L7/16
REVIEW OF HACKNEY CARRIAGE AND PRIVATE HIRE LICENSING POLICY AND CONSIDERATION OF RESPONSES RECEIVED DURING PUBLIC CONSULTATION The Licencing Officer presented the report including the key points and proposals being made within the policy.
The Licencing Officer referred the committee to page 11 of the report which referred to the comments made by the drivers during the consultation meeting, which came some options to be discussed. Overall the document was welcomed by the trade.
In relation to the proprietors licence there was a public consultation held on 10th February and the 9th March which had been extended by 4 weeks to allow time for responses to come through. There were meetings directly with the trade on 24th February and the 2nd March which were very well attended.
The following proposals were outlined by the Licencing Officer:
3.6 Dual Drivers licence (3rd type of licence offered) - the trade understood the reasons behind this proposal and that this was a simple procedure with no extra costs. The Licensing Officer stated she felt there was no reason to add additional costs to both types of licence.
3.11 Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles- it was requested by the Licensing Officer that this item be discussed at the end- agreed.
3.14 Convictions Policy- new document to be added to advise Licensing committee members sitting on a Licensing panel- this gives the committee a formula to work to and was discussed with the drivers- the policy has been updated following this.
4.8 Right to work Checks- this is a new legislative requirement and is compulsory- the drivers understood this and asked for sessions to be provided that would not clash with working hours. The immigration checks requires the person to be physically identified, in person against photographic identification.
4.20 Knowledge Test for new drivers to include a numeracy test related to skills required in the course of work as a licenced driver- the drivers agreed to this proposal as it affected new drivers rather than those in place. An online course is being considered for new drivers which involved a one off fee to install the system, followed by an annual fee of approximately £500.
5.26 Vehicles over 5 years will require vehicle checks every 6 months to ensure wear and tear on vehicles is monitored and addressed- the drivers understood the rationale behind this proposal however were concerned that they would be paying twice. They requested the panel to look at adjustments relating to cost and using the local authorities approved garages. They asked if the work could be tendered out. The Licensing Officer stated that in other areas an MOT is carried out as part of the checks- Kings Lynn, East Cambs and South Cambs. The compliance check complete with MOT is £45 whereas the compliance check alone is £60 at the FDC approved garage. The drivers are not against having the checks, their main area of concern was in relation to cost.
5.38 ID tags on fire extinguisher equipment to prevent exchanges between vehicles for test purposes- the drivers were aware of this and had no issues.
5.63 Internal licence Plates for display on the windscreens to assist passengers with licence information- no concerns with this as they prefer to be upfront about proof of legal licence.
6.30 Responsibilities for the Meter including calibration to reiterate that it is the responsibility of the vehicle proprietors - the drivers feel as though they are being ripped off and asked us to intervene. This is in relation to the calibration of the software on the meters, which we have been in contact with the companies and there are two different systems in place. We are now liaising with head office of the companies to discuss when meter costs increase, therefore requiring a fee increase, that the drivers are called in. We are currently using driver forums and newsletters and would like to inform drivers through this about meter calibration and the responsibility.
6.30 Addition of the Special Event Vehicle Policy to the main policy document- the drivers were interested in the policy as they were not aware of the different types of vehicles that people are trying to licence. No other comments made.
9.20 Drivers to notify of convictions/ summons/ CCJ- The council require all information available to order to determine license applications- the drivers had concerns with this. They felt it was intrusive of private information. The reasons for requesting this was outlined and it was explained that we are following the route of other licensing authorities. What we do not want is to received those coming in from more strict regulation areas to use because we aren't following this route. In order to determine a license we need to know how they manage their finances and consider whether it is appropriate to issue a license. The vehicle that is licensed could be considered an asset and there needs to be an understanding of who owns the vehicle. Advice from James Bucknor is that we need to have the information in order to satisfy the legislation with regards to the driver being 'fit and proper'. Drivers stated they feel slightly embarrassed about declaring this information. They were informed about how this system will work in terms of confidentiality. The applications would be weighed up on individual merit similar to criminal convictions.
9.20 Penalty points scheme- The drivers agreed with this in principal however there was some concern over the types of things they would be given for. We have now put more information in relation to the Road Traffic Act 1988. The concerns were more about the drivers not knowing the officers, recognising them and whether they would be aggressive in their issuing of penalty points. They were informed that there is an appeal process to follow if they feel this system has not been used correctly. The Licensing Officer felt this system helped to offer a starting point for preventing drivers doing something not in accordance with their license. This would help to reduce the number of cases brought before the panel. Should a driver end up with an accumulation of points on their license for repeat offences then they would be referred to the panel.
9.20 Safeguarding Training- The drivers understood the importance of this as they recognised this can help protect them in relation to the issue of passenger handling. They wanted to know if there was a cost linked to this and it was explained that there was a cost for new drivers only.
PC Richardson asked if the training recognised the issue of child exploitation? The Licensing Officer confirmed this is included.
