To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors ME Cooper and SPA Daniels.

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

There were no named substitutes present at the meeting.

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.

There were no declarations of interest made at the meeting.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 16th March, 2009.

RESOLVED:            That the Minutes of the meeting held on 16th March, 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 ZK8, Ross-on-Wye.

Ward: Ross-on-Wye (West).

The Assistant Rights of Way Officer presented a report about an application for a Diversion Order under the provisions of Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 in respect of part of Footpath ZK8 Ross-on-Wye.  She said that the Council had made the application to rectify a slight error in the alignment of the path which was made when the adjoining caravan site was set out.  She advised that pre-order consultation with interested parties, local ward members and the town council had led to general agreement about the proposal which met all the necessary criteria for a footpath to be diverted in that it:

·         benefited the owner of the land crossed by the existing path;

·         did not alter the points of termination of the path; and

·         was not substantially less convenient to the public.

The Committee was in favour of the proposal and agreed with the course of action suggested by the Assistant Rights of Way Officer 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 ZK8, Ross-on-Wye as illustrated on drawing number: D393/327-8.

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 renewal of a vehicle licence contrary to the licensing conditions.

The Acting Regulatory Services Manager introduced the report of the Head of Environmental Health and Trading Standards about an application from Mr L Oakley-Davies to renew a private hire vehicle licence after the date on which it had expired. 

Mr Oakley-Davies said that he purchased the vehicle from another Operator on 10th March 2009.  Prior to this date the Licensing Team had written to the previous owner to indicate that the licence would expire on 7th March, 2009 and had also sent a reminder to him.  Mr Oakley-Davies said that he had not become aware of the situation until after the licence had expired, but that as soon as he had become aware, he had immediately taken steps to renew the licence. 

Having considered the circumstances regarding the application, the Committee noted that Mr Oakley-Davies was establishing a new business and that the previous owner had not notified him about the licence expiry date.  The Committee decided that in view of the circumstances and the fact that the application for renewal was only a few days late, the licence could be renewed.

RESOLVED THAT:

an application from Mr L Oakley-Davies to deviate from the Council’s standard condition number 9.5, regarding Private Hire licence No. P017 in respect of Ford Transit Minibus M786 BAH, be granted.

To consider an application for renewal of a vehicle licence contrary to the licensing conditions

The Acting Regulatory Services Manager introduced the report of the Head of Environmental Health and Trading Standards about an application from Mr LR Knapman for the re-instatement of an expired private hire vehicle licence outside standard condition 9.5.  Full details of the application appeared before the Committee in the agenda.  Mr Knapman was not present at the meeting and the Chairman therefore proposed that consideration of the application should therefore be deferred until the next meeting.  Councillor PGH Cutter, Mr Knapman’s Local Ward Councillor, said that Mr Knapman had contacted him about the matter.  Although Councillor Cutter did not condone Mr Knapman’s delay in applying to renew, he said that he was happy for the application to be granted. 

The Acting Regulatory Services Manager said that license for a Peugeot 406 (Licence Plate No. P009) had expired on 22nd February 2009 and that reminders had been sent to Mr Knapman on 29th January and 12th February.  Mr Knapman had also failed to renew the same licence in 2008 until June of that year.  Having carefully considered the matter, the Committee decided that provided that Mr Knapman gave a satisfactory explanation as to why he had not applied to renew the licence, the Acting Regulatory Services Manager be authorised to determine the application in consultation with the Chairman in respect of the period leading up to the next meeting.

RESOLVED THAT:

the Acting Regulatory Services Manager be authorised to determine the application from Mr Knapman to deviate from standard condition number 9.5, for the renewal of private hire vehicle licence No P009 in respect of Peugeot 406 registration number KM53 CFG, in consultation with the Chairman, for the period leading up to the next meeting of the Committee, provided that Mr Knapman gives a satisfactory explanation of the reason for delaying his application

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC AND PRESS 

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 items 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.

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

With reference to agenda item No. 9 the Committee noted that an applicant for a dual Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence was not present at the meeting, and that consideration of the application had been deferred at the previous meeting for the same reason.  It was therefore decided to defer the matter again but that if the applicant did not attend, the application would be refused.

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

With reference to agenda item No. 10 the Committee noted that an applicant for a dual Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence was not present 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.

The Acting Regulatory Services Manager referred to agenda item No. 11 and provided the Committee with the circumstances which had given rise to the need for an incident involving a dual Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence to be referred to the Committee.  The partner of the licence holder provided the Committee with details of the circumstances which had given rise to the incident and said that it was purely a domestic matter, out of character, and totally unrelated to the work as a driver. 

Having considered all of the facts put forward about the incident, the Committee decided that the licence holder had continued to be a fit and proper person under the meaning of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and could remain as a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver.

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

With reference to agenda item No. 12 the Committee noted that an applicant for a dual Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence was not present and it was therefore decided to defer consideration of the application until the next meeting.

To consider a matter regarding a hackney carriage & private hire driver.

The Acting Regulatory Services Manager referred to agenda item No. 13 and provided the Committee with the circumstances which had given rise to the need to suspend a dual Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence.  The Committee endorsed the approach that had been taken. 

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

The Acting Regulatory Services Manager referred to agenda item No. 14 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 a letter which was read out and which set out the circumstances which had given rise to his convictions and explained the reasons why he felt that he 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 he should be granted a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence.