Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared 12 points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s friend stated that he hoped Members would consider that he had been a taxi driver for more than 30 years, and had received no complaints from the public in that time. The driver apologised for the first mobile phone offence, as he had touched his phone while at a traffic light, but felt that the second offence had been unfair, so he had wanted to appeal it but been unable for financial reasons. The driver’s friend added that in their community the driver was known as somebody who gave free rides to people who were vulnerable or on their own. He had never had an argument or an incident with his passengers, was a compassionate and considerate person, and supported his four children. Members asked about the second mobile phone offence and heard that the driver felt he had been looking behind him to check his passenger was getting out of the vehicle safely when the police suggested he had been using his phone. He understood the gravity of the offence and the need to meet the standards of professional driving. Members asked whether the driver had been disqualified for totting up 12 points when he went to court, and heard that he had not because he had made an application for exceptional hardship. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that since renewal of his licence he had failed to provide his DBS certificate. The driver was not in attendance. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he was disqualified from driving for six months. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had totted up points and then notified the council when he was disqualified. He had gone over the speed limit in a couple of 20mph zones that he thought were 30mph. He was not a fast driver and tried to take due care and attention. The disqualification had taken away his income and his insurance had gone up as well, so it had been a difficult time. Members asked how fast he had been driving for the offences. The driver recalled that one had been 35mph in a 30 zone, and another was 26mph in a 20 zone. He had passengers in the taxi on two occasions, both in 20mph zones. He suggested that one of the speed cameras that caught him had been hard to see, which Members stressed was irrelevant. Members asked whether the driver had applied for exceptional hardship, and heard that his solicitor had advised otherwise. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared six points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been caught twice going 36mph in what he thought was a 40mph zone, the same day the limit had changed. He received six points for this, which had since expired, and there were now only three points on there. Members queried the other three points on his licence, which the driver explained was for a speeding offence in January 2025. He had gone slightly over the limit due to tiredness at the end of a long shift, and had since reduced his hours. He didn’t have a passenger at the time and was on his way home. The driver’s representative added that the last offence was still under consideration because the driver had put in an appeal due to camera not being properly calibrated, but he had taken responsibility for going over the limit. He had paid a fine which had been refunded, and had made a hardship application which had been granted. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (5) Application 5 This item was deferred to the next meeting.
The following item is confidential and exempt from publication as it contains exempt information of the description contained in paragraph 14 of Part 4 and paragraph 21 of Part 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. The public may be excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared 12 points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s friend stated that he hoped Members would consider that he had been a taxi driver for more than 30 years, and had received no complaints from the public in that time. The driver apologised for the first mobile phone offence, as he had touched his phone while at a traffic light, but felt that the second offence had been unfair, so he had wanted to appeal it but been unable for financial reasons. The driver’s friend added that in their community the driver was known as somebody who gave free rides to people who were vulnerable or on their own. He had never had an argument or an incident with his passengers, was a compassionate and considerate person, and supported his four children. Members asked about the second mobile phone offence and heard that the driver felt he had been looking behind him to check his passenger was getting out of the vehicle safely when the police suggested he had been using his phone. He understood the gravity of the offence and the need to meet the standards of professional driving. Members asked whether the driver had been disqualified for totting up 12 points when he went to court, and heard that he had not because he had made an application for exceptional hardship. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that since renewal of his licence he had failed to provide his DBS certificate. The driver was not in attendance. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he was disqualified from driving for six months. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had totted up points and then notified the council when he was disqualified. He had gone over the speed limit in a couple of 20mph zones that he thought were 30mph. He was not a fast driver and tried to take due care and attention. The disqualification had taken away his income and his insurance had gone up as well, so it had been a difficult time. Members asked how fast he had been driving for the offences. The driver recalled that one had been 35mph in a 30 zone, and another was 26mph in a 20 zone. He had passengers in the taxi on two occasions, both in 20mph zones. He suggested that one of the speed cameras that caught him had been hard to see, which Members stressed was irrelevant. Members asked whether the driver had applied for exceptional hardship, and heard that his solicitor had advised otherwise. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared six points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been caught twice going 36mph in what he thought was a 40mph zone, the same day the limit had changed. He received six points for this, which had since expired, and there were now only three points on there. Members queried the other three points on his licence, which the driver explained was for a speeding offence in January 2025. He had gone slightly over the limit due to tiredness at the end of a long shift, and had since reduced his hours. He didn’t have a passenger at the time and was on his way home. The driver’s representative added that the last offence was still under consideration because the driver had put in an appeal due to camera not being properly calibrated, but he had taken responsibility for going over the limit. He had paid a fine which had been refunded, and had made a hardship application which had been granted. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (5) Application 5 This item was deferred to the next meeting.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared 12 points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s friend stated that he hoped Members would consider that he had been a taxi driver for more than 30 years, and had received no complaints from the public in that time. The driver apologised for the first mobile phone offence, as he had touched his phone while at a traffic light, but felt that the second offence had been unfair, so he had wanted to appeal it but been unable for financial reasons. The driver’s friend added that in their community the driver was known as somebody who gave free rides to people who were vulnerable or on their own. He had never had an argument or an incident with his passengers, was a compassionate and considerate person, and supported his four children. Members asked about the second mobile phone offence and heard that the driver felt he had been looking behind him to check his passenger was getting out of the vehicle safely when the police suggested he had been using his phone. He understood the gravity of the offence and the need to meet the standards of professional driving. Members asked whether the driver had been disqualified for totting up 12 points when he went to court, and heard that he had not because he had made an application for exceptional hardship. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that since renewal of his licence he had failed to provide his DBS certificate. The driver was not in attendance. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he was disqualified from driving for six months. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had totted up points and then notified the council when he was disqualified. He had gone over the speed limit in a couple of 20mph zones that he thought were 30mph. He was not a fast driver and tried to take due care and attention. The disqualification had taken away his income and his insurance had gone up as well, so it had been a difficult time. Members asked how fast he had been driving for the offences. The driver recalled that one had been 35mph in a 30 zone, and another was 26mph in a 20 zone. He had passengers in the taxi on two occasions, both in 20mph zones. He suggested that one of the speed cameras that caught him had been hard to see, which Members stressed was irrelevant. Members asked whether the driver had applied for exceptional hardship, and heard that his solicitor had advised otherwise. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared six points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been caught twice going 36mph in what he thought was a 40mph zone, the same day the limit had changed. He received six points for this, which had since expired, and there were now only three points on there. Members queried the other three points on his licence, which the driver explained was for a speeding offence in January 2025. He had gone slightly over the limit due to tiredness at the end of a long shift, and had since reduced his hours. He didn’t have a passenger at the time and was on his way home. The driver’s representative added that the last offence was still under consideration because the driver had put in an appeal due to camera not being properly calibrated, but he had taken responsibility for going over the limit. He had paid a fine which had been refunded, and had made a hardship application which had been granted. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (5) Application 5 This item was deferred to the next meeting.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.