At this point the committee returned to 3.11 Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles - all Hackney Carriage vehicles to be WAV after a specific license plate number thereby ensuring a mix of saloon and WAV types. The Licensing Officer referred the committee to page 13, paragraph 3 which outlines the position that the council are currently in. There is only 1 vehicle with full wheelchair access and we haven't measured or monitored our accessible wheelchairs - this is not included in the vehicle check list. During the policy being written, there were complaints from wheelchair users, one of which was a Parish Councillor. He stated that he is unable to flag down a Hackney Carriage taxi. When completing the Customer Impact Assessment where it refers to our customers being adversely impacted/ discriminated against we have to say we are as wheelchair access is not available. There are concerns about putting this in the policy as it may still not be able to be provided. As a council, we need to look at this. We have larger vehicles which we have not been licensing - if they are compliant then we can formalise these and assess them. Most of the drivers want saloon vehicles and like to help passengers get into the car. The saloon drivers have given some possible options one of which is to keep their current vehicles, but have a limit on licenses. For example, allow licenses to 250 saloon vehicles, any applications beyond this 250 will need a multi person vehicle and larger vehicles.
The Licensing Office referred the committee to the proposals linked to this item - paragraph 1.8. Some figures were given in relation to proposal (d) in terms of being able to justify varying costs to the different vehicles. We currently have a population of 95,282 with 2% of these being wheelchair users (1,895).
The Chairman Cllr Michael Humphrey opened this out to the committee for questions to review the options but reminded that the ultimate decision goes to approval at full Council. There seems to be a consensus of agreement with the points raised.
Cllr Mrs Bucknor referred to the £500 costs involved for the systems- asking who pays for this? The Licensing Officer confirmed that when new drivers complete their knowledge test they pay £50 with the opportunity to do this 3 times per year, but failure rates are low. It would be labour intensive for an officer to sit there through the test and mark them. This is a cost recovery through the officer post, no appointment is needed as the system does all of the work.
Cllr Mrs Bucknor referred to proposal 6.30- in relation to the meter companies and what was happening in other areas? The Licensing Officer stated that Kings Lynn, South Cambs and East Cambs do not notify their drivers of anything. It is checked when installed and they do a test, the officer gets in the car with the driver for one mile, the meter should click over after one mile, if it doesn't we send it back to get it calibrated. Fenland aren't responsible for doing this, however we feel it is reasonable to give reminders through newsletters or via the drivers forum.
Cllr Mrs Bucknor referred to 9.20 in terms of CCJ's, and keeping this confidential, there was no issue with this but she asked if this information could be obtained through a freedom of information request? The Licensing Officer stated that it couldn't.
Cllr Mrs Bucknor asked in relation to the penalty points system how would we measure what was considered a light touch, for example id someone had forgotten to wear their badge, would it continue with no action? Is this recorded? The Licensing Officer stated that there is a docket sheet that is completed, with a copy given to the driver.
Cllr Alex Miscandlon referred to 5.38 in relation to fire extinguishers, asked if there are any dates on the extinguishers as they have an age deterioration pack- is that kept as a check? The Licensing Officer replied stating that the mechanics at the garage will check if in it is in date, if it has been used, if the seal is broken. We are finding that the same extinguisher is appearing in different vehicles. When they come in for checks it will be swap for swap and marked- Cllr Alex Miscandlon again asked for confirmation of age related information? The Licensing Officer stated this would be included.
Cllr Alex Miscandlon stated in relation to proposal 3.11; that Peterborough was distinctly anti black-cab, there was no legal challenge. The people that drive them feel they are the best type of vehicle as they cover all areas. He stated he couldn't see there would be reluctance from drivers to have this. The vehicles we are currently using after 5-10 years of the mileage they do, they would stop them running. The Licensing Officer stated there is a cost involved but she understood the positives of this type of vehicle, however some of the roads in the Fenland area may be unsuitable for these types of vehicles given how low they are. Cllr Alex Miscandlon stated that he has seen these vehicles in Whittlesey and March area and they have no problems. The Licensing Officer stated that the trade would challenge this because of the change of their existing vehicles. Cllr Alex Miscandlon suggested introducing this over a time period of 10 years, which the Licensing Officer did not wish to comment on.
Cllr Steve Tierney stated in relation to 9.20 he completely agrees with the drivers, understanding the rational for criminal convictions but CCJ's are none of our business, stating he strongly agrees with the drivers and does not see the relevance. In relation to 3.11 he stated he supports options (a) and (d) together.
Cllr Michael Humphrey stated that there may be a problem with charging different fees for different vehicles as this may not fall within legislation.
