Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Roger Whyborn and Jo Stafford

There were no Declarations of Interest.

These must be received no later than 12 noon on the fourth working day before the date of the meeting 27^th February 2020.

There were no public questions.

To approve the minutes of the last meeting held on 4^th December 2019.

Minutes of the meeting held on 4/12/19 were accepted and signed as a true and accurate record.

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Licensing Sub Committee held on 5^th February 2020.

Minutes of the Sub Committee meeting on the 5/02/20 were accepted and signed as a true and accurate record.

Tom Howley

The Chair explained the process to the applicant.

The Senior Licensing Officer then presented his report.  He verified that the detail in the report issued prior to the meeting stated that the dimensions of the A board were 94 cm not 940 cm as was in the report.  He also clarified the proposed position of the board by use of a map.  He clarified that as the board in question was a swing board and not an A board that the board was in breach of policy. 

The decision to be made by the Committee was as follows:

Approve the application because Members are satisfied that the location is suitable or

Refuse the application because it does not comply with the provision of the Street Scene policy.

This application was referred to Members as it does not comply with policy as it is a swing board and it was in a conservation area, this is a side alley not a public right of way.

It was also stated that on a policy note the proposed position was not on a highway so therefore if it was approved no licence fee would apply.

The Members then raised the following points to the Senior Licensing Officer:

-       Further clarification was requested as to where the board would be on the map.

-       Is there a good reason why a swing board rather than an A board would not be approved

-       It was discussed that the shop does have frontage and the area for the board was on the private alleyway between Montpellier Street and Montpellier Walk.

The Senior Licensing Officer then confirmed that the applicant does fall foul of the policy as it is a conservation area.  He also referred members to point 3.3 of the policy (which has been adopted by Council) which states that a board must not have moving parts.

The Applicant then clarified that she had no further questions for the Officer and also gave some background as to the application.  She stated that the shop opened in June and that she (as manager) was given the board by Head Office to put outside the premises.  She stated that until recently she was not aware of the difference between an A board and a swing board.  She said that the idea of the board is that when people go through the walkway the front door is not visible, however the frontage and the side of the shop on Montpellier Street are very visible.

Members then asked the following questions:

-       Why do you require a board when the shop front is at street level?  Didn’t feel it was valid to say people wouldn’t know the shop was there

-       Are you a destination shop ie do customers just wander in off the street to look at a kitchen?

The applicant replied that the board was provided by Head Office as all the other stores in the chain have them and that she believed that about a third  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Greggs 219 High Street

There was no representation from the applicant.

The Senior Licensing Officer presented the report – the permission was for 4 tables and 8 chairs as in Appendix A & B of the agenda.  An objection had been received from Fone World on the basis that the space left if permission is granted is less than 1.8 metres.

Its was also noted that the measurements provided by the applicant are incorrect.

The recommendation was that the application be refused as the amount of room that will  be left on the pavement is only going to be 1.3-5 metres.

Members then made the following points:

-       If they had applied for 2 tables and 4 chairs would that be acceptable?

-       Requested that the applicant be notified that 1 table might be acceptable as with the proposal people will have to step off the pavement to get round them.

-       Asked that applicant had been questioned where their figures had come from

-       It was discussed that it is going to leave too narrow a gap for wheelchair users and as it was an area used by buses they needed to be mindful of that.

The Senior Licensing Officer then clarified that the applicant had been contacted regarding their measurements and that no response had been received.

The Chair then moved to a vote on item 1.4.1 of this agenda item – “Grant the consent because the application is compatible with the current Street Scene Policy”

Vote

For grant        0

Against           8 (unanimous)

The application was therefore refused.

Mr Kevin Gamble HCD002

Please note Councillor Parsons left the meeting prior to this report.

The Chair explained the process to the applicant.

The Senior Licensing Officer explained that the applicant put in his application to renew his licence  on 4^th February 2020 and has a 2 month grace period to complete the process.  The issues were that the applicant has 9 points on his licence that had not been declared within the required time scale (the time scale is within 7 days of the points being awarded) and he did not fully declare his points on renewal.

