Â鶹Ãâ·Ñ°æ

Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support

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).Ìý 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.Ìý Mr McNeill said that he had drivers waiting on the decisions that would be taken today.Ìý 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.Ìý 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.Ìý He sought reassurance that the Committee had seen this evidence.Ìý It was explained to Mr Romilly that it was not for him to ask questions of the Committee.Ìý Nor was this the appropriate forum for him to air grievances about the Council.Ìý He was advised that if he had any complaints regarding the Council, then the complaints procedure was the appropriate avenue to explore this further.Ìý 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.Ìý She said the other one had a major hangover, especially at peak times when the trains were busy.Ìý 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.Ìý He said he could cover it.Ìý 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.Ìý 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.Ìý 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.Ìý 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.Ìý The Committee agreed to note the opinion of Mr Romilly.

 

Mrs Romilly advised that she did not think she had received a fair hearing.Ìý 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.Ìý She said she felt they should have been able to answer their question.Ìý 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.Ìý 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.Ìý She said she was minded not to grant the application, having read the contents of the Agenda pack.Ìý 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.Ìý Ms Clanahan said she did not have that information so could not comment.

 

Councillor Brown referred to reading through the paperwork.Ìý She noted there was a long history between both operators.Ìý 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.Ìý He said that he had read all the paperwork but could personally only give it limited weight.

 

Ms Clanahan confirmed that everything was cross checked and Police Scotland were approached but had no comment.Ìý She said it was not possible to know what their knowledge was about any alleged activities.Ìý Police Scotland reported no concerns in relation to this application or in relation to the Applicant.Ìý She reminded the Committee that the test was the balance of probability and the evidence before them was there for them to review and make up their own minds in relation to both content and the reliability of that evidence.

 

Councillor Armour advised that if Police Scotland have not objected then it made it difficult for the Committee to object to something the Police have already looked at.Ìý He agreed that the Committee had to deal with the facts in front of them.Ìý He acknowledged that there were a lot of unsavoury comments but felt that as they were not acted on by the Police or in any legal way, he could not attribute any great weight to them and so he could see no reason to object to the granting of this licence.

 

Councillor Green advised that based on what was in front of him he could see no reason to oppose this application.Ìý He pointed out that did not mean he condoned any behaviours that may have taken place, but he advised he was not commenting on it as he did not know if anything had been taken further so therefore he was giving it limited weight.Ìý He said he was not disregarding the comments, he was only giving them limited weight.

 

DECISION

 

The Committee agreed to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Glasgow Coach Drivers Limited for a London Taxi TX4 registration number LM60 0TV and noted that Mr McNeill would be notified of this in writing within 7 days.

 

(Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted)