To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors ME Cooper, PGH Cutter and DC Taylor.

To receive details any details of Members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.

Councillor DW Greenow was appointed named substitute for Councillor PGH Cutter.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the Agenda.

GUIDANCE ON DECLARING PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AT MEETINGS

The Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct requires Councillors to declare against an Agenda item(s) the nature of an interest and whether the interest is personal or prejudicial.  Councillors have to decide first whether or not they have a personal interest in the matter under discussion.  They will then have to decide whether that personal interest is also prejudicial.

A personal interest is an interest that affects the Councillor more than most other people in the area.  People in the area include those who live, work or have property in the area of the Council.  Councillors will also have a personal interest if their partner, relative or a close friend, or an organisation that they or the member works for, is affected more than other people in the area.  If they do have a personal interest, they must declare it but can stay and take part and vote in the meeting. 

Whether an interest is prejudicial is a matter of judgement for each Councillor.  What Councillors have to do is ask themselves whether a member of the public – if he or she knew all the facts – would think that the Councillor’s interest was so important that their decision would be affected by it.  If a Councillor has a prejudicial interest then they must declare what that interest is and leave the meeting room.

Councillor SPA Daniels declared a prejudicial interest in agenda item  9 (Minute 111) and left the meeting for the duration of this item.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 3rd February 2009.

RESOLVED:            That the Minutes of the meeting held on 3rd February, 2009 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To consider an application under the Highways Act 1980, section 119, to make a public path diversion order to divert part of footpath AV1B in the parish of Avenbury.

Wards Affected: Bromyard

The Acting Public Rights of Way Manager presented a report about an application for a Diversion Order under the provisions of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of part of Footpath AV1B in the parish of Avenbury.  He said that the application had been submitted by the landowner because it was seen as the most cost-effective long-term solution to resolve a safety hazard that had arisen on the path, due to the construction of a large lake nearby. The creation of the lake had resulted in part of the path being situated within a narrow corridor of land between an earth bund retaining the lake and the River Frome. Slippage of part of the bund had caused part of the path and the riverbank to collapse into the river, effectively closing it for use.  The first proposed diversion route had raised a number of concerns from the Ramblers’ Association and Open Spaces Society because it was not as convenient to walkers and would need problems with obstacles and boggy ground resolving.  The revised proposed diversion would provide a much more satisfactory route and had met with the general approval of consultees and the Local Ward Councillors.

The Committee was in favour of the proposal and agreed with the course of action suggested by the Acting Public Rights of Way Manager that the Diversion Order should be made. 

RESOLVED:

that a Public Path Diversion Order be made under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 in respect of Footpath AV1B in the parish of Avenbury, as illustrated on drawing number: D392/18-1B.

To note the procedural arrangements for the meeting.

The Committee noted the procedural arrangements for the following items to ensure that Officers and applicants received a fair hearing.

To consider an application for a replacement Hackney Carriage which does not fulfil the Council’s licensing conditions in respect of the maximum mileage allowed for a vehicle.

The Acting Regulatory Services Manager introduced the report of the Head of Environmental Health and Trading Standards about an application from Mr CJ Panniers to replace a hackney carriage vehicle with one which did not comply with the Councils licensing policy 3.2 in respect of mileage.  This stipulated that a replacement vehicle should have at least 30,000 less miles on the clock.  Mr Panniers’ vehicle bearing licence plate H239 was written off in a road traffic accident and he had applied to replace it with a vehicle which had 27,000 miles less on the clock and therefore did not comply with the conditions.

Having considered the circumstances regarding the application, the Committee felt that in view of the fairly small mileage difference concerned, an exception could be made to the Council’s licensing conditions and that the application could be granted.

RESOLVED THAT:

an application from Mr CJ Panniers to deviate from the standard condition number 3.2, in respect of hackney carriage plate No.H239 for Toyota Avensis registration number YM04 XNW, be granted.

To consider an application for a hackney carriage licence which does not comply with conditions regarding vehicle mileage

In the opinion of the Proper Officer, the following item will not be, or is likely not to be, open to the public and press at the time it is considered.