Cllr Mark Buckton stated there was a lot of comments made in relation to PP28 in terms of parking, dropping off in areas with double yellow lines, waiting on double yellow lines. They seemed to want assurance that no one would be difficult about this or unfairly penalised when it is useful providing it is reasonable. The Licensing Officer stated that the only time they would get points is in relation to the signage on double yellow lines. In March specifically, in the high street- first bus stop there is an exemption under the Traffic Signs regulations that taxis are allowed to pick up and drop off where no signage prevents this. In relation to the yellow lines, 238 in the highway code, anyone can pick up and drop off for a reasonable amount of time, but they cannot wait. If someone is parked there and the bus has to double park then it is not reasonable nor safe. Under rule PP28 if they are parked to pick up and drop off between 7am and 7pm as per the sign then they would get 3 points as it is parking or stopping contrary to what is authorised. There are issues with the buses needing to stop unsafely, in the middle of the road. This is taken up with the police, and can result in fixed penalty points. PC Richardson confirmed that people have been convicted of this in the area. Cllr Mark Buckton stated he has no issues in relation to this, and asked if they are parked outside pubs and clubs- would they be penalised for this? The Licensing Officer stated that taxi ranks have been located outside of the pubs and clubs in the area however the taxi drivers prefer to park on the double yellows at the front of the buildings. There are issues with other businesses at this point, enforcement officers would not be out monitoring at this time, therefore it becomes a police issue. Cllr Mark Buckton stated that in the past he had encouraged taxis to park on double yellows from the perspective of safety and wouldn't want them not to do it. The Licensing Officer stated that March Town Council helped to fund the ranks for the purposes of safety, as the night time economy activates we had input from the town council, however the drivers feel the double yellows are a better place to park.
Cllr Mark Buckton stated in relation to black-cabs he thinks this should be looked into, and that we shouldn't be put off from doing something in case we are challenged. The Licensing Officer stated that they are aiming for a mixed fleet and that people that are in a wheelchair cannot be put straight into a cab. Also, in relation to cost, the black-cabs second hand cost between £25k and £35k. Cllr Alex Miscandlon stated that they are around £40k new however they have a high life expectancy- much longer than a saloon car. The Licensing Officer stated that favouring one type of vehicle for the demographic in this area is not the best way forwards, need to consider what will work best for our population and consider all of the elements. She stated that she isn't against black cabs.
Cllr Kit Owen stated that in relation to PP28 parking on yellow lines, which at night there is no problem, but during the day taxis are doing what they want, parking where they want. There are parking bays outside High Street in March, blue badge moves them, a bay has been put in outside a night club that has been closed 9 years so unsure as to why this was needed. The Licensing Officer stated that the taxis park there for Cassano's and the Griffin. PC Richardson added that from a police perspective, people are picking up outside the venues, there is no problem on the face of it but then you get people mixing with people outside the takeaways which can be problematic at times.
Cllr Steve Tierney stated that he had spoken to taxi drivers and they feel there is nothing they can do, FDC have got it in for them, which a number of them have raised. He stated we are acting like a board of directors for a taxi company when in fact we are one side of it, we are killing the trade with over regulation. The Licensing Officer asked which parts of the policy Cllr Steve Tierney was against, asking if it was specific to the penalty points system? He responded stating that he was against all of it, stating FDC is smothered with differences in fees. The Licensing Officer stated that if there were differences with fees then this would be questioned. The committee has to put forward and consider cost recovery and follow legislation. If we go with incentive driven options, and apply to wheelchair accessible vehicles only, which would require more checks, the suggestion is that we keep the costs the same, otherwise we should be prepared for challenges.
Cllr Steve Tierney stated that London is a good example. He stated that smothering the trade with bureaucracy will result in someone coming in and taking over.
The Licensing Officer asked Cllr Steve Tierney if it was the whole policy he did not support? He responded stating not all of it. The Licensing Officer stated that she understands that making changes can be difficult this policy has the aim of showing drivers how we are going to manage how we want this to work and as representatives for Fenland District Council what we need from them. The Licensing Officer stated that suggestions as to how to take this forward were welcome.
Cllr Kit Owen stated as an example, he witnessed a black-cab from Peterborough going through Hostmoor Avenue, smoking therefore I reported it and he was fined.
The Head of Housing stated that one of the key issues that came out during the consultation was the Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles and we are trying to get the balance right between business and economics against the needs of the population.
Cllr Steve Tierney referred back to the example given by Cllr Kit Owen, asking for confirmation that if someone was reported for being seen smoking in their car, they would be fined- is that correct? The Licensing Officer stated that this was in relation to another officer from another area telling us, there is nothing in the policy about fining them. It is worth considering whether or not in an example like this we would want to put them in front of the committee where we could have used a less resource intensive and more lenient method. The idea behind the points system is that drivers have the chance to reign themselves in.
Cllr Michael Humphrey stated there have been a huge amount of comments that indicate support for this. The Licensing Officer stated the drivers' main concern is around PP28 because it is not the Licensing Officers they have seen, there is a fear of the unknown so they are unsure how it will work but this is about preventing persistent issues.
Cllr Michael Humphrey added - the policy is there, we currently have a reasonably good taxi service, those that are behaving in a way that puts others at risk need to be stopped. With regards to CCJ's, he stated he doesn't see an issue with a panel, member of the committee having that information when determining if they are a fit and proper person.
