Agenda item

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 of the five year rule.  Mr Taylor responded that he was aware of Gloucester’s policy but had mistakenly thought that he would be able to licence it with Tewkesbury Borough Council who did not have a five year policy and still operate this service in Gloucester.  He had since been informed by Gloucester City Council’s Licensing and Enforcement Team that this would not be permissible.

The Licensing and Enforcement Officer summed up the Council’s case and reminded Members that they must treat this case on its own merits.

Mr Taylor indicated that he did not have anything further to add.

Committee Members voted to debate the application in private session.  The Applicant and Officers left the room.

On return to the room the Chair announced the decision.

RESOLVED

That the application be accepted on the grounds that the vehicle was of such a high standard for its age that the relevant condition should be waived in this particular case.