Agenda and minutes

Venue: Norfolk Rooms, The Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham

Contact: Committee Services  Tel: 01362 656870

Items
No. Item

74.

Minutes (Agenda Item 1) pdf icon PDF 77 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2010.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2010 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

75.

Apologies (Agenda Item 2)

To receive apologies for absence. 

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Mr R. Duffield, Mrs L. Monument and Mrs S. Butcher.

 

The Chairman welcomed Mr. G Bambridge to his first Appeals Committee meeting as substitute for Mr. R. Duffield.

76.

Exclusion of the Press and Public (Agenda Item 7)

To consider passing the following resolution:

 

“That under Section 100(a)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.”

 

PART B –

ITEMS FROM WHICH THE PRESS AND PUBLIC HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED

 

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED that under Section 100(a)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

77.

Determination of a Revocation of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Drivers Licence (Agenda Item 8)

Report of the Director of Community Services.

 

Minutes:

Mr P Mason was in attendance as the Council’s Solicitor.

 

For clarification purposes, the Solicitor afforded Members with advice as requested at the previous meeting.

 

The appellant’s Hackney Carriage/Private Hire drivers licence had already been suspended by the Licensing Team.  This had been due to the practitioner’s letter received earlier in the year which stated that the appellant had not met the required Group ll standards.

 

Following his appearance before the Appeals Committee on 9th September 2010, the Committee had decided to adjourn the matter until further information had been obtained from the Practice Manager at the surgery that the appellant attended.

 

The letter had been received by the Licensing Team on 18th October 2010 and was circulated at the meeting. 

 

The letter clarified a number of matters but not all, and given the unique situation of the appellant’s case, the Solicitor asked Members if they would be prepared to consider this as an exception. 

 

The Medical Practitioners ‘At a glance Guide to Medical Standards of Fitness to Drive issued by the DVLA in March 2010 |(attached at appendix C) stated that under Group ll any new applicants or existing drivers on insulin should be barred in law from driving Light Goods vehicles or Passenger Carrying Vehicles.  “Exceptional case” drivers could apply for or renew their entitlement to drive C1/C1E (small lorries) subject to meeting all the “Qualifying conditions”. 

 

If the Committee was mindful not to consider the appellant as an “Exceptional Case”, the licence would have to be revoked.

 

The Solicitor provided the reasons why it would be appropriate to consider this case as an exception:

 

1              The length of time the appellant had had his licence

2              There had not been any problems with his driving ability

3              He was a responsible person (with regard to his sugar levels)

4              This was his only source of income

5              If the DVLA guidance was applied, the Appellant would have to be examined every 12  months by a hospital consultant (which he had not done thus far)

 

If Members were mindful to treat this as an “Exceptional case”, then the appellant would have to be asked whether he would, in the first instance, be prepared to be seen by such a consultant.  In the interim, Members needed to decide what should be done with the appellant’s current licence – to continue with the suspension or be allowed to drive until the consultant’s report was received.  The Vice-Chairman felt that such a decision could not be made until the Appellant had seen the consultant.

 

The Hearing then took place in the presence of the appellant, his wife and employer.

 

The Committee heard the appeal in accordance with the Council’s agreed procedure.

 

The Chairman explained to those present the meaning of an “Exceptional case”.  He further explained that if the Committee decided not to treat this as an “Exceptional case” the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Licence would have to be revoked.  If the Committee agreed to the contrary,   the licence would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.