Agenda and minutes
Venue: By Skype
Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mary-Jean Devon, Audrey Forrest, Donald MacMillan BEM and Sandy Taylor. |
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Minutes: There were no declarations of interest |
|
CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO TAXI CAR LICENCE NUMBER 2130 (J HANNAH, HELENSBURGH) Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support Minutes: The
Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.
In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the
parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in
the meeting today. The options available
were by Video Call, by Audio Call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of Audio Call and joined the
meeting by telephone. The Applicant had
also made a written submission which was contained within a supplementary
Agenda pack issued to the Committee. One
of the objectors, Mr McAuley, had originally intended to proceed by way of
Audio Call but proceeded by way of written submission following difficulties in
joining the meeting. The
Chair advised that an objection had been received outwith the time period allowed
by the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 for making objections or
representations. The Council’s
Solicitor, Mr McMillan, explained the procedure to be followed in this respect. The
Chair sought and received confirmation from Mr McMillan that Mr Haddow had been
contacted within the statutory time frame to provide reasons for his objection
having been submitted late and that none had been provided. The
Chair sought the view of the Applicant as to whether or not this late objection
should be taken into consideration. The
Applicant advised that he felt that the objection should be ignored as it was
submitted late. The
Chair sought the views of Members as to whether or not this late objection
should be taken into consideration. Councillor
McCuish advised that he felt that the representation should be ignored as Mr
Haddow had not responded to provide reasons for the objection being late. The
Committee unanimously agreed not to accept the late objection. The
Chair then outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the
Applicant to speak in support of his application. APPLICANT The
Applicant advised that, as per information provided within the written
submission to the Committee, Mr Cowin had approached the Applicant in relation
to forming a partnership. The Applicant confirmed that he did not want any
money in return for forming a partnership, and was originally intending not to
renew his taxi car licence in June as he was turning 66 and would be of
pensionable age. The Applicant noted that when Mr Cowin had approached him, he
thought that the partnership would be beneficial to him as he could renew his
taxi operators licence and work if and when he would want to. The
Applicant expressed concerns that objections from Mr McAuley were of a personal
nature due to Mr McAuley's perceived dislike of Mr Cowin. The
Applicant noted that he understood, from Mr McAuley’s objection, that Mr Cowin
had approached other people in relation to potentially selling their taxi car
licence plates after having been previously rejected by the Committee when
applying for one, however when Mr Cowin had approached him it had appeared to
be a good opportunity for them both and no money was changing hands. The
Applicant reiterated his concerns that the objections raised by Mr McAuley were
of a personal nature and noted that Mr McAuley was incorrect in stating that Mr
Cowin was working as a taxi driver, as he was working as a private hire driver
and could not work at the taxi rank or put a sign on top of the car, which
would potentially increase his trade. OBJECTORS The
Chair sought and received confirmation from Mr McMillan that Mr McAuley’s
objection did not require to be read out to the Committee as it was provided
within the agenda pack for the meeting. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor
Colville sought and received confirmation from the Applicant that he had not
originally been intending to sell the plate, but had been approached to ask if
he would consider selling it. Councillor Colville asked if the Applicant had
found the situation to be questionable as it was a serious offence to sell a
taxi plate and usually when someone was considering retiring they would
surrender their plate and give others the opportunity to apply for it. The
Applicant advised that his understanding was that Mr Cowin had previously
applied to the Committee but had been rejected as no taxi licences were being
granted by the Council at that time. When Mr Cowin had approached him, the
Applicant had felt that it was a good option for both of them as it would give
the Applicant the chance to work shifts when he wanted to and would allow Mr
Cowin to have the taxi plate that he was looking for. Councillor
Colville noted that a taxi car licence had been granted at a previous Hearing
earlier in the day and that each application was considered on its own merit by
the Committee, with some being granted and some being rejected. Councillor
Colville expressed his concern at this being a potential attempt to
circumnavigate the rules. The
Chair asked the Applicant to clarify that the Applicant and Mr Cowin were
entering into a partnership and what the benefit to the Applicant was of
entering into this partnership. The Applicant confirmed that it was his
intention to enter into a partnership with Mr Cowin and that Mr Cowin would be
taking over the general running of the licence, with the Applicant driving the
taxi from time to time when he wanted to. The Applicant confirmed that the
benefit to him was that he would still be able to drive on occasion when he
wished to do so, and noted that no money was changing hands. The Chair requested clarification as to how long the Applicant envisaged the partnership lasting, the Applicant confirmed that he was unsure but he could envisage the partnership lasting between one to two years. The Chair asked Mr McMillan if there was any stipulation as to when one partner could exit the partnership. Mr McMillan confirmed that the licence holder of the taxi car licence would be the partnership and therefore if the Applicant was to withdraw from the ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |