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 to renew a vehicle licence.

Applicant – VL/02/24

The Licensing Officer presented the licensing authority’s position as outlined in the report [copy filed with the signed minutes].  In response to a question he advised that if approved the licence would need to renewed every 12 months.  In line with the Council’s Policy any vehicle over 8 years old would need to have two MOTs each year and undergo extra checks, which would be at the owner’s expense.  The Licensing Officer advised that the mileage of the vehicle was what would be expected for a vehicle of its age.

The applicant advised that the vehicle was used for airport transfers, corporate work, weddings and evenings out.  In response to questions he advised that the vehicle was inspected once a month and serviced every 10,000 miles.

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. 

VL/02/24 was advised that the decision would follow in writing.

The Chair thanked all for attending.

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.

Item 4 was not considered.

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

To consider an application for a Joint Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Drivers’ Licence

The Sub-Committee was advised that JD/08/24 was to be considered at the Sub-Committee scheduled for 2 December 2024.

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, applicant and employer and Police representative introduced themselves.

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

To consider a review of a Joint Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Drivers’ Licence.

Applicant – JD/09/24 and supported by their employer

Mr R Bowen, Licensing Officer, Dyfed-Powys Police

The Licensing Officer presented the licensing authority’s position as outlined in the report [copy filed with the signed minutes]. 

JD/09/24 read a statement explaining, from their perspective, what had happened, which had led to the complaint.  They advised that they would be willing to undertake a safeguarding course.  The Licensing Officer advised that all new licence holders undertake a knowledge and safeguarding course and have to complete and pass a test.  In response to a question JD/09/24 advised that the complaint had been made three weeks after the event and that they had not worked for 2 ½ weeks since their suspension.  In response to a question about being an experienced driver and whether they felt their role included having conversations with customers they responded by saying that they would not always have conversations but on this occasion they felt uncomfortable with the customer and tried to have a conversation to break up the journey.  In response to a question they advised that they told the customer about local places of interest but did not take them to any.

Mr Bowen advised from a police perspective they were not here to judge whether a criminal offence had taken place but were considering safeguarding issues and whether JD/09/24 was a “fit and proper person” to hold a licence.  He advised that JD/09/24 had not been questioned by any legal body.  JD/09/24 admitted in their statement to the Sub-committee how they had previously gone above and beyond a taxi driver’s role, rather than contacting the appropriate authorities.  He advised that the complainant was a professional person and would likely know the consequences of making a complaint.  He stated that the Police did not think that JD/09/24 was a “fit and proper person” to hold a licence. 

JD/09/24’s employer spoke in support, having know them for 17 years and considered them to be a caring person. 

The Sub-committee noted the many character references received. 

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. 

JD/09/24 was advised that the decision would follow in writing with details of their right to appeal.

The Chair thanked all for attending.