Regulatory Minutes

Date:
Wednesday, 22nd July, 2015
Time:
7.30 pm
Place:
New Council Chamber, Town Hall, Reigate
 

Attendance Details

Present:
Councillors S. Bramhall, G. Crome (Chairman), R. Harper, A. Horwood, D. Jackson, F. Kelly, A. Lynch, C. Stevens and Ms B. Thomson
Min NoDescriptionResolution
Part I
7 MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 July 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed.

8 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor R. Mantle.

9 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

10 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

There was no other business.

11 EXEMPT BUSINESS

RESOLVED that members of the Press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that:

 

(i) they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act; and

 

(ii) the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
 

Part II(Confidential)
12 APPLICATION TO LIFT THE SUSPENSION OF A PRIVATE HIRE DRIVER'S LICENCE
  • Agenda Item: 6 (2M/bytes)

RESOLVED, that the suspension on the licence be LIFTED and that a written warning be issued to the driver.

The Chairman advised the applicant that in reaching its decision:

 

1. The Committee had reviewed the report and the annexes circulated with the agenda.

 

2. The Committee paid careful attention to all the submissions made orally during the hearing by the applicant and the licensing officer.

 

3. The Committee gave due regard to the individual merits of this application, section 61 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the Council's own Taxi and PHV Licensing Criminal Convictions Policy, section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, human rights legislation and in particular Article 8 and Article 1 First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights and the rules of natural justice.

 

4. The Committee accepted, but did not necessarily agree with, recent case-law which meant that revocation of the licence was no longer an option for it to consider.
 

13 APPLICATION FOR A PRIVATE HIRE DRIVER'S LICENCE
  • Agenda Item: 7 (17M/bytes)

RESOLVED that the application for a private hire driver’s licence be REFUSED.

 

The Chairman advised the applicant that in reaching its decision:

 

1. The Committee had reviewed the report and the annexes circulated with the agenda, together with the supplementary papers tabled at the meeting.

 

2. The Committee paid careful attention to all the submissions made orally during the hearing by the applicant, his representative and the licensing officer.

 

3. The Committee gave due regard to the individual merits of this application, section 51 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the Council’s own Taxi and PHV Licensing Criminal Convictions Policy, section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, human rights legislation and in particular Article 8 and Article 1 First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights and the rules of natural justice.

 

4. The Committee noted that the applicant had demonstrated a lack of genuine remorse in relation to the matters put before him and that he did not take responsibility for his actions.

 

5. The Committee also noted that the applicant contradicted himself in relation to his knowledge and experience as a private hire driver.

 

6. The Committee considered the applicant’s track record, and in particular the removal of his blue badge by Surrey County Council, to be extremely serious and were concerned about the public safety implications of his actions.

 

7. A private hire driver licence placed the holder in a considerable position of trust. The Committee expected such licence holders to be professional and safe drivers, who conduct themselves appropriately. The Committee found the applicant’s track record conflicted with the paramount consideration of public protection and as a consequence did not consider him to be a fit and proper person.

 

8. The Committee understood what this decision meant in terms of the applicant’s livelihood, however, when balanced against the protection of the public, the loss of the licence holder’s livelihood in itself was not sufficient to warrant any other course of action.
 

The meeting closed at 10.53 pm.