Agenda and draft minutes

The evacuation procedure was noted.

There were no declarations of interest.

Members were asked to consider and comment on a report which addressed a motion submitted by Councillor Ted Strike at Council meeting held on 29 May 2024, concerning the resolution agreed under the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982 which designated the whole Borough as a consent area for the purposes of street trading. This motion had been automatically referred to the General Licensing Committee for comments.

Full details of Councillor Strikes motion was contained within the main report.

Councillor Ted Strike and Councillor Tony Riordan attended the meeting and given the opportunity to make representation. Their comments could be summarised as follows:

. The idea behind the Consent Street Trading (CST) was accepted and businesses should be required to comply, however it was believed that there was no intention that Stockton Borough Council Officers and Local Councillors meant to penalise community events organised for the community by volunteers, however this is what was happening.

. Cllr Strike informed the Committee that as the founder and Chairman of the Ingleby Barwick Community Partnership (IBCP) he could speak first hand on the matter.

. Reference was made to the ‘Ingleby Barwick light switch on’ where it would cost £100 for up to 20 stalls, however this was not that type of event. Last year there was only a coffee van which was charged £25 to attend.

. The Ingleby Barwick market would be 10 years old in September, however if these charges remained the market wouldn’t see 11 years. Organisers of the market put on an entry fee to combat the charge, and although vouchers were given out to visitors to the value of the entry fee which could be redeemed at any stall, footfall had gone down.

. If the minimum fee of £100 was paid then these events would not be viable, taking into consideration all the work required setting up at 8am, then dismantling at the end finishing about 3.30 or 4pm depending on the number of volunteers. It was hard to see this continuing if £100 had to be paid to Stockton Borough Council for each market!

. If the markets were stopped, which was probably what would happen should these charges remain, then the income generated which went towards the Family Fun Weekend (FFW) would have to be found elsewhere. Add to that the cost of the CST consent for the FFW, which this year would be £150, consideration would have to be given whether the FFW continued.

. Volunteers worked hard on these events for no financial reward.

. Stockton Borough Council liked to say they are an events Council, and the ‘Powering Our Future’ initiative was meant to be about working and supporting local communities. How was taxing community events supporting local communities?

. Do the right thing and exempt community events from stealth tax.

At the request of Cllr Strike and with the agreement of the Chair an email was read out which had been submitted by Deborah Gale who was Chair of  ...  view the full minutes text for item GLC/13/24

RESOLVED that under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

Members were asked to consider and determine what action to take as to whether combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 remained a fit and proper person to hold a combined hackney carriage and private hire drivers’ licence, with this authority.

Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 attended the meeting alongside his legal representative Mr Simon Walker of Appleby Hope & Matthews Solicitors and was given the opportunity to make representation.

A witness relating to complaint number 2 was also in attendance and given the opportunity to make representation.

Committee papers and reports had been provided to all relevant parties prior to the meeting. 

The report detailed the following:

. A recording of a phone call between combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 and a Taxi Operator

. A copy of a summary of CCTV footage

. A copy of images showing damage to a complainant’s vehicle and to a Private Hire Vehicle.

. A copy of a summary transcript of an interview between combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 and Licensing Officers.

The Chair introduced everyone present and explained the procedure to be followed during the hearing.

The Committee understood that the matter before them was to determine the continued fitness of combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 as detailed in the Committee report and appendices.

The Committee heard that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 had previously held a licence with this authority since before 2003 and had had his licence revoked in March 2020 due to a medical issue. Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 re-applied for a combined licence in June 2023, which was granted on 1st August 2023.

The Committee heard that there were three separate complaints before them, relating to combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 and his private hire vehicle. A summary of the complaints were outlined to the Committee is as follows:-

Complaint 1 – On 2nd April 2024, a member of the public reported that a Private Hire Vehicle had collided with her vehicle and left the scene. The complainant and a nearby shop provided CCTV footage of the collision. The complainant stated she had called the operator, who identified the driver of the Private Hire Vehicle as combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879, who denied the collision and stated that he had been at home asleep at that time.

Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 was interviewed in relation to the matter on 24th April 2024, and his recollection of the date in question changed, then admitting to officers that he vaguely remembered the incident. Despite this, and viewing the CCTV with officers during interview, combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 denied colliding with the complainant’s vehicle and denied that witnesses had attempted to stop him from driving away. Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 also  ...  view the full minutes text for item GLC/15/24

Members were asked to consider and determine an application for a private hire driver licence, from applicant - 157225 who had relevant convictions, which did not meet current Transport Policy.