RECOMMENDATION:that under section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Schedule 12(A) of the Act, as indicated below

The Licensing Assistant introduced the report of the Head of Environmental Health and Trading Standards about an application from Mr S Fry for the renewal of a hackney carriage licence vehicle licence which was just outside the five-year vehicle age limit set out in licensing condition 1.1.  She explained that Mr Fry had made an application to renew the licence on 13th February 2009 but that the vehicle had become five years old on 26th January, 2009 and therefore did not comply with the licence condition.  She explained that Mr Fry had discussed the matter with the Licensing Section well in advance and that it would have been in order for him to have applied to renew the license before the vehicle had become five years old, but that due to a misunderstanding he had not done so.

Having considered the circumstances regarding the application, the Committee was satisfied that the situation had arisen due to a genuine misunderstanding on behalf of the applicant, and decided that an exception could be made to the licensing conditions and the licence renewed.

RESOLVED THAT:

an application from Mr S Fry to deviate from the standard condition number 1.1, in respect of hackney carriage plate No.H401 for Fiat Doblo registration NK53 RSX be granted.

In the opinion of the Proper Officer, the following items will not be, or are likely not to be, open to the public and press at the time they are considered.

RESOLVED:         that under section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Schedule 12(A) of the Act, as indicated below.

These items disclose information relating to any particular applicant for or recipient of or former recipient of, any service provided by the authority.

To determine an application for a dual hackney carriage & private hire driver licence.

The Acting Regulatory Services Manager referred to agenda item No. 9 and provided the Committee with the circumstances which had given rise to the need for an application for a dual Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence being referred to the Committee.  The applicant provided the Committee with details of the circumstances which had given rise to her convictions and explained the reasons why she felt that she should be allowed to become a licence holder. 

Having considered all of the facts put forward by the Acting Regulatory Services Manager and the applicant, the Committee decided that the applicant was a fit and proper person under the meaning of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and that she should be granted a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence.

To determine an application for a dual hackney carriage & private hire driver licence.

The Licensing Assistant referred to agenda item No. 10 and provided the Committee with the reasons which had necessitated the need for an application for a dual Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence being referred to the Committee.  The applicant provided the Committee with details of the circumstances which had given rise to his convictions and explained the reasons why he felt that he should be granted a licence. 

Having considered all of the facts put forward by the Licensing Assistant and the applicant, the Committee decided that the applicant was a fit and proper person under the meaning of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and that he should be granted a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence. 

To determine an application for a dual hackney carriage & private hire driver licence.

The Acting Regulatory Services Manager referred to agenda item No. 11 and said that the applicant was not able to attend the meeting.  The Committee discussed whether to defer consideration of the application until the next meeting or whether there were sufficient grounds for the application to be refused, given the convictions which were set out in the report.   The Senior Litigator suggested that the issues set out in paragraph No. 8 of the report regarding an occasion when the applicant had been arrested should be disregarded.  He pointed out that information had not been provided by the police about the subsequent court appearance of the applicant in January of this year and that the Committee therefore did not know the outcome.

Having further considered the application and notwithstanding the views of the Senior Litigator, the Committee decided that the applicant was not a fit and proper person under the meaning of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and that he should therefore not be granted a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence.

To determine an application for a dual hackney carriage & private hire driver licence.

The Licensing Assistant referred to agenda item No. 12 and provided the Committee with the reasons which had necessitated the need for an application for a dual Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence being referred to the Committee.  The applicant provided the Committee with details of the circumstances which had given rise to his conviction and explained the reasons why he felt that he should be granted a licence. 

Having considered all of the facts put forward by the Licensing Assistant and the applicant, the Committee decided that the applicant was not a fit and proper person under the meaning of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and that his application for a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence should be refused. 

To determine an application for a dual hackney carriage & private hire driver licence.

With reference to agenda item No. 13 the Committee noted that an applicant for a dual Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence was not able to attend the meeting and it was therefore decided to defer consideration of the application until the next meeting.

To determine an application for a dual hackney carriage & private hire driver licence.

With reference to agenda item No. 14 the Committee noted that an applicant for a dual Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence was not able to attend the meeting and it was therefore decided to defer consideration of the application until the next meeting.