The options to the Committee were given as follows :

-       Grant the application for a Hackney Carriage driver’s licence with no further action as he remains to be a fit and proper person

-       Grant the application for a Hackney Carriage driver’s licence as he remains to be a fit and proper person but that he be issued with a formal written warning

-       Refuse the application for a Hackney Carriage driver’s licence as he is no longer deemed to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

It was explained that if the application is refused then there is a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court.

It was also stated that the applicant was not a new driver and does have experience and should know the process.  The minutes of the meeting in 2010 (when the applicant) was last in front of the committee were circulated but the Senior Licensing Officer re-iterated that this was an historic case that was decided at the Magistrates Court and that Members are unable to go behind that decision

The floor was then open to Members to ask for further information from the Senior Licensing Officer.  The following points were raised:

-       The reason for the applicant’s points and Members were directed to the reasons outlined in the report.

-       The Chair clarified that the actions that the Committee could take were  on page 45 item 307 of the agenda.

The applicant was then asked if he had any further questions for the Senior Licensing Officer – he confirmed that he didn’t and the Chair then gave him the opportunity to make his case.

The applicant then explained the following:

-       That as a taxi driver most of his work was on airport runs.

-       He stated that if his licence is not renewed then it would cause severe financial hardship to himself and his wife, both their cars are on finance and would have to go back then as his wife is a carer she will not be able to work.

-       He stated that he had forgotten about the first points he was awarded and couldn’t  remember where he got them.

-       The second points were from a trip back from Wolverhampton with his wife and the third ones were from a trip from Oldham – both were in average speed areas where the average speed was 50 mph.  On neither occasion  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Mrs Judith Timur – HCD006

The Chair explained the process to the applicant.

The Senior Licensing Officer then explained that the applicant holds a Hackney Carriage drivers licence which was due for renewal on 29 December 2019. 

The applicant has had a number of penalty points on her DVLA driving licence that she failed to notify the council of within the required timescales.

In light of the above the applicants Hackney Carriage driver’s licence was being referred to the Licensing Committee for a review to determine if she is a fit and proper person to hold a Hackney Carriage driver’s licence in the light of the fact that:

-       The applicant has points on her DVLA driving licence

-       She failed to notify the Council of these within the required timescales as outlined in the Council’s licensing policy.

The Senior Licensing Officer confirmed that the applicant has not been to the committee before.

The applicant confirmed that she had no questions at this stage.

The applicant then made the following points:

-       The car was purchased by her for her brother and that it was so her brother could get to work as a long distance lorry driver.  The points were awarded in Cardiff town centre on New Years day, when notification of this was received  her brother could not be contacted as he was driving in Europe.  It appeared that the keys of the vehicle were left in the yard at his work place so anyone could have been driving the car.

-       The applicant contacted Cardiff police and explained the case – she thought that it had been dropped when she received a summons to attend court.  She attended the court and made her case however the prosecution wanted to continue with  the case and she was awarded 6 points.

-       The applicant was being treated for stress at the time and cares for her elderly mother along with her sister and when the points were awarded she struggled to come to terms with it and buried her head in the sand.

-       The applicant explained that at the time it was low down in her concerns and she only drives when her husband is away.

Members were then given the opportunity to question the applicant and the following points were raised:

-       It seemed that the applicant was a victim of unfortunate circumstances.

-       Had the applicant had points before? The applicant confirmed that she had but they had long been removed from her licence.

-       There were some concerns about the safety of people having access to other peoples vehicles.

The applicant had nothing further to add so the matter then went to Member debate.

-       The general consensus was that there should be some action taken but that it would be dispassionate to refuse the licence.

The applicant then thanked Members for their time.

The chair then went to a vote as follows:

1.4.1 -   Grant the application for a Hackney Carriage driver’s licence with no further action as she  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

There were no matters to review.

There were no items determined urgent.

The next meeting will be Wednesday 3^rd June 2020.

3^rd June 2020