Agenda and draft minutes

The Monitoring Officer has determined that categories 1 & 2 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following items. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.18 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to:

(i) information relating to any individual

(ii) information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual.

These factors in his view outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information. Members are asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting.

RESOLVED that in accordance with Section 100(a)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public and press were excluded from the meeting on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under Paragraphs 12 and 18 of Schedule 12a Part 7 of the above Act in respect of the following item[s].

To receive introductions from those present and an explanation of the Sub-Committee’s procedures from the Clerk to the Sub-Committee [Principal Solicitor].

The Chair, Sub-Committee members, officers and applicant introduced themselves.

The Clerk to the Sub-Committee explained the procedures to be followed by the Sub-Committee.

To consider an application for renewal of a private hire vehicle licence submitted by VL/01/24.

Applicant – VL/01/24

The Licensing Officer presented the licensing authority’s position as outlined in the report [copy filed with the signed minutes].  He advised that In December 2018 the authority updated its vehicle licence conditions and introduced a maximum age for licensed vehicles with the aim to raise the standard of the licensed fleet.  A licence for any vehicle older than 12 years old is considered by a taxi licensing sub-committee and only licenced in exceptional circumstances.  He advised, as required by the policy, that the  vehicle had been inspected by an inspector approved by the Licensing Authority and had passed an MOT test.  The vehicle had passed the

inspection and is in a good roadworthy condition.

The applicant explained how the vehicle was used and referred to the letters of support received from the local member and people who had used the service provided by the applicant.  It was noted that 7000 miles had been added over the last 12 months.  In response to a comment made by the applicant the Licensing Officer advised that another authority had licenced the vehicle for 18 months.  However, that authority still required that the vehicle undergo annual inspections by an approved inspector and that if it failed an inspection the licence would be reviewed.

All parties confirmed that they had been able to make their representations.

The Sub-Committee withdrew to consider, in private, the application and the evidence they had heard, with the support of the Clerk. 

On their return the Chair announced their decision.  In reaching the decision members took into account the relevant written and verbal representations. 

V/01/24 was advised that the decision would follow in writing with details of their right to appeal.

The Chair thanked all for attending.