Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chair will read the following statement:

The report contains information which the officer recommends should be exempt from publication and also that the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the appeal, in accordance with the provisions of Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act).

The Chair will ask the Sub-Committee the following:

Does the Licensing Appeals Sub-Committee agree that the public interest is outweighed by the recommendation to exclude the press and public for this agenda item?

The press and public were excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business in accordance with the provisions of Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Schedule 12A (as amended) of the Act).

The Chair of the Sub-Committee will welcome those present and introduce him/herself; the remaining members of the Sub-Committee and the officers will then introduce themselves.

A copy of the Sub-Committee appeals procedure is attached.

The sub-committee heard representations from the licence holder and Licensing Officer.

The Sub-Committee decided on the balance of probabilities to approve the refusal of the grant of a private hire licence to the appellant.

Reasons:

In making its decision the sub-committee considered the following:

·       Statutory provisions: S51,61 & 77 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1976

·       Statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards issued by the Department of Transport in July 2020

·       South Cambridgeshire District Council Private Hire and Taxi Policy

·       Report of the Licensing Officer

·       Advice from the Council’s legal adviser

·       Evidence as referred to above.

The sub-committee made its decision for the following reasons:

·       The panel acknowledged the appellant’s candid and honest presentation of the circumstances regarding his incident.

·       The panel noted the appellant had gone above and beyond the requirements to improve his driving skills.

·       The panel noted the discrepancies in the test certificates and reports, provided freely by the appellant, to the panel from DriveTech and others. These differed from the oral information supplied by the appellant, but the panel gave more weight to the representation made by the appellant on the day.

·       South Cambridgeshire District Council Policy states, ‘a licence will not be granted until at least 7 years have elapsed since the completion of the sentence imposed.’ The appellant was 16 months into the 7-year period.

·       Despite all of the above, these were insufficient reasons for the panel to depart from policy when considering the severity of the sentence imposed by the Magistrates in their decision.