Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes be amended to remove ‘on a point of order’ at the bottom of page 8.

Subject to the above amendment, the minutes of the last meeting on 3^rd October 2018 were signed as a correct record.

The sub-committee wished to put on record their thanks to Sophie McGough, Democracy Officer for her concise minutes at previous meetings.

Mr Robert Metz (18/02055/STA)

The Licensing Officer introduced the report, he explained that an application had been received from Mr Robert Metz for a street trading consent to sell Dutch mini pancakes from a converted Rice horse trailer at the location designated Promenade 1 in the council’s street trading policy. Mr Metz has applied for an annual consent on a Thursday from 09:00 – 16:00. He advised that, whilst the location was a permitted trading location in the council’s adopted policy, the location was permitted for the sale of ice-cream, signup services, busking, arts & crafts, flowers/plants and fruit and veg only. The location of the proposed trading pitch was outlined at Appendix 1 of the report and an image of the trading unit at Appendix 2.

The Licensing Officer explained that whilst the application did not comply with the council’s adopted policy with regards to its permitted trading, the sub-committee should take in to account the individual merits of the application and any circumstances that may warrant a deviation from the policy. He further advised that Mr Metz had originally applied for an application for the sale of hot drinks also, however, this had been withdrawn due to the large number of establishments within the immediate vicinity already selling hot drinks. During the consultation period an objection had been received from Townscape team and this was outlined in the background papers.

He advised the sub-committee that they could:

·      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 or for any other reason.

The Chair firstly wished to remind the sub-committee that they were limited to either refusing or approving the application and it was not their job to determine the relocation of the unit.

In response to Members questions, the Licensing Officer confirmed that:

·           ‘Rice horse’ was a type of horse trailer;

·           In response to a query about the aesthetics of the unit being unsuitable for the location, and why the coffee trader at the end of the promenade had been allowed with a similar looking unit, the Licensing Officer confirmed that the comments regarding the aesthetics of the unit had come from Townscape and that the unit conforms with the licensing policy in terms of its appearance. 

·           If approved the licence would be granted for 12 months, the sub-committee had the powers to grant it for less time, but not longer;

·           The dates of the Christmas markets had all been decided and Mr Metz was aware he would not be able to trade during these times. With regards to Mr Metz joining the market, CBC had no control over this as it was a private market,  however, they could put him in touch with the relevant people;

·           The Licensing Officer confirmed that he would need to check whether all the sites approved for the sale of such goods were occupied. However, if the sub-committee were minded to refuse Mr Metz could come back  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Miss Kayleigh Evans (18/02061/STA)

The Licensing Officer introduced the report, he explained that an application had been received from Miss Kayleigh Evans for a street trading consent to sell “Direct Trade” quality coffee and traditional Italian Gelato from the location ‘High Street 7’ located on Cambray Place. She proposed to trade from 08:00 – 15:00 every day. He advised that the application does not comply with the Council’s street trading policy as that location is permitted for the sale of flowers/plants, arts & crafts, ice-cream and fruit & veg but not the sale of hot drinks and confectionary due to the high concentration of existing coffee shops in the vicinity. He explained that a number of objections had been received to the application and these were outlined in the accompanying background papers.

He advised that the sub-committee that they could:

·      Approve the application because Members are satisfied that the location is suitable for the proposed trading, or

·      Refuse the application because it does not comply with the provision of the adopted Street Trading Licensing Policy or for any other reason.

The applicant, Miss Kayleigh Evans and her husband Chris Evans spoke in support of the application. They explained that:

·           The van was a 1964 French fire truck which they had converted. They had got the idea when they had visited Venice;

·           They wanted to offer a unique experience to customers and felt that the van was a talking point and the history of it interested customers;

·           The produce they used was high quality;

·           Key to their business model was sustainability, they used no plastic and were as sustainable as possible:

·           They had applied for a licence to also sell hot drinks as the English climate meant it was not always possible to just sell gelato;

·           They confirmed that they had read the Council’s street trading policy and consulted with the licensing team;

·           Mr Evans confirmed that they had a litter bin next to the unit;

·           They explained that they sympathised with local business and it was not their intention to antagonise or put them out of business. They felt that they offered a different product to nearby establishments; 

·           They had heavily invested in the van and invested in the best ingredients, they did not benefit from power of the masses that large retailer consumers did;

·           They were happy to amend the application to suit if Members felt it necessary.

Mr and Miss Evans offered the following responses to Members questions:

·           The concept of the van had been a joint idea, however, it would be Miss Evans who ran the business day to day as Mr Evans worked full time in a different business;

·           They had applied for a licence 7 days so they had the flexibility, if the application were to be accepted Miss Evans would look to hire somebody for 1 or 2 days a week. There were be a maximum of 2 employees at any one time.

