Decisions

Following consideration of the officer report, PowerPoint presentation, appendices and discussion, the Executive agreed: 

·       To endorse the Early Careers Strategy and its roll-out across Somerset Council;?? 

·       To receive updates annually from the Organisational Development team on Early Careers activity across Somerset Council.? 

None.

None.

Following consideration of the officer report, appendices and discussion, the Executive agreed: 

·       To adopt the Somerset Tree Strategy with Somerset Council as the responsible body for delivery.?? 

·       To take appropriate action to develop and adopt a Council wide policy to implement and guide everyone on the objectives of the strategy, and to report back to the Scrutiny Committee – Climate and Place in 6 .  

Following consideration of the officer report, PowerPoint presentation, appendices and discussion, the Executive agreed: 

·       The aims and objectives of the next phase of the Transformation Programme for Adults Services.??? 

·       To engage Newton Europe as strategic change partner to work alongside the service to deliver these transformational objectives by implementing the opportunities identified in the diagnostic and support the delivery of identified reductions.??? 

·       To fund the costs of the transformation programme of £3.5m each year for the next two years, initially from Earmarked Reserves and review the position later in the financial year once the 2022/23 statement of accounts from the predecessor Councils has been completed.??? 

The Sub-Committee had been asked today to consider the operator’s licence held by Fairview mini-buses Ltd following their recent conviction for taxi related offences.

In reaching its decision the Sub-Committee had considered the Council’s Guidance and Statement of Policy, the Government’s Taxi & Private Hire Vehicle Licensing Best Practice Guidance and current case law.

In licensing the taxi trade the Council had a legal duty to protect the public. As public trust and confidence in the overall safety and integrity of the private hire system was vital, the same standards were applied to operators as those applied to drivers.

In accordance with section 55 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 the Council should not grant an application for a private hire operator’s licence unless it was satisfied that the applicant was and remained a “fit and proper person” to hold such a licence.

RESOLVED

The Panel had considered the evidence against Fairview mini-buses Ltd (Fairview) following their conviction on 24 April 2023 for 3 offences in relation to their private hire operator’s licence.

The Department for Transport statutory taxi and private hire standards states “Although private hire vehicle operators may not have direct contact with passengers, they were still entrusted to ensure that the vehicles and drivers used to carry passengers were appropriately licensed and so maintained the safety benefits of the driver licensing regime.”

The offences of which Fairview were convicted were serious. Failing to ensure that their driver was properly licensed and driving before their DBS certificate was complete presented a significant risk to the public and risked the confidence and integrity of the licensing system.

There could be no excuse for such lapses by a well established and reputable operator. In mitigation the company had stressed that this was an isolated incident arising out of a shortage of drivers and the ability of the company to fulfil their contracts.

Notwithstanding the remorse and mitigation put forward by Fairview the Sub-Committee could not ignore the risks that the company were running by their actions. It was accepted that no issues or complaints were received over the conduct of the unlicensed driver. However, it had to be accepted that she drove, unlicensed, on numerous occasions including school transport, hospital and airport runs, many of which involved vulnerable passengers. It was to her credit that as soon as she was made aware of her part in driving an unlicensed vehicle she ceased driving for them. Fortunately, whilst the actions of Fairview did not have any significant consequences, it could have been so much different.

In addition, it was concerning that contrary to the Council’s policy, Fairview had failed to formally declare their conviction to the Council, instead relying upon the Police to make the disclosure.

The Sub-Committee accepted and acknowledged that Fairview have already been punished for these offences in the criminal court and that they had had an unblemished record for a significant number of years. The Government guidance made clear that “public safety was the paramount consideration in licensing the taxi regime.” The Sub-committee accepted the company’s remorse and that they had amended their policies and procedures and had learnt from their mistake, and that public safety was and remains at the forefront of their business.

It was the decision of the Sub-Committee that Fairview mini-buses Ltd were and remained a fit and proper person to hold an operator’s licence. However, the Sub-committee would issue a formal warning as to the company’s future conduct which would include an inspection of the company’s records and procedures, and that any future breach of the Council’s policy would result in a further appearance before this Sub-committee with their licence at risk.

Upon re-adjournment the Planning Officer introduced the application to the Committee with the assistance of a slide presentation. 

The Committee were addressed by a representative of the parish council.  Their comments included:

·         The applicant wished to remain living at the site where they had lived for nearly all of their life.

·         The junction and side road had been established many years ago and had clear visibility in both directions.

·         He was not aware of any accidents at that junction within the last 25 years and the Parish Council saw no reason to refuse the application.

The Committee were addressed by the Agent.  Their comments included:

·         The only issue with the application was highways and that the standing advice applied to new developments.

·         There was no evidence to suggest that the development scheme for one additional single dwelling would have any material effect on the safe operation of the local surrounding road network.

Members discussed the highways issues and after looking at the presentation photos and hearing from local councillors who pointed out that with a blind bend to one side and a blind hill brow to the other traffic coming from both directions was likely to be slow.

