Agenda and minutes
PDF 280 KBVenue: Meeting Room 1 - Level 3, Gun Wharf, Dock Road, Chatham ME4 4TR
Contact: Stephen Platt, Democratic Services Officer
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman To elect the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Licensing Sub-Committee of the Licensing and Safety Committee for the 2017/18 municipal year. Minutes: Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers was elected Chairman and Councillor Carr elected Vice-Chairman for the 2017/18 Municipal Year. |
|
|
Apologies for absence Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
To approve the record of the meeting held on 10 March 2017. Minutes: The record of the meeting held on 10 March 2017 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. |
|
|
Urgent matters by reason of special circumstances The Chairman will announce any late items which do not appear on the main agenda but which he/she has agreed should be considered by reason of special circumstances to be specified in the report. Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
Declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests and other interests A member need only disclose at any meeting the existence of a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) in a matter to be considered at that meeting if that DPI has not been entered on the disclosable pecuniary interests register maintained by the Monitoring Officer.
A member disclosing a DPI at a meeting must thereafter notify the Monitoring Officer in writing of that interest within 28 days from the date of disclosure at the meeting.
A member may not participate in a discussion of or vote on any matter in which he or she has a DPI (both those already registered and those disclosed at the meeting) and must withdraw from the room during such discussion/vote.
Members may choose to voluntarily disclose a DPI at a meeting even if it is registered on the council’s register of disclosable pecuniary interests but there is no legal requirement to do so.
Members should also ensure they disclose any other interests which may give rise to a conflict under the council’s code of conduct.
In line with the training provided to members by the Monitoring Officer members will also need to consider bias and pre-determination in certain circumstances and whether they have a conflict of interest or should otherwise leave the room for Code reasons. Minutes: Disclosable pecuniary interests
There were none.
Other interests
There were none. |
|
|
Exclusion of the press and public This report summarises the content of agenda item 7 which, in the opinion of the proper officer, contains exempt information within one or more of the categories in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. It is a matter for the Sub-Committee to determine whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during consideration of documents. Minutes: The press and public were excluded from the meeting during consideration of agenda item 7 because consideration of this matter in public would disclose information falling within paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as specified in agenda item 6 (Exclusion of Press and Public) and, in all the circumstances of the case, the Sub-Committee considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. |
|
|
Appeal against the suspension of a Hackney Carriage Driver Licence and Review of a Hackney Carriage Driver Licence The Sub-Committee is requested to consider an appeal against the suspension of a Hackney Carriage Driver Licence and to subsequently consider the continuance of the licence.
Additional documents:
Minutes: Discussion:
The Principal Licensing and Enforcement Officer requested that the Sub-Committee consider the information and evidence in her report and determine Mr S’s appeal against suspension of his Hackney Carriage Driver Licence and to subsequently consider the continuance of the licence and determine what action should be taken.
The Sub-Committee was advised that Mr S had held a Hackney Carriage Driver Licence for a considerable number of years although the date he was first licensed was unknown.
The Principal Licensing and Enforcement Officer advised that following receipt of complaints from members of the public regarding concerns as to Mr S’s poor standard of driving and concentration, he had been referred for a driving standards assessment on 19 July 2017 which he had failed. A copy of the assessment report was appended to the report at Appendix D. Copies of the complaints had been supplied to members of the Sub-Committee prior to the hearing and video footage taken from a vehicle following Mr S’s Hackney Carriage was shown at the hearing.
The Sub-Committee was advised that Mr S had confirmed to the assessor on the day of the test that he did not have any medical conditions that may affect his driving and that he was not diabetic.
The Principal Licensing and Enforcement Officer advised the Sub-Committee that this was untrue as Mr S’s medical records confirmed that he had been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes since at least 2010.
In light of the above, Mr S’s licence had been suspended with immediate effect.
The Sub-Committee was advised that Mr S had subsequently re-sat the driving assessment on 30 July which he had passed. Although Mr S had requested that the Council reconsider the suspension of his licence, the Principal Licensing and Enforcement Officer had advised that this would now be a decision for the Sub-Committee to determine.
In presenting her report, the Principal Licensing and Enforcement Officer highlighted the very high standard that Medway Council expected from its licensed drivers.
Mr S’s representative addressed the Sub-Committee to make representations in mitigation and responded to questions from members of the Sub-Committee.
Mr S’s representative explained that when undertaking the initial driving assessment on 19 July 2017, Mr S had been asked if he had taken any medication that day which may affect his performance in the test and he had replied that he hadn’t. This was not untrue as Mr S took medication for his diabetes but did so in the evening and therefore he had not taken any medication on the morning of the test. It therefore appeared that there was a misunderstanding of the question that had been asked of Mr S on the day of the initial test and the way in which this information had been recorded on the assessment form.
The Principal Licensing and Enforcement Officer confirmed that she had not been in attendance at the assessment test and therefore could not confirm the actual question which had been put to Mr S.
Mr S’s ... view the full minutes text for item 296. |