Applicant - 157225 attended the meeting and was given the opportunity to make representation.

Committee papers and reports had been provided to all relevant parties prior to the meeting. 

The report detailed the following:

. A copy of applicant – 157225’s application which contained a DVLA check code, showing one live DVLA endorsement for a speeding offence.

. A copy of a summary transcript of an interview with applicant – 157225 and Licensing Officers.

The Committee understood that the matter before them was to determine a private hire drivers’ licence application from applicant – 157225 who had four convictions for possession of controlled drugs. The Councils current Hackney Carriages and Private Hire Licensing Policy on drugs related offences states:- a licence would normally be refused if an applicant has more than one conviction for drugs related offences.

The Committee noted that had been a long time since applicant – 157225’s convictions in 2013 and that applicant – 157225 had not been in any trouble since moving to the North East over a decade ago. The Committee were assured by applicant – 157225’s positive attitude and professional demeanour when he appeared before. The Committee therefore determined that they were satisfied that applicant – 157225 was a fit and proper person to hold a licence and agreed to depart from its current policy.

Applicant – 157225 was reminded that licence holders who commit offences or receive complaints about their behaviour expect the Council to consider revoking their licence or refuse any future applications.

The Council had a duty to ensure so far as possible that those licensed to drive hackney carriage and private hire vehicles were suitable people to do so, that they are safe drivers with good driving records with adequate experience, sober, courteous, mentally and physically fit, honest and not people who would take advantage of their employment to abuse or assault passengers.

Applicant – 157225 was told that he must always drive in a courteous and professional manner and that Licence holders should endeavour to promote the image of the hackney carriage and private hire trade by:

a) complying with this Code of Conduct;

b) complying with all the conditions of their licence and the Council's Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy;

c) always behaving in a professional manner.

Before applicant – 157225’s licence was granted he was informed he must complete all necessary stages of the application requirements.

RESOLVED that applicant – 157225’s private hire drivers licence be granted for the reasons as detailed above.

Members were asked to consider and determine a private hire drivers application from  applicant – 156923 who had relevant DVLA convictions and did not meet current Transport Policy.

Applicant - 156923 attended the meeting and was given the opportunity to make representation.

Committee papers and reports had been provided to all relevant parties prior to the meeting. 

The report detailed the following:

. A copy of applicant – 156923’s application which contained a DVLA check code, showing one live DVLA endorsement.

. A copy of a summary transcript of an interview with applicant – 156923 and licensing officers.

The Committee understood that the matter before them was to determine an application for a private hire vehicle drivers’ licence as detailed in the Committee report.

The Committee heard that a DVLA check code was received as part of the usual application process showing one live DVLA endorsement for the offence of ‘driving a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks’ on 4th February 2023. The Committee were told that the applicant received no penalty points for this offence.

The Committee heard that the Council’s current policy stated that an application would normally be refused until at least four years after the most recent conviction, caution, reprimand, final warning or if the person was disqualified, after the restoration of their driving licence, whichever was ever the later. The Committee were told that four years from applicant – 156923’s conviction date was 4th February 2027, over two and a half years away.

The Committee were told that applicant – 156923 was interviewed on 17th June 2024, by licensing officers, about the circumstances surrounding his conviction. The Committee heard that applicant – 156923 admitted to driving without insurance, saying that he could not afford to pay for insurance. Applicant – 156923 advised officers that if he had appealed his conviction, he may have received six DVLA penalty points, which would have resulted in him having to re-take his driving test.

The Committee were advised that applicant – 156923 stated during interview that he attended Court and explained his situation to Magistrates, who decided not to hand down DVLA penalty points, and he was instead fined £500.

The Committee heard that in response to being asked if applicant – 156923 believed that he was a fit and proper person to hold a private hire driver licence, applicant – 156923 stated that he had no other convictions. The Committee were told that applicant – 156923 assured officers that he would be safe around passengers and acknowledged that he understood that he must have insurance in place.

The Committee were told that applicant – 156923 had undertook an oral fluid drugs screening test at the end of his interview and the results were negative.

Members had regard to the Committee papers, which had been circulated prior to the hearing and presented to them as well to the oral submissions made by applicant – 156923.

Having carefully considered the written documentation before them and in reaching their decision,  ...  view the full minutes text for item GLC/17/24