Agenda and minutes

To receive from Members, declarations as to personal and/or prejudicial interests and the nature of those interests in relation to any agenda item. Please see Notes 1 and 2 overleaf.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the two meetings held on 16^th August 2011.

The minutes of the two meetings held on 16^th August 2011 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 30^th August 2011.

The minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 30^th August 2011 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To receive any questions from members of the public provided that a question does not relate to:

·         Matters which are the subject of current or pending legal proceedings, or

·         Matters relating to employees or former employees of the Council or comments in respect of individual Council Officers

There were no questions from the public.

To receive any petitions and deputations provided that no such petition is in relation to:

·         Matters relating to individual Council Officers, or

·         Matters relating to current or pending legal proceedings

There were no petitions or deputations.

Report of the Group Manager, Environmental Health and Regulatory Services.

The Chair outlined the procedure for consideration of the application.

The Licensing and Enforcement Officer outlined the appeal by Mr Selwyn Lloyd Taylor against an officer decision to refuse to issue a private hire vehicle licence to vehicle Mercedes S320 CDI, long wheelbase, registration number M6 NCD, on the grounds that it did not meet the age specification required by the Council’s policy on the age of vehicles.  The vehicle was first registered with the DVLA on 23^rd March 2005, making it in excess of 6 years old since registration.  Mr Taylor’s original application had been received on the 5^th September 2011 and was followed up with an email dated 4^th October 2011 justifying the purchase of the vehicle. 

.

Mr Taylor had been a licensed Private Hire Driver since 2^nd May 2008 and currently worked for Andy Cars specialising in a role as a Chauffeur.

Members inspected the car and noted it was an executive class vehicle.  It had passed the MOT and the Council’s own inspection check. 

The City Council is empowered under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 to licence private hire vehicles and to apply conditions to the issue of such licences.

Council policy for the first time of licensing a private hire vehicle which came into effect on 1^st June 2010 stipulated ‘vehicles will not be accepted for licensing on the first occasion after 5 years from the date of first registration, regardless of whether it was previously licensed anywhere else in the UK, or re-licensed 10 years from the date of first registration’.

The Licensing and Enforcement Officer reminded Members that in May 2003, the Council’s General Conditions for Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing contained the wording ‘will not normally be accepted’ in place of the above, thus allowing Officer and Member discretion when deciding the merits of an individual case.  It was noted that at present, the discretion rested only with Members to exempt vehicles from Council policy on an individual merits basis.

Members were advised that they had two options:-

(a)      To refuse the application on the grounds that the vehicle fell outside of Council policy on the age of vehicles that can be accepted for licensing on the first occasion.

Or

(b)      To accept the application on the grounds that the vehicle was of such a high standard for its age, that Council policy should be departed from in this particular case.

There were no questions to the Licensing and Enforcement Officer by either the Applicant or Members.

Mr Taylor addressed the Committee.  He explained that there was a demand from customers to be transported in a vehicle of this type, but because of the prohibitive cost of buying them new he had been obliged to look for a second-hand model.  This was not the only private hire vehicle he owned and in the event of Members refusing his application he would sell it.

A Member questioned Mr Taylor regarding his knowledge  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Report of the Group Manager – Services, Facilities and Support

The Chair explained the process for hearing the appeal against the Officer decision.

The Regeneration Group Manager – Services, Facilities and Support presented an appeal against the Council’s refusal to allow Mr Wayne McCormick to operate a hot food unit in Cemetery Road.  Mr McCormick had originally requested permission to trade between the hours of 7 am until 12 pm Monday-Thursday, 7 am until 2 am Fridays, and 12 noon until 2 am on Saturdays.  Having been informed by the Regeneration Group Manager – Services, Facilities and Support of the refusal of a similar application in the area, Mr McCormick decided to amend his application and now wished to operate between 7 am until 1 pm, Monday to Saturday, or 7 am to 1 pm Monday to Friday, should that be more acceptable to Members.

The Council adopted a new policy and process for Street Trading Applications in April 2009 resulting in the drawing up a Street Trading Criteria and a Consultation programme.  Since the introduction of the policy there had been significant improvements to the street trading activity both in the City Centre and the surrounding areas.

