Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 13 December 2011.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 13 December were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendments:

Item 10, page 2, penultimate paragraph – it was noted that the tenses had been mixed up.

Councillor David Holtby commended the quality of the minutes produced by the officer involved.

The Committee noted that there was an outstanding action from the previous meeting for officers to prepare a brief report to agree the procedure for submitting a response to the Government’s consultation on taxi legislation. The Chairman updated the Committee that information had not as yet been released by the Home Office, and as such, officers were still awaiting further guidance. A further update would be provided at the next Committee meeting.

To receive any Declarations of Interest from Members.

There were no declarations of interest received.

Purpose: To inform members of a request from the taxi trade for an increase in the taxi tariff (fare).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4) informing members of a request from the taxi trade for an increase in the taxi tariff (fare) for 2012/13, introduced by Paul Anstey.

Paul Anstey drew the Committee’s attention to the tables on pages 10 and 11, outlining how West Berkshire’s fares currently related to neighbouring and nearby districts. The actual request submitted – both the reasoning and the modelling of fares at different tariffs - were provided in appendix B and C of the paper

He then directed the Committee to section 4 of the report highlighting the percentage increase in each tariff favoured by the trade submission, of between 12.00% and 3.32% (tariff 1), between 8.57% and 4.61% (tariff 2) and between 6.67% and 2.68% (tariff 3), compared to the CPI / RPI.

He noted that it was a reasonable request for the trade to ask for a change, and it was for Members to consider whether the proposal itself was reasonable, or what other steps the Committee might wish to take.

Councillor Jeff Beck noted there were representations from the trade: one sector asking for an increase; the other asking for fares to remain unchanged.

(In accordance with paragraph 7.12.14 of the Council’s Constitution, the Chairman proposed suspension of standing orders to allow members of the trade to participate in the discussion and respond to questions committee members might have. This was seconded by Councillor David Holtby and the Committee voted in favour of this proposal).

Three trade representatives wished to speak and a five minute time limit per speaker was set.

Mr Andrew Lutter (Chair of the West Berkshire Hackney and Private Hire Association), representing approximately a third of members and plate holders to whom licences were issued, addressed the Committee. 

Mr Lutter began by noting that these were difficult times for everyone – not least the taxi trade. In particular he noted that:

§         Last year’s increase in fares had not covered inflation.

§         There were more taxis operating in the area than he would like to see and the lack of a cap on the number of licenses did not help the profitability of the trade.

§         Insurance premiums had gone up significantly over the past year with 2% of a vehicle’s turnover now being subsumed by the increased insurance premiums.

§         The price of fuel was continuing to rise with the Savacentre petrol station in Calcot now charging £1.52 for a litre of diesel. He noted that further spikes in fuel prices were expected and that the price of fuel was not expected to fall in the future.

§         Over the last two years, the local authority’s operator licence renewal for nine licenses had gone up by 740%. Equally, other costs had risen, such as the cost of a Criminal Records Bureau check had risen by 15%.

§         The general index of inflation was currently running at over 4% and that the proposed fare increase would enable drivers to make a living and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Purpose: to update Members on the soon to be introduced, Police Reform & Social Responsibility Act 2011 and national consultation on the Late Night Levy and Early Morning Restriction Order provisions contained in the Act.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 5) updating Members on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and the national consultation on the Late Night Levy and Early Morning Restriction Order provisions contained in the Act, introduced by Paul Anstey.

Paul Anstey stated officers were compiling a West Berkshire Council response to the consultation. Some elements of the proposals fell within the licensing arena. This paper, therefore, distilled those areas of direct relevance for the members’ attention.

He noted that in essence, the consultation concentrated on the way in which the licensing authority and the Police could seek to control potential problems associated with licensed premises. The proposed changes were largely in relation to: 

§         The Licensing Authority would become a Responsible Authority in relation to premises and club premises applications. This would enable the authority to make representations regarding applications and to apply for a review of a Premises Licence or Club Certificate, should it become necessary.

§         The impact on health (i.e. around alcohol) could be taken into consideration when reviewing / considering a licence.

§         Both the Police and Environmental Health Officers were able to object to a Temporary Event Notice if they considered the activities notified were likely to undermine a licensing objective.

§         The proposed introduction of a Late Night Levy would allow authorities to charge Late Night Licences to pay for the cost of extra policing during those hours. Paul Anstey noted that he did not get the sense that there was potentially a lot of money that could come from this, but some funding may be generated to help alleviate some of the problems associated with some licensed premises.

Paul Anstey said his intention was to circulate the consultation document to members and ask for their responses. Officers would collate all responses to compile and submit a West Berkshire Council response.

Councillor Edwards enquired whether the public had the opportunity to respond. Paul Anstey noted that all consultations are published online and are open to anyone to respond.

Councillor Beck noted that the Council had asked Thames Valley Police for their view on the proposals, but had as yet not received a response. Paul Anstey confirmed they had had no official Thames Valley Police view delivered to as yet. 

Councillor Beck noted the Police would be able to claim 70% of the levy, whilst the authority could claim the balance. He noted this may generate a reasonable amount of money to fund, for example, early morning street cleaning.

Paul Anstey noted there were likely to be limitations as to how any funds could be used.  Also, there were not a large number of premises in West Berkshire against which a levy could be applied, so he was keen to taper expectations about what could be achieved with a relatively small pot of money.

Amanda Ward said there were currently 75 licensed premises in West Berkshire which traded between midnight and 6.00am. However, the consultation asked what types of premises could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

Purpose: to inform Members of the provisions of the Live Music Bill(for information only)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 6), bringing to the attention of committee members the provisions of the Live Music Bill, introduced by Paul Anstey.

In essence, the Bill was about the deregulation of live music – reducing the circumstances for which a live music licence application was required. The Bill provided different levels of regulation depending upon whether the music was amplified, or the hours within which it was being played.

Paul Anstey highlighted the implication that the Bill transfers the onus of responsibility from the licensing to environmental health. In doing so, this moved the authority from being able to proactively manage activity, to reactively managing problems as / when they occur. He noted that his view was that the changes made a lot of common sense, but that members should note this change in emphasis.

Councillor Mollie Lock asked when this would likely come into force. Amanda Ward replied that although it had received Royal Assent, no specific date for implementation had been set by the Home Office.

The report was duly noted by the Committee.