Cllr Alex Miscandlon stated that there are 2 different systems, Hackney Carriage and Private Hire. Uber taxis are private hire only so they are operating correctly which means they have no impact on our services. If they were to operate in our area the safety is there that they are not acting as Hackney Carriages. Cllr Michael Humphrey stated that Uber have a good system set up which works well. This is all done on the phone not standing on the road trying to get an Uber taxi. Should they move to the Fenland area, this would have an impact on our local taxi firms. This could happen here as it could fall under the policy of private hire. The Licensing Officer stated that Uber are currently licensing in the Kings Lynn area. Cllr Steve Tierney added that this is a clever system as they are essentially running as Hackney Carriages but under a Private Hire license. The Licensing Officer stated that they are not coming into Wisbech at the moment due to the calibre of vehicles. The type of driver and vehicle is far superior to what we currently have in Fenland. Cllr Michael Humphrey that they offer a choice of vehicle and driver, and the Licensing Officer stated they would benefit the population however would affect our trade.
Cllr Michael Humphrey stated that the recommendations are general, we need to agree amendments to the draft policy and recommend it to the council for adoption, there are clear questions that the Licensing Officer wants identifying. The Licensing Officer stated that she has outlined a flavour of what the policy is about, we are looking for a mixed fleet, how this is to be taken forwards is up to the committee.
Cllr Michael Humphrey asked if anyone had any further points to raise or any other questions, which there were not- therefore the proposals were moved to discussion and agreements
Proposal 3.6
Proposal 3.11
3.11 Cllr Michael Humphrey stated that option (b) is considered, which Cllr Mark Buckton responded to stating this option could disadvantage new drivers coming in, either every new vehicle is to be wheel chair accessible or we go down the route of black-cabs with a timescale.
Cllr Michel Humphrey asked for thoughts on option (a) leaving it to market force- Cllr Mark Buckton stated he felt this was not the best idea as there are people within the community that are being discriminated against with using or wanting to use the taxi service. This cannot be left to market forces. Cllr Michael Humphrey stated that market forces go beyond the licensing policies. Cllr Mark Buckton stated that we want to be able to make the statement that in Fenland, Hackney Carriages are accessible to those with disabilities.
Cllr Mrs Bucknor stated she felt market force would be an option in order to look for suitable vehicles. If there is a demand- look at what is out there, feel we have moved away from the times of the black-cab, they are very low, I don't think we should be describing what type of vehicles would meet our demands. Cllr Mrs Bucknor stated her personal view is option (a).
Cllr Steve Tierney stated that he supports the market forces model, as we don't know better then them in terms of what vehicle would work best, over time when vehicles are needed, they will come forward. As a council if we are not working quick enough then we can use incentives to attract.
Cllr David Oliver stated that he is favouring option (a) at the moment, and asked the Licensing Officer, if this was agreed we need suitable time scales, what would this be? The Licensing Officer stated that the Customer Impact Assessment has indicated that we do not currently have a Hackney Carriage Vehicle with wheelchair access, we could say lets wait for another complaint, or wait until there is no hospital transport available. We can cater to 0.8% of a 2% population requiring this, if someone wants to license this type of vehicle then great, otherwise there is not much we can do.
Cllr Alex Miscandlon stated that, with this in mind, option (c) states 'Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle' not black-cab. Cllr Mrs Bucknor stated that in her opinion if someone was as disabled as this, then pre-booked transport would be more likely, it is unlikely if someone was in this position that they would attempt to flag down a taxi. The Licensing Officer stated that the issue with this is - who would they call to pre-book the transport as there is no vehicle that can be sent.
Cllr Mrs Kay Mayor suggested that the timescales need to be shorter.
Cllr Michael Humphrey stated that as a council we need to increase the fleet to allow access to all. Cllr Alex Miscandlon suggested that (c) is the best option for this.
Cllr Mark Buckton stated that decisions should not be based around the risk of being challenged, they should be based on meeting the needs of the population.
Cllr Michael Humphrey suggested that when the drivers need to replace their vehicles, that they need to be a WAV.
Cllr Kit Owen stated that they would also then be required to complete a course, which the Licensing Officer confirmed- handling people course. She then asked how they were going to introduce new fleets to the area? Cllr Mark Buckton stated if they were to go with option (b) in relation to new applications, how likely is it that there would be new people coming forward? The Licensing Officer stated that there are around 8-10 applications per year. It was suggested by the Licensing Officer that should this decision be made then it could be reviewed to see if it is working.
Cllr Mrs Kay Mayor stated that people who apply in that time frame would allow us to gauge the reaction to this, and supported option (b).
Cllr Mrs Bucknor suggested the review takes place after 6 months, as if applicants decide they are not going to uptake due to cost, we can see sooner rather than after 12months.
Cllr Michael Humphrey asked for clarification on whether this applies to Hackney Carriages only? The Licensing Officer stated this was the case, there are currently 34 private hire vehicles, some of which have the options to be wheelchair accessible, they want to be seen as WAV and some even remove seats to accommodate this. Hackney Carriages tend to stick to saloon cars and people carriers. We need to evidence that we are trying to make our service non-discriminatory.
Cllr Steve Tierney stated that some of the Private Hire companies are making adaptations which proves market force does work, incentivise.