In accordance with the policy, there had been consultation on Mr McCormick’s proposal with the relevant stakeholders which had resulted in 5 objections from residents of Cemetery Road, mainly concerned with noise, smell, litter and traffic problems.  Residents also thought that it was inappropriate to have this type of business so close to the Cemetery. Comments about the siting of the van had been received from Gloucestershire Constabulary and the Cabinet Member. The Ward Councillor had not submitted any objections to the proposal.

Following evaluation of the proposal against the criteria and the objections that had been received, the Regeneration Group Manager – Services, Facilities and Support had refused the application.  Mr McCormick had appealed against the decision indicating as part of his submission that Cemetery Road was a designated lay-by.  The Regeneration Group Manager – Services, Facilities and Support drew Members’ attention to an inaccuracy in the report.  Gloucestershire Highways’ had originally stated that they did not consider Cemetery Road to be a designated lay-by.  However, since the report had been published, Gloucestershire Highways had corrected this statement and confirmed that there was a parking plate at the entrance to the road and supplied photographic evidence to that effect.  Notwithstanding this, Gloucestershire Highways still had concerns that parking would create parking problems and hazards. 

In view of all the objections, the Regeneration Group Manager – Services, Facilities and Support recommended Members to dismiss Mr McCormick’s appeal and to uphold the reasons for refusal.

Mr McCormick asked the Regeneration Group Manager – Services, Facilities and Support how many responses had been received from residents.  At this point, with the permission of the Appellant a further letter was read out from a resident who had hoped to attend the Committee.

Members questioned the Regeneration Group Manager – Services, Facilities and Support regarding the location of the proposed hot food van in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Report of the Group Manager for Environmental Health and Regulatory Services.

Committee considered a report which had been prepared following a request from a member of the public for pedicabs (rickshaws) to be licensed as hackney carriage vehicles in Gloucester.  Members were asked to consider the practical consequences of using this type of vehicle.  A pedicab had been available for inspection outside the Council offices prior to the start of the meeting.

Members were being asked to either agree in  principle to consider the licensing of pedicabs and the associated work entailed in developing a policy, or to recognise that licensing pedicabs in Gloucester City was not appropriate at that particular time. 

The report outlined the definition of a ‘Hackney Carriage’ and cited instances where pedicabs had been used elsewhere by other Councils.  Most schemes had failed because of lack of use apart from Herefordshire Council where they continued to be successful because of the creative approach of the licence holders who used the pedicabs for business use as well as tourism/taxi use.

Members were advised that a pedicab did not meet the Council’s current specification as a licensed hackney carriage as set out in appendices B and C to the report and that if Members wished to pursue this project that they would need to develop and adopt specific vehicle conditions for them to operate in Gloucester City.  The Council had the power to change its current policy to enable consideration of other types of Hackney Carriage Vehicles provided that this was approved by Full Council.  Members noted there was currently no Parliamentary legislation to control the provision of pedicabs.

It was noted that pedicabs could not meet the City Council’s licensing criteria in respect of wheelchair access and were not exempt vehicles under the Equalities Act 2010.

The Committee was advised of the issues it would need to consider should it be minded to approve the licensing of pedicabs and the fact that it was likely that external specialist legal advice on some aspects would need to be sought.  The report also set out the detailed work which Officers would need to carry out.  Any costs incurred in investigating the introduction of pedicabs would need to be recovered via the hackney carriage licence fees although this could be spread over 2-3 years.  Members were advised that in the event of the venture being unsuccessful, not all the costs would be recoverable.

The following points were discussed:-

• Members were interested in the proposal and felt it would be a good tourist attraction for the City.
• There were concerns that it was difficult to estimate the amount of officer time that would need to be invested in researching the project.  The Officers agreed to try to rationalise these.
• Horse-drawn carriages, motorised and non-motorised pedicabs would be evaluated.
• Officers would contact Herefordshire Council in order to learn from their experiences in setting a policy

RESOLVED

That Committee agreed in principle to consider the licensing of pedicabs in Gloucester City and agreed to devote resources into developing a policy for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Report of the Group Manager for Environmental Health and Regulatory Services.

The Food Safety and Licensing Service Manager briefed Members on an update report which detailed:-

·         Updates on licensing activities in the last quarter

·         Results of Appeal Cases to the Magistrates’ Court against decisions made by the Committee

·         A proposed three year work plan for the Committee’s quarterly meetings

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

Tuesday 13^th December 2011, at 6.30 p.m.

Tuesday 13^th December at 18.30 hours.