In the debate that followed, Members explained that:

·           A lot of the concerns they had regarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Ms Elaine Glave - PHD028

The Licensing Officer introduced the report. He explained that Ms Elaine Glave holds a Private Hire Driver’s licence with the Council and had been licensed since 2010. He confirmed that on 19^th July 2018 Ms Glave had reported to the council that she had received notice that 3 penalty points were to be imposed on her DVLA driving licence for a speeding offence, bringing her total number of points to 9. Two of the offences were on a public road and one on a motorway. He advised that Miss Glave had reported all the points in the required time but the matter had been referred to the committee as Miss Glaves points exceeded 7.

He advised the sub-committee that they could:

·           Determine to take no action if Members consider Ms Glave to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence; or

·           Take such of the following steps as the sub-committee consider appropriate:

(a) Give a written warning;

(b) Require the driver to pass an approved private hire driving test, at the driver’s own expense, within 2 months of their decision;

(c) Suspend the licence (please refer to paragraph 4.5 in relation to this option); and

(d) Revoke the licence.

The Licensing Officer confirmed that SP50 is the code given for the offence of speeding on the motorway and does not refer to the speed limit.

Miss Glave was invited to give her account of events. She explained that:

·           All three offences had occurred on the motorway;

·           She recalled when all 3 instances had occurred. One was driving on the motorway back from Bristol, one on the bypass from Cirencester to Cheltenham and one when she was travelling on the bypass towards the M5. On all three occasions she had had no passengers in the car;

·           She had been a taxi driver for 9 years and up to last year she had had a clean licence;

·           She had had a difficult year as both her parents had passed and her daughter had been hospitalised;

·           Her father had been a carer for her mother and when he passed she had been travelling 2 hours to see her mother in the Peak District as she was concerned about her living alone;

·           She was supporting her daughter financially who still lived at home;

·           She also had the expense of paying off her car monthly.

In response to Members questions. Miss Glave advised that:

·           She had a previous offence a few years ago but opted to do a speed awareness course rather than take the points;

·           On all of the offences she had been doing 80mph in a 70mph zone;

·           She had changed her car 2 years ago as she had continual problems with her old car, the expense had nearly caused her to become bankrupt;

·           She advised that all of her personal issues she had mentioned previously had now been resolved;

·           To ensure she did not incur any further penalties on her licence, she always used cruise control when she was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Mr Malcolm John Rogers - HCD194

The Licensing Officer introduced the report. He explained that Mr Malcolm Rogers was a Hackney Carriage Driver licenced with Cheltenham Borough Council. He reported that on 17th September 2018 the licensing team received a complaint concerning Mr Rogers’ behaviour. A statement from the complainant was included in the background papers. Mr Rogers had disputed the incident and had provided his own statement of events which was also included in the background papers. The Licensing Officer advised that there had now been 9 complaints recorded against Mr Rogers between 2008 and 2018.   The matter had been referred to the licensing sub-committee to allow Members the opportunity to consider whether Mr Rogers is a fit and proper person to hold a hackney carriage driver’s licence given the complaints and the information provided.

He advised the sub-committee that they could:

·           Determine to take no action if Members consider Mr Rogers to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence; or

·           Take such of the following steps as the sub-committee considers appropriate:

       (a) Give a written warning

(b) Suspend the licence (please refer to paragraph 4.5 in relation to this option)

(c) Revoke the licence

The Licensing Officer offered the following responses to Members questions:

·           Of the 260 taxi drivers licenced in the Borough, there were a small number of drivers with more than one complaint against them, but he couldn’t recall any driver who had as many as 9 complaints;

·           In each complaint that had been reported, Mr Rogers had been invited to speak with the licencing team, however, no action had been taken until now;

·           He advised that witness statements may have been taken in the previous complaints, however, all the evidence held on the council’s  corporate database was before them;

·           The dash cam footage from the incident in September had not been provided by Mr Rogers.

Mr Rogers was invited to give his account of the events. He advised that:

·           In the first incident in 2008, he had gone to the police as he had been followed down the road and threatened and despite the fact that no action had been taken against him, the complaint still stayed on his record;

·           He recalled the most recent incident in September 2018. He explained that it was around 06:10 and he had been on his way to work with a customer in the car. He had been driving along Christchurch Road when the complainant had pulled out of their driveway which caused Mr Rogers to stop and subsequently flash his lights. He took the customer to Tesco and pulled up at the station, at this point he had forgotten about the incident completely until a gentleman came over to him and as he recalls poked him. The gentleman was verbally abusive to him and followed him in to the station before taking a picture of Mr Rogers car.

·           Mr Roger’s explained that he would never use bad language and other drivers would support this statement.

In response to Members questions, Mr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.