centre, Scunthorpe.

1207 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS, PERSONAL OR PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AND SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS, OBJECTORS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) – The following member declared a personal interest –

Member Minute Nature of Interest
Councillor Armitage  Licence holder

1208 (18)  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1982, APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF STREET TRADING LICENCE – DINKY DONUTS, SITE A, GILLIAT STREET, SCUNTHORPE – The Director of Places submitted a report requesting the sub-committee to consider and determine an application for a Street Trading Licence. Mr Smalley had submitted his application, as detailed in appendix A, B and C of the report, wishing to trade from a trailer selling dinky donuts, candy floss, tea, coffee and pop. Following a public notice displayed at the site, appendix D refers, no objections had been made but the street trading policy stated that all applications for the pedestrianised area were to be determined by the Licensing (Miscellaneous) Sub-Committee.

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

– To grant the application subject to different terms, conditions or restrictions.

– To refuse the application.

Mr Smalley attended the meeting, made submissions and answered members’ questions in accordance with the published procedure.

The sub-committee then adjourned for deliberation. When it reconvened the sub-committee –

Resolved – (a) That the street trading license be granted as applied for; (b) that the business be located on Gilliat Street in accordance with the location specified on the plan appended to the application, and (c) that the applicant provide a suitable metal receptacle for the collection of any waste generated which will be removed on a daily basis from the site.

1209 (19)  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1976 – TOWN POLICE CLAUSES ACT 1847 – APPLICATION  FOR A PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE DRIVERS LICENCE – MR BALDEV SINGH BHULLAR – The Director of Places submitted a report advising members of an application for grant of a Private Hire Vehicle 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 refuse a licence.

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

• To grant the licence
• 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 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.

Mr Bhullar attended the meeting, made submissions and gave an account of the events that had lead to his appearance before this sub-committee, and answered questions relating to the recorded incidents.

The sub-committee then adjourned for deliberation. When it reconvened the sub-committee –

Resolved – That the application be refused 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 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, in that there was a clear pattern of offending, particularly in relation to traffic offences and those related with excess alcohol.  The sub-committees paramount concern was the safety of the public, including vulnerable people.

1210 (20)  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1976 – TOWN POLICE CLAUSES ACT 1847 – APPLICATION  FOR A PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE DRIVERS LICENCE – MR HEMAN NOREI MOHAMMED – The Director of Places submitted a report advising members of an application for grant of a Private Hire Vehicle 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 refuse a licence.

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

• To grant the licence
• 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 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.

Mr Mohammad attended the meeting, made submissions and gave an account of the events that had lead to his appearance before this sub-committee, and answered questions relating to the recorded incident.

The sub-committee then adjourned for deliberation. When it reconvened the sub-committee –

Resolved – That the application be granted.