Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J Hoult and N Clarke.

Under the Code of Conduct members are reminded that in declaring disclosable interests you should make clear the nature of that interest and whether it is ‘Pecuniary’ or ‘Non-Pecuniary’.

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2016.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2016.

An amendment was requested to insert Councillor G Hoult into the attendance list as she was at the meeting.

It was moved by Councillor M Specht, seconded by Councillor J Clarke and

RESOLVED THAT:

Subject to the above amendment, the minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2016 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Report of the Environmental Health Team Manager

The Environmental Health Team Manager presented the report to Members.  He provided an update on the current position and informed Members that due to some further work required in two areas, the application would now be submitted at the end of January 2017. 

As the representative Member for the project, Councillor M Specht expressed his disappointment that the application would not be submitted before the Christmas period as intended but he understood the reasons behind the decision and was happy with the proposals.

In response to a question from Councillor S Sheahan, the Environmental Health Team Manager explained that the website would be managed by Ashby Town Council and the Community Focus Team at the District Council.

It was moved by Councillor M Specht, seconded by Councillor V Richichi and

RESOLVED THAT:

The report be noted.

Report of the Environmental Health Team Manager

The Environmental Health Team Manager presented the report to Members highlighting the results of the consultation for each proposal and the recommendations proposed as a result.

The Chairman reminded Members that the safety of the public was their primary concern when considering the policy but they needed to be sensible regarding the impact on taxi drivers.

Councillor S Sheahan was pleased with the outcome of proposal seven to not pursue the introduction of a livery colour for hackney carriages.  After a discussion regarding the vehicle licence fee discount for ultra low emission vehicles at proposal five, Councillor S Sheahan asked that the wording be made clear that it was an annual discount each time the licence was renewed.

In response to questions regarding proposal one from Councillor V Richichi, the Licensing Team Leader explained that there was not a set timescale between the two visual inspections permitted, it was not necessary as the vehicle would only be licensed once the inspection had been successful so they would not be licensed to drive in between.  He also confirmed that regular visual and mechanical inspections were undertaken throughout the year by the enforcement officers. 

In response to a question from Councillor J Geary, the Licensing Team Leader confirmed that drivers were not asked to present the vehicle service history.  Councillor J Geary commented that the Council were committed to ensuring the public were safe when travelling in licensed vehicles and he was concerned with some of the comments received from drivers as he felt there was some reluctance to use garages for inspections.  He was alarmed as modern cars required special diagnostics due to the electronics and if drivers were inspecting for faults themselves without the appropriate equipment the car could become very dangerous for passengers.  He believed that in the future officers needed to look at ensuring drivers regularly serviced their vehicles.

Councillor J Geary also expressed concerns regarding licensing older vehicles as he felt they could not withstand a collision like newer models and he believed if they were too old they were not fit for purpose.

Councillor R Ashman was happy with the recommendations, especially the discounted licence fee for ultra low emission vehicles at proposal five, the introduction of the feedback notice at proposal nine and the decision not to pursue a livery colour at proposal seven.

Regarding the ultra low emission vehicles as referred to in proposal five, Councillor M Specht felt that it was discriminating against older vehicles.  The Legal Advisor did not agree as there was a distinct move towards improving the environment and this was an incentive for drivers to use ultra low emission vehicles.  Councillor M Specht made the point that there were no charging points in the district for electric or hybrid vehicles which was not an incentive.

A number of Members raised concerns with the wording of the recommendation for proposal two, in particular the phrase ‘more than one’ in reference to the number of defects to fail the mechanical  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.