The Committee believed it was in an appropriate sustainable location and in balancing this against the highway considerations, which they considered fairly minor, as the access was already being used by three properties, concluded that in this instance the proposal was acceptable. It was subsequently proposed by Cllr Filmer and seconded by Cllr Slocombe to recommend approval of the application subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to be agreed in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried unanimously.

Resolved

To grant permission subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to be delegated to the Service Manage Planning North to be agreed, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of Planning Committee - North.

Apologies were received from Cllr Ben Ferguson who was substituted by Cllr Leigh Redman.

Members of the Panel, officers and the following attendees introduced themselves:

Mr & Mrs Whitcombe – Objectors

The Licensing Officer presented his report and confirmed that although the Applicant was unable to attend she had come to an agreed position with Mr & Mrs Whitcombe that:

Ø  The finishing time would be amended to 21:00hrs.

Ø  Notices would be displayed advising that ‘children must be supervised by an adult on the premises at all times’.

However, she wished to be allowed to sell alcohol to all customers and not just those consuming food and that she estimated that she would have between five and ten private hire events a year.

The Officer explained that the issue regarding car parking had yet to be resolved with North Petherton Town Council and was likely to be a planning issue rather than a licensing one.

Mr & Mrs Whitcome as part of their presentation and in response to questions confirmed that:

§  They had previously owned the Tea Rooms and were not really objecting but wanting to give comments and wished the business well.

§  They were worried about children and the close proximity to the water as there had been incidents involving children from the Somerset Boat Centre

§  They had concerns that if it was just a bar that people drove to:

·         There would be increased noise.

·         Potential drink driving.

·         Reduced supervision of children by people drinking

§  Displaying notices regarding the supervision of children would help allay some of their fears.

§  The Boat Centre, approximately 600m away, only opened until 9pm

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee the following points were clarified:

·         The licensable area included the garden and car parking area to allow orders of food and drink to taken at the tables.

·         The car park had two disabled spaces and about three or four other spaces and were usually used as staff parking.

·         Whilst the Boat Centre’s licence was up to between 22:00hrs and 23:45hrs, depending upon the day, it was possible that they only operated until 9pm because of a planning restriction or were making a business decision to close at that time.

When summing up the Objectors raised their concerns over the request for music until the Licensing Officer explained that it was just for incidental music.

Having heard all the evidence, members of the Panel made their decision in private, in the presence of the Solicitor and the Committee Manager.

Resolved

The Licensing Sub-Committee (North) had been asked to consider an application for a new premises licence for the premises known as Maunsel Tea Room, Bankland, North Newton, Somerset following an objection from a local resident. The Sub-Committee was advised that the Applicant and Objector had met and reached some agreement but with reservations, together with some suggested conditions to be included on any licence that might be granted.

The Sub-Committee had considered all of the evidence presented by the Applicant and Objector both in person and in writing. The Sub-Committee’s decision was made in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Secretary of State’s Guidance and current case law.

Decision

It was apparent to the Sub-Committee that there was no overwhelming objection to the application for a premises licence in principle. However, the terms of that licence and the risks associated with the sale of alcohol adjacent to the canal were a concern. The Sub-Committee welcomed the efforts of the parties to reach a settlement in this matter.

The Panel recognised that this was a well-prepared application with a comprehensive operating schedule, which was acceptable in principle. However, the Objector has, quite rightly, identified reasonable concerns over public nuisance and public safety, in particular, which, given the premises location adjacent to the canal, the Sub-Committee shared.

The Sub-Committee was advised that there was agreement that the sale of alcohol will be limited to 21.00hrs rather than 21.30hrs as originally requested and that warning notices should be displayed.

The Sub-Committee believed that given the location of the premises adjacent to the canal, that a health and safety risk assessment needed to be in place and regularly maintained and updated.

The Sub-Committee understood the request for a condition limiting alcohol sales to food purchases but believed there was no evidence to support such a condition and that such a condition was likely to be unenforceable.

Whilst the issue of car parking was a concern, it was not a matter that fell within the remit of this Committee. However, the Sub-Committee trusted that the Applicant would use their best endeavours to reach an amicable solution with the Town Council over access to the car park in the evening, when required.

The Sub-Committee understood that the premises were already a thriving business and an asset to the locality and the proposed application was modest in its terms. The Sub-Committee believed that given the general consensus of the parties and the addition of additional conditions on the licence, the application would promote the licensing objectives.

Accordingly, it was the decision of the Sub-Committee to grant a premises licence for

Maunsel Tea Room, Bankland, North Newton, Somerset, subject to the provisions of the operating schedule and the following restrictions and conditions:

TERMS

·         Sale/supply of alcohol – from 10.30hrs – 17.00hrs daily on the premises between October and April and from 10.30hrs – 21.00hrs May to September

·         Sale/supply of alcohol to be restricted to 10.30hrs – 21.00hrs for any private venue hire

CONDITIONS

·         Notices to be prominently displayed advising that alcohol not to be taken outside the licensed area and that children must be supervised by an adult at all times

·         A health and safety risk assessment must be in place, maintained and updated as required and produced on demand to the Council’s Licensing Officers