Agenda and minutes
PDF 42 KBVenue: By Microsoft Teams
Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Daniel Hampsey, Graham Hardie, Mark Irvine, Paul Kennedy, Dougie Philand and Peter Wallace. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Minutes: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
|
CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT OF TAXI CAR LICENCES 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 video call and Mr McNeill joined the
meeting by MS Teams. Paul Cowin, Objector, opted to proceed by way of audio call and joined
the meeting by telephone. Morgan and Hayley Romilly, Objectors, also opted to proceed by way of
audio call and joined the meeting by telephone. There were 3 Taxi Car Licence Applications before the Committee for
consideration and the Chair outlined the hearing procedure that would be
followed in respect of each Application. |
|
|
Glasgow Coach Drivers Limited, Helensburgh (C McNeill) - Mercedes Vito Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support Minutes: The Chair invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application APPLICANT Mr McNeill said he was applying for a licence for a wheelchair accessible
taxi to help supplement the other taxis in the area. He advised that a few nursing homes had
contacted him about using his company as they were currently using a company
outwith 鶹Ѱ and Bute. He referred to
a letter from a nursing home which he said he had sent to the Licensing Team
this morning and had asked that this be passed onto the Committee. He referred to the distinction between a
private hire car and a taxi. He said
that as private hire cars could operate anywhere in 鶹Ѱ and Bute they may
not be available when required in the Helensburgh and Lomond area. He advised that he thought it best to have a
taxi car licence so that drivers could supplement their income with private
hires by being able to pick up fares on the street and alleviate pressure when
taxis where not available after midnight.
He said he hoped to help the nursing homes out and the various other
locations that required wheelchair accessible taxis. QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS Mr Romilly commented that he had one of the only wheelchair accessible
vehicles in the area. He said he did not
get a lot of work from the rank with the majority of customers pre booking for
a wheelchair accessible vehicle. He
asked Mr McNeill how many customers he expected to get as a taxi instead of a
private hire. Mr McNeill explained that if this was private hire vehicle it could go
anywhere in 鶹Ѱ and Bute and if someone phoned up to request it, it may not
be available in the Helensburgh and Lomond area, where a taxi would only be
able to operate. He said a taxi could
not operate outside the zone it was licenced to unless, for example, it was
taking someone to hospital and bringing them back. If the vehicle was operated as a private hire
it could have a job in Campbeltown or Oban and so would not be available in the
Helensburgh and Lomond area. Mr Romilly said he failed to see the difference as a taxi could also be
out of the area and if it was busy it would not be available either. Mr McNeill said that with taxis, people could pick up these from the
street and with his advanced booking system coming along soon, he would be able
to allocate one of the licensed taxis to pick up the person in minutes. A private hire would have to be pre booked
and could not do normal street work and could be anywhere within 鶹Ѱ and
Bute. He said that was why he was
applying for taxi car licence. He also
commented that the number of taxis in the area had dropped since June this
year. OBJECTORS Mr Cowin Mr Cowin advised that his objection had been submitted a few months
ago. He noted that there had been 52
taxi plates in the area but that had reduced to 47. He felt his objection no longer carried any
weight. Mr Romilly Mr Romilly said that he had noted the slight decrease in the number of
plates but advised that this did not change his view that Mr McNeill was an
unfit operator. He advised of having
many dealings with the Council and said that none of his issues raised had been
resolved. He referred to personal
attacks and said he felt Mr McNeill was an unfit operator within the town. He referred to Mr McNeill’s response to the
objections and said that he felt this was a personal attack on him by Mr
McNeill and that it had nothing to do with his plate or his business. He said this demonstrated that Mr McNeill was
an unfit character. Mrs Romilly Mrs Romilly advised that she echoed what Mr Romilly had said. She said that from her own experience Mr
McNeill was an unfit operator. She said
the statement he had submitted was a personal attack. She advised that there were a lot of false
complaints from Mr McNeill which they have always had to go back to legal about
and that they were always innocent. She
said there seemed to be a lot of false allegations and she could not understand
why this was the case. She said that
they had never submitted any false complaints to the Council about Mr
McNeill. She referred to complaints they
had put in which she alleged had not been resolved. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT Mr McNeill questioned why it was being said that he was an unfit
operator. He referred to the allegations
and said he did not know where they were coming from and that they were not
from him. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Armour referred to Mr McNeill advising that he had submitted
a letter to legal that the Committee should have had sight of. He sought comment from Officers. Mrs Barton advised that a letter was
received. Ms Clanahan confirmed she
received a copy of the letter shortly before the hearing started and that she
was not aware if this had been distributed to the Committee. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Ms Clanahan that
it would not be appropriate for the Committee to consider this letter at the
last moment as there had been no opportunity to review if before hand and there
was no opportunity for the Objectors to consider it. She advised that it was a general letter from
a care home and referred to some sort of gap in wheelchair provision in the
area. She reiterated that as it was sent
in so late that it would not be appropriate to include it today. Councillor Green noted that it was a general statement made about
demand which had also been made by Mr McNeill in his representation to the
Committee. SUMMING UP Objectors Mr Cowin Mr Cowin advised ... view the full minutes text for item 3a |
|
|
Glasgow Coach Drivers Limited, Helensburgh (C McNeill) - London Taxi TX4 Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support Minutes: Chair invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application APPLICANT Mr McNeill advised his presentation was the same as that for the
previous hearing (at item 3a above) and that he had nothing further to add. QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS Mr Cowin asked what would happen if a person needed to go to hospital
in Glasgow which was within the Low Emission Zone (LEZ). Mr McNeill advised that there were no
hospitals in Glasgow within the LEZ. Mr Romilly commented on the number of
vehicles Mr McNeill would have and asked how he would utilise all of these
vehicles at the same time. Mr McNeill
said that he had drivers waiting on the decisions that would be taken
today. He pointed out that if the
licences were granted he would not be able to operate until the time had passed
for any Appeal to be submitted by the Objectors. He said that would be enough time for the
drivers to apply for taxi driver licences to allow them to drive the vehicles. Mr Romilly commented that the
Committee could see the factual evidence in front of them but no one had
referred to the objections he had submitted.
He sought reassurance that the Committee had seen this evidence. It was explained to Mr Romilly that it was
not for him to ask questions of the Committee.
Nor was this the appropriate forum for him to air grievances about the
Council. He was advised that if he had
any complaints regarding the Council, then the complaints procedure was the
appropriate avenue to explore this further.
The hearing today was limited to issues which could be considered in
terms of the licencing regime for the particular licence application to which
the hearing relates. OBJECTORS None of the Objectors and anything further to add. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT There were no questions from the Applicant. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS There were no questions from the Committee. SUMMING UP Objectors Mr Cowin Mr Cowin advised that he had nothing further to add. Mr Romilly Mr Romilly said he had nothing further to add other than to point out
his question had not been answered. Mrs Romilly Mrs Romilly referred to the re-determination of the taxi rank and
pointed out that there would be nowhere for taxis to sit if they took one of
the ranks away. She said the other one
had a major hangover, especially at peak times when the trains were busy. She said she believed Mr McNeill was an unfit
operator. Applicant Mr McNeill said that as far as he was concerned he was willing to work
with other taxi operators to alleviate anything in the area. He said he could cover it. He said he did this with his private hire
vehicles and would continue to do so and work with any operator that wanted to
work with him and not against him. All parties were asked to confirm if they had received a fair hearing. Mr McNeill and Mr Cowin confirmed that they had received a fair
hearing. Mr Romilly said he had not received a fair hearing. He advised that he was still waiting for his
question to be answered about whether or not the Councillors had seen the
evidence that he had submitted. Ms Clanahan advised that she considered that all parties had been given
the opportunity of putting their points across and she confirmed that everyone
had been sent the full facts and details of issues raised. She advised that it was for all parties to
put across their points to the Committee and it had been open to the Objectors
and the Applicant to refer to their evidence in support of their arguments and
to make their case. It was also open to
the Committee Members to ask any questions regarding the documents lodged by
the parties, but they were not required to ask questions of the evidence if
they felt it to be unnecessary, having reviewed the content of the written
evidence. Councillor Green acknowledged that there was no mechanism within the
hearing procedure for Members to answer questions. The Committee agreed to note the opinion of
Mr Romilly. Mrs Romilly advised that she did not think she had received a fair
hearing. She said she felt that she and
Mr Romilly had been treated like children and not listened to. DEBATE Councillor McCabe said she tended to agree with the Objectors. She said she felt they should have been able
to answer their question. She commented
there was a lot in Agenda pack that had not been discussed. Councillor Green pointed out that it was Councillor McCabe’s
opportunity to speak now if she wished.
Ms Clanahan confirmed that this was an opportunity for Members of the
Committee to discuss what had been presented to them including the information
in the Agenda pack, despite the fact that the Objectors had failed to raise
points about the evidence they had submitted themselves. Councillor McCabe said she was not happy. She said she was minded not to grant the
application, having read the contents of the Agenda pack. She commented that a lot of things had been
said, which, she advised, she did not think were right. Councillor Armour said that some of the allegations made were
unsavoury. He sought clarification from Officers if the Police were aware of
these. Ms Clanahan said she did not have
that information so could not comment. Councillor Brown referred to reading through the paperwork. She noted there was a long history between
both operators. She said the Committee
could only go with what was in front of them and that she had noted that no
objection had been submitted by Police Scotland. Councillor Green said that unless Police Scotland had submitted a
complaint this was not something the Committee could consider when presented in
terms of evidence in the Agenda Pack. He
said that he had read all the paperwork but could personally only give it
limited weight. Ms Clanahan confirmed ... view the full minutes text for item 3b |
|
|
Glasgow Coach Drivers Limited, Helensburgh (C McNeill) - London Taxi TX4 Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support Minutes: The Chair invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application APPLICANT Mr McNeill advised his presentation was the same as that for the first hearing
(at item 3a above) and that he had nothing further to add. QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS There were no questions from the Objectors. OBJECTORS Mr Cowin Mr Cowin said it was worth pointing out the comments made in Mr
Romilly’s objection contained within the Agenda pack about Mr McNeill’s
vehicles having bald tyres. He also
referred to an approach by Mr McNeill to Companies House. Mr Romilly Mr Romilly referred to complaints he had made to the licensing team not
being dealt with. He advised that not
everything they had complained about would have been a Police Scotland matter. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT Mr McNeill referred to a company being bought out by another company in
Dumbarton but this had been removed by the Committee as a proper partnership
had not been formed. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Howard asked if there was still the demand for a third taxi
car licence, noting the other 2 that had just been granted. Councillor Green commented that the Committee had previously taken the
view that the LVSA report produced some time ago was outdated and that a
replacement report was requested. Ms
Clanahan confirmed that the number of taxi car licences was now 49, taking
account of the 2 granted today. She said
this was an increase of 1 since September last year and an increase of 1 since
the LVSA report was produced. She
advised that it was at the Committee’s discretion to decide whether or not
there was an over provision. Councillor Brown commented that a lot of the issues the objectors have
flagged up were from people that had come to them. She noted that Mr and Mrs Romilly had raised
these issues with the Council and asked if they were aware if the people
concerned had flagged up their own issues to the Council. Mr Romilly said that any complaints that have
come to them they had reverted the complainants back to the licensing team. He referred to the complaint in relation to
an incident outside Tescos, and said this had still
to be resolved. He said he was aware of
complainants that had gone direct to the Council. Councillor McCabe asked if the person involved in the incident at Tesco
had contacted the licensing team. She
also asked why no one had responded to the complaints. Ms Clanahan advised that she could not
comment on any complaint from a third party due to GDPR. She advised that it was her understanding
that Mrs Romilly’s was the subject of an internal investigation and that there
was an outcome. She confirmed that all
relevant complaints received by the Council are looked into. Councillor Kain commented that a lot of this was “he said” “she said”
and personal between the Applicant and the Objectors. He said the important issue was if the
vehicles were safe. Councillor Blair referred to comments made about bald tyres and asked
Mr McNeill if he had a vehicle maintenance schedule. Mr McNeill advised that at that time they
used a local garage. He confirmed that
they were now using a compliant garage that did a lot of work with Renfrewshire
Council. He said that his vehicles were
sent over there every 4 weeks to ensure everything was above board. He confirmed that they had a regular recorded
regime for each vehicle. Councillor Blair referred to the comments made about how businesses
were being ran and asked Mr Romilly if he would agree that no one should be
concerned about what was said as long as a person was working within the law
and the rules of the licence. Mr Romilly
advised that some of the comments made had been derogatory. He questioned the fitness of Mr McNeill as an
operator based on the derogatory comments he advised that Mr McNeill has
said. Councillor Blair suggested that if
this happened to him then he would sue for defamation of character and then he
would have the evidence of this in the form of a solicitor’s letter and queried
why no legal advice was ever sought if the alleged incidents had indeed
occurred. Councillor Blair asked Ms Clanahan if routine spot checks were carried
out on vehicles by the Council. Ms
Clanahan advised that she did not know the particulars of how any spot checks
were conducted, further advising that there had been some changes in
enforcement officers, with a new person starting next week and this could
change current processes anyway. Ms
Clanahan advised that she understood that there were regular scheduled checks
carried out on vehicles by local authority mechanics. Councillor Armour sought and received confirmation from Mr McNeill that
he had not made any comments to a Tesco employee. Councillor Liz McCabe left the meeting during the Members’ Questions. SUMMING UP Objectors Mr Cowin advised that he had nothing further to add. Mr Romilly advised that he had nothing further to add. Mrs Romilly said she would like to emphasise that she did not like
being treated as a child. She said that
it was not a case of “he said” “she said” and that they had provided all the
evidence ahead of this meeting. She said
there had been a lot of false allegations.
She said she was not here to lie and that she had nothing personal
against Mr McNeill. She referred to the re-determination of the front taxi rank and advised
that if more taxi car licences were granted there would be nowhere for the
vehicles to sit. She said that she believed that Mr McNeill was an unfit operator. She referred to his submission in response to
their objections and said that his submission was a personal attack against Mr
Romilly and his business. She said they
were not here to personally attack Mr McNeill. Applicant Mr McNeill said there had been no personal attack. He ... view the full minutes text for item 3c |