The Licensing Officer stated that the Private Hire vehicles tend to be larger as they prefer contractual work, they tend not to be saloon vehicles. The issue we are exploring here is that if you are in a position where you need a WAV, you cannot flag one down.
Cllr Michael Humphrey stated that a decision needs to be made. Cllr Alex Miscandlon stated he supports option (b) with a review in 1 year. Cllr Kit Owen stated (c) and review after one year. Cllr David Oliver stated option (b) with a review within the year, which Cllr Mrs Bucknor agreed to - reviewing it quicker for example when they refuse due to costs, we may have applications in the first few weeks and they decide not to uptake. Cllr Mark Buckton stated option (b) review after a year, as some of the people may come back having changed their minds. Cllr David Oliver suggested that an update is given verbally regarding this at other Licensing Committee meetings throughout the year. The Licensing Officer stated that she could update on areas, and this could be added to the agenda for future committees to ensure it is reviewed regularly.
The Committee's Solicitor stated that there are 2 or 3 legal issues to make reference to, the word 'discrimination' has been mentioned and the word 'challenge' has been mentioned. Knowledge of a potential challenge is relevant to decision making but is not a reason to not follow policy. The primary functions of the policy are safety and ensuring the driver is 'fit and proper'. Simply considering whether or not there is a possibility of being challenged should not affect the decision. In relation to discrimination, there has been a finding that this is present; and the need to remedy this should seriously be considered. If there are concerns that you want as a matter of policy the enforcement of WAV- then consider this as a specific category of vehicle you require rather than naming the type of vehicle.
Cllr Michael Humphrey stated the general consensus is that (b) is an option with interim reviews, and a full review after 12 months.
AGREED - implement option (b) with interim reviews and a full review after 12 months.
Proposal 3.14
Cllr Kit Owen stated that if there were no objections from the drivers, then we have no reason to object to this.
Cllr Michael Humphrey felt the addition to the policy was an aid to the panel and felt the proposal was clear.
AGREED
Proposal 4.8
This is a mandatory requirement and must be implemented.
Proposal 4.20
AGREED
Proposal 5.26
Cllr Michael Humphrey stated that he is not against the checks but cost may need to be considered. The Head of Housing stated that the budgets for the next financial year have already been set. Cllr Alex Miscandlon stated that he was uneasy about contracting the work outside of the FDC checks. Cllr Mark Buckton stated that these would need to be approved garages. Cllr Alex Miscandlon stated that all garages offering MOT's have to be approved. Cllr Mark Buckton added if there is possibility for cost reduction for them and less work for us then it should be explored.
The Licensing Officer stated that most authorities tender out for 12 months and are monitored closely. It would be reasonable to review this in the next financial year. The current charge is £60 and we are the highest cost, it isn't licensing that put that cost forward.
Cllr Michael Humphrey stated that as the budget for this year has been set, that a change can be looked at for the next financial year.
AGREED to implement the 6 monthly checks - cost reductions to be looked at for the next financial year
Proposal 5.38
Cllr Alex Miscandlon asked if during the checks on the vehicles are the fire extinguishers included as part of this? The Licensing Officer confirmed they are in there is a list at the back of the policy which outlines a fail- page 86 - method of inspection and the reasons for failure which allows transparency for failure.
Cllr Michael Humphrey stated that a security tag or barcode would be useful so that the garage can check it is in the car and fully functioning.
AGREED
Proposal 5.63
AGREED
Proposal 6.30
AGREED
Proposal 9.20
Cllr Mark Buckton stated that he agreed with Cllr Steve Tierney that CCJ's are a private matter. Cllr Kit Owen disagreed with this saying that CCJ's are available to the public.
Cllr Michael Humphrey stated that having seen some of the information, it would be useful to have on a number of occasions. As members we would only see this information if it was relevant.
The Licensing Officer stated that the report would be confidential and not accessible to the public, and we would need to provide evidence as to why we think it is necessary.
Cllr Mark Buckton stated that he was not convinced of the link between debt and public safety.
The Committee's Solicitor stated that in relation to a summons in case law, when the sub committee are making a decision about whether a driver is fit and proper, other factors can be considered other than a conviction. For example, the issuing of a summons isn't equivalent to someone being convicted- and it would be a matter for the sub committee to decide whether the summons was relevant or not to the applications and whether it ought to be taken into account or not. The case law was clear and a conviction was not necessary; the sub committee being able to look at other factors and satisfy themselves on the balance of probabilities as to the facts and whether the applicant was 'fit and proper'. There may be instances where the issue if a summons would not be relevant; and instances where it would. If someone had three convictions for road traffic offences and had 6 summons coming up for similar offences in the future, then that would be something the committee may well consider to be relevant depending upon the individual facts of each case.
Cllr Steve Tierney stated that he understands the importance of summons but not CCJ's. Cllr Alex Miscandlon stated that if we have a license hearing, the taxi driver would be asked if they have any upcoming summons and if they say they have it is absolutely relevant. In relation to CCJ's there will be some that are relevant and some that aren't.
