Agenda and minutes

None.

To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

None.

Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the following items on the agenda.  The Code of Conduct for Members requires that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest.

None.

Present (remotely):

Representing the Applicant: Mr P Robson, Mr M Gallant and Ms E Rayner

Objectors: Mr P Chapman, Mrs A Collison, Mr G Collison, Mr J Symonds, and Mrs J Symonds

The Chairman introduced the Members of the Panel and Officers.

The Legal Advisor outlined the purpose of the hearing and explained the procedure for the meeting.  She confirmed with the applicants that they had received a copy of the agenda papers.  She reminded the Sub-Committee that the hearing was being conducted remotely via Zoom and must be conducted fairly and reasonably in line with the Applicant’s right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.  In the event of any participant leaving the hearing due to a technical issue, the hearing would not proceed until all parties were present.  She drew attention to the lack of representation in the report from responsible authorities.  The Licensing Enforcement Officer confirmed that no representations had been received from responsible authorities.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer presented the report, which related to an application for a new Premises Licence to which objections had been received from local residents.

Mr Robson presented the case on behalf of the Applicant.  He drew attention to the work that the Applicant would carry out with regard to the four licensing objectives.  He stated that the Applicant had significant experience in managing over 700 premises and training was in place for managers and staff with regard to the licensing objectives.  There were also physical and technological responses in place to meet those objectives, such as digital motion activated CCTV and the Staysafe system.  He referred to concerns raised by an objector regarding Staysafe and explained that this was an industry standard system used by McDonalds and other fast food outlets all over the country.  If an incident arose, management or staff could immediately alert a call centre based in Scotland, which took over the loudspeaker system in the restaurant to publicly identify the person concerned, with the intention of embarrassing them into stopping the behaviour.  This method had been proven to de-escalate situations and if it did not have the desired effect, the Police would be called.  In addition, all shift managers received training in how to de-escalate situations.  He referred to the public safety objective and stated that safety systems were in place and the Applicant would work closely with Environmental Health and the local Fire Service.  Staff training would be carried out and it was policy not to allow open alcohol containers.  This policy would be policed by staff in a way that was non-confrontational and would reduce potential escalation to crime and disorder or public safety issues.  With regard to public nuisance, the primary concern of residents related to litter.  Litter picking teams would pick up all litter, regardless of its source, within a fairly wide radius of the site.  Whilst the Applicant could not be responsible for individuals dropping litter, they would go beyond what would be expected of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To pass the following resolution:

“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”

RESOLVED

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

Present (remotely): Applicant and Applicant’s Supporter

The Chairman introduced the Members of the Panel and Officers.

The Legal Advisor outlined the purpose of the hearing and explained the procedure for the meeting.  She reminded the Sub-Committee that the hearing was being conducted remotely via Zoom and must be conducted fairly and reasonably in line with the Applicant’s right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.  In the event of any participant leaving the hearing due to a technical issue, the hearing would not proceed until all parties were present.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer presented the report, which related to an application to drive Hackney Carriage or Private Hire Vehicles in North Norfolk where the circumstances merited consideration by the Sub-Committee.

The Applicant’s Supporter presented the case on behalf of the Applicant.  He explained the circumstances in which the Applicant’s offences had occurred.  The Applicant realised the serious consequences that could result from drink driving, had learned her lesson and never wanted to repeat the experience. 

The Chairman explained that the apparent discrepancy between the application form and DBS in respect of the length of driving ban was due to the Applicant having undertaken a drink awareness course, which had reduced the length of the ban, and was not an attempt by the Applicant to mislead the Sub-Committee.

At the request of Cllr J Rest, the Applicant clarified the medication noted on the medical report, the reason it had been prescribed and the current situation regarding it.

Cllr N Lloyd explained that the Sub-Committee had a duty to protect the public and asked the Applicant to provide further information with regard to her current circumstances that might enable the application to be approved.  He asked what impact the drink awareness course had had on her.

The Applicant explained that she was normally a resilient person, but a number of issues had coincided that had pushed her to the edge.  She was now in a much better place, had put the past behind her and wanted to do something good.  She was an experienced driver and considered that taxi driving would be an ideal job.  The drink awareness course had a big impact on her and she did not drink alcohol if she was driving.

The Chairman questioned the Applicant with regard to the details of the drink driving offence. 

The Applicant explained that she had been quite a bit over the limit and had made a huge mistake.  The Applicant’s supporter gave more detail with regard to the circumstances surrounding the offence.

In response to questions from the Licensing Enforcement Officer, the Applicant gave further clarification with regard to her medical report.

In response to questions by the Sub-Committee, the Applicant explained the circumstances of an offence on her DBS that was not related to driving.   She said that in the event of her application being rejected she would still like to be involved in the taxi industry as it involved people and she considered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.