Cllr Michael Humphrey asked what other authorities are doing to give comparison? The Licensing Officer stated that James Button is putting it forward to other authorities as it is coming up in a number of cases. There are some that are beginning to be known for financial issues and have a pattern in this type of behaviour. Cllr Michael Humphrey asked for confirmation that there is a suggestion from James Button that these be included? The Licensing Officer confirmed stating that most local authorities are currently reviewing their policies. She also stated with respect to the CCJ's being in the public domain, it is irrelevant as there is no authority for this to be considered if found on the internet, the Licensing Officer does not have the delegation to check on this without following policy if it is put in place.
Cllr Mark Buckton asked, how do we get notified of a CCJ? The Licensing Officer stated she doesn't know, Cllr David Oliver stated that this information is available through credit reference agencies such as Experian. Cllr Mark Buckton asked how a level of information would be obtained as to why they received a CCJ and whether or not it is relevant in determining if they are fit and proper? The Licensing Officer confirmed that the court issuing the CCJ can be contacted directly.
Cllr Michael Humphrey stated that there are some CCJ's that will be completely irrelevant. He proposed to take this item forwards with a show of hands as to who agrees/ disagrees with this proposal. He asked for a show of hands that drivers are to notify of summons and CCJ's in order to determine applications- those in support (3), and those against (3), 2 abstained due to the information not being available through the freedom of information process.
The Licensing Officer stated that failure to notify the Licensing team in writing of charges, summons, penalty points etc. is 4 points on the license.
Cllr Michael Humphrey stated he didn't understand why people wouldn't want to declare it if there are some that are relevant.
Cllr Mark Buckton stated that it alarms him that people refer to 'have you got something to hide'. He felt that there may be some CCJ's they do not wish to reveal the details of because they can be embarrassing and humiliating. The Licensing Officer stated there have been things disclosed previously that have been embarrassing for people but we must stick to procedure and the customer service within the team will be able to reduce and alleviate the issues in terms of how this is handled.
Cllr Michael Humphrey stated that the information is seen by the officer providing the license and no one else, therefore I do not see the issue.
AGREED by Chairman
Proposal 9.20 Safeguarding Training
AGREED
The Licensing Officer then referred to other amendments within the policy in relation to PP33 and the wording changes- AGREED
Cllr Steve Tierney asked in relation to speeding offences, how does the speed awareness courses offered in place of points work within the policy? The Licensing Officer stated that if they have had to complete a speed awareness course then essentially they have been speeding with a passenger in the vehicle. Cllr Steve Tierney stated that they will already have been punished by the Government for this in relation to speeding via the course so why would we then issue further points? The Licensing Officer stated that the speed awareness relates to their driving license. The PP33 relates to the license we issue to them - in relation to speed awareness courses they do not have to be disclosed.
Cllr Steve Tierney asked should they appeal the points who do they appeal to? The Licensing Officer stated that it would be the Environmental Health Manager and/ or the Head of Housing and Neighbourhood Services. Cllr Steve Tierney stated he thinks councillors should be involved in the appeal. The Licensing Officer stated that this was something they wanted to prevent due to formality, if they appeal the points they appeal to us, if they gain 12 points on their license they then come before the committee.
Cllr Michael Humphrey asked if there were any other comments about the policy? Cllr Mark Buckton asked if 'tuk tuk' vehicles come under special events- does the vehicle need to have all the characteristics of a vehicle should they wish to have a license for a passenger? He then added he didn't think the bicycle versions would comply with the policy. The Licensing Officer stated it would have to be a special events license which allows them to operate for specific special occasions. Cllr Kit Owen then asked if the special event license allows them to determine if the vehicle is fit for purpose/ fit and proper person? The Licensing Officer stated yes.
AMENDMENTS AGREED AND RECOMMENDED TO BE PUT FORWARD TO COUNCIL
L8/16
LICENSING ACT 2003 - REVIEW OF STATEMENT OF LICENSING POLICY RESPONSES AFTER PUBLIC CONSULTATION The Licensing Officer presented the report and the responses from Public Health and the Police. She stated the Public Health services offered a number of things they wanted to put into the policy as outlined using track changes within the report. They have requested early morning restrictions as outlined in the wording on pages 200-201 within the meeting pack.
The police have provided us with some statistics and figures in relation to the CIZ. The CIZ policy response indicated issues of being able to review this policy without needing to review the whole policy, therefore it is being suggested that this is an appendix to the main licensing policy.
PC Richardson presented the report from page 231. The Licensing Officer then directed the committee to the maps presented in the report to show the current cluster of outlets within the CIZ.
Cllr David Oliver asked how many people have approached the police with regards to looking for a licensed premise and the CIZ has been used as an approach? PC Richardson responded stating that this has always been done through the application process, but we do get approached. Cllr Kit Owen asked in relation to the premises on the map, how many of them are using their license after 2a.m.? PC Richardson confirmed that those in green will do as they have the late licenses. The Licensing Officer also stated that hotels, such as the Rose and Crown have a 24 hour license, Tesco has 24 hour license but is outside of the CIZ. Cllr Kit Owen asked if any of the bars currently have them? PC Richardson stated no, the H20 club stops serving at 2a.m. and closes at 3a.m. Angels which has been the biggest call for service had their hours reduced through working with the pub-watch scheme. PC Richardson stated that Best Kebabs was a late night refreshment venue and has an off-site license. CIZ is the biggest call for service because of the prolific street drinking and is the highest concern for the residents of Wisbech. Other areas including St. Peters Gardens on a daily basis sees street drinkers throughout all hours. Cllr David Oliver asked in relation to the figures presented in the report, whilst it shows there is a decrease, where is the evidence that the CIZ policy is responsible for this? PC Richardson stated that this focussed the police on a core area, utilising partnerships with other areas. Cllr David Oliver then asked if the CIZ policy wasn't in place, are you saying you wouldn't engage in partnership working? PC Richardson stated this question is not one he could answer. Cllr David Oliver then stated there was no evidence to say that the CIZ has helped. He stated this has reduced the amount of places that are being given licenses. Cllr Kit Owen stated he felt that something must have been working as since the introduction of the CIZ the figures have decreased. Cllr Michael Humphrey stated that the CIZ is part of a wider package of what is happening in that area. PC Richardson stated that his predecessor was very successful in working with Asda and was able to reinforce the requirements to tackle alcohol related issues, one off-license had its license revoked- all of which were assisted by the CIZ- may not have had the leverage without the CIZ. Cllr Mark Buckton asked how the figures compared with other areas? PC Richardson stated that the reductions in Wisbech are far higher than anywhere in Fenland. A colleague has taken on 3 CIZ's in Cambridge but cannot give true figures on this until we know what is happening. The Licensing Officer stated that the CIZ wasn't only assisting the police, but it has given Public Health and Trading Standards a forum to apply to have an input in licensing. Public Health have put in their representations, Dr. Liz Robin has provided generic statistics on what they have - we would need the figures as to what is going on in the CIZ's from a public health service perspective which we haven't got. Trading Standards have been able to provide information on crime and disorder in relation to counterfeit cigarettes and alcohol. This has been a big problem in Wisbech and the last 5 applicants have all had criminal convictions. We wouldn't have known about some this unless Trading Standards had brought it forwards. Cllr Steve Tierney asked why we wouldn't have this information anyway? The Licensing Officer stated there was no platform under the licensing objectives, all 5 applicants were for off-sales, so all selling to people who they know will be taking it away to drink with lower costs. There were 29 in the centre of Wisbech, now there are 22. Cllr Alex Miscandlon stated that Trading Standards were bringing information forward about counterfeit tobacco sales, we questioned him and found individuals were committing these activities in conjunction with the sale of alcohol and therefore needed a license to sell alcohol. Cllr Michael Humphrey asked PC Richardson to complete his summary of the report. PC Richardson stated that he is requesting the CIZ policy remains in effect. Cllr David Oliver asked for clarity on what the CIZ has actually done to affect the reduction? He stated he felt it was there to prevent/ review licenses, as mentioned all the way through its a partner agency result, and there is still no evidence that the CIZ has reduced the alcohol related issues. He stated he was against the policy initially because it was not being implemented correctly, whereas now that it is, he is in support of it but there is no evidence it has reduced the figures. PC Richardson stated that the police do utilise the CIZ, Cllr David Oliver then asked how do they use the CIZ to reduce alcohol related violence and street drinking? PC Richardson stated it doesn't reduce these specifically. Cllr David Oliver reiterated that the CIZ is there as a tool to prevent licenses. Cllr Michael Humphrey stated it is all part of the partnership working. Cllr David Oliver felt that the emphasis on the report is that the CIZ has reduced the figures, when there is no evidence of this, the figures given do not actually identify that the CIZ is working. He stated that there are now 22 from 29 licensed premises however none of these have ceased trading since. Cllr Kit Owen stated that they have been able to prevent a further 5 licenses since implementation. Cllr Steve Tierney stated that the evidence was tenuous and he never supported the CIZ, as it cannot possible work, it hasn't worked and there is no evidence that focuses on CIZ. With regards to applications, it is unfortunate that this policy is needed to convey this information. The Licensing Officer stated that it is not about the number of premises, it is about how they impact on the CIZ. Cllr Steve Tierney asked if the applications that had been turned down, were they problem cases because on the other side of this, with the CIZ in place, crime has gone down? The Licensing Officer stated that the 5 dealt with so far have all had criminal convictions in relation to counterfeit offences. The 5 stopped had horrendous backgrounds and there was nothing to stop them operating in Wisbech. Cllr Michael Humphrey confirmed that there were cases coming in with no grounds to refuse the application on. There were people from the town complaining about the number of licenses being issued. The CIZ policy gave us a tool that could do something about it. If a company like Weatherspoons, which has a good reputation, applied for a license within the CIZ it would be difficult to refuse. Cllr Alex Miscandlon asked why are we getting the same type of applications coming through? It was confirmed by PC Richardson that gang related criminal activity are targeting other areas, it is an issue on a national basis. The Licensing Officer stated that pub watch has been helping as they are the businesses that are in there and involved and they have been very proactive. Cllr Steve Tierney stated that the economy has died, the town is dead, street drinking has risen could say the CIZ did that- there are some correlations. Cllr Mrs Bucknor stated that the figures were very welcome because most of it has been decreasing. It is still extraordinarily high for a small town, who do not currently reflect on other areas in Fenland. Within my ward, men die 6 years earlier due to alcohol related issues, I support this policy, since it has been introduced it has enabled other organisations to be able to feed into this. They have more trust and are much more pro-active. Cllr David Oliver stated that they have worked hard to encourage pub watch to be more proactive. Cllr Mrs Bucknor stated that 3 years ago, Wisbech had more off-licenses than the centre of Cambridge. Can you please appreciate the staff that have to clean up the excrement, saw it myself yesterday, we all want to live in a nice place. We have people complaining about what is happening in Wisbech if this is making a difference and people are feeding into this then I support it. Cllr Michael Humphrey stated that the committee need to bear in mind the report before you is about the licensing policy which we have had consultation on from Cambridgeshire Constabulary. This outlines no change to the CIZ, which I see as a saviour when we have got no grounds for refusal. For example, we had someone appeal, the decision was upheld because of the CIZ. Cllr David Oliver stated he supported the policy initially and for 2 years nothing happened however now it is used properly. When this is put to full Council they will ask what proof do you have that the CIZ has done its job- need the evidence to show this, everything needs to be up to date and needs to focus specifically on the CIZ. If alcohol crime went up 200% then we would try and resolve this regardless of the CIZ. The figures are due to partnership working. PC Richardson stated the partnership has worked because of the CIZ, with Cllr David Oliver stating the CIZ hasn't reduced the amount of alcohol being sold. Cllr Michael Humphrey stated that comments around the CIZ were made at the consultation, the licensing team needed to provide the figures. The Licensing Officer stated that pages 196-197 paragraph 1.47 related to the data and information- we have been trying to get this for years, we didn't get the information. Cllr Mark Buckton stated that the difficulty in his eyes is in how the CIZ is being sold rather than how this is being used in terms of this enabling FDC to refuse licenses that could have been problematic. In response to the alcohol related issues, this about several initiatives coming together to resolve the issues, the CIZ is one strand of this, people are trying to make out the CIZ is more than it actually is. He stated he supports the CIZ, it would be criminal to remove it but it is not the cause of crime reduction it is enabling us not to make it worse. The Licensing Officer referred the committee to the CIZ definition and stated it is a tool that helps us to do what we need to- consider are the people applying for a license reasonable to operate it, are they responsible crime free people that are not going to put the public at risk. Cllr Steve Tierney stated he felt Cllr Mark Buckton had hit the nail on the head which could help resolve any arguments- the policy has been misrepresented and miss-sold. The CIZ has given other authorised agencies the chance to get involved which makes it completely useful. We do all seem to be in agreement the CIZ is working the presentation of the report could help prevent challenge. Cllr Mark Buckton summarised this stating the CIZ is the tool not the tool-box. The Licensing Officer asked what results do they want measuring, what would the committee like to see? Cllr Steve Tierney stated to allow Cllrs and other authorities that have local knowledge and other agency knowledge to fee into the policy. Cllr David Oliver stated any review or variations of licenses also come under the CIZ and all of the information gathered properly, in the past it has not been used correctly which is a challenge we will get. Cllr Alex Miscandlon stated they want statistics as evidence coming back to committee. Cllr Michael Humphrey stated the license will be refused if there is no evidence as to how it will not impact the CIZ. Cllr Mrs Kay Mayor stated that it is better to show figures rather than % as they give more information. The changes within the policy were then proposed:
1.23
AGREED
1.47
AGREED
1.49
AGREED
1.73
NOT AGREED
1.74
AGREED
1.75
Restrictive- Cllr David Oliver stated that if a DPPO turns into a PSPO it will have more weight, the PSPO needs to have specifics mentioned within it- going to be reviewing the DPPO. The Licensing Officer stated that DPPO falls under licensing whereas PSPO does not, therefore would like this put into the policy before it becomes PSPO. Cllr David Oliver stated he has discussed this with the Head of Housing and changes are imminent with a consultation to happen in the next 6 months. Cllr Steve Tierney stated that the PSPO will ensure enforcement and asked if we have the resources to manage this? Cllr David Oliver stated that in the future if a DPPO becomes a PSPO the DPPO doesn't hold its authority. If PSPO is put in place then this will not mean an alcohol ban, it means it will be confiscated if it is felt that anti-social behaviour is a risk and a fine can be issues. The Licensing Officer stated that if this was to be added into the policy then it would need to make sense, and we would need to have a cut off for this. NOT AGREED
6.5
Cllr Mark Buckton stated that he didn't see why this was necessary and felt it doesn't add anything, Cllr Mrs Bucknor agreed. NOT AGREED- to remove from policy
Cllr Michael Humphrey stated that the recommendations are to be put to full Council- keep the CIZ policy in the same format. Update the policy with statistical information before full council and send back to the Chairman as an appendix and the Portfolio Holder.