Agenda and minutes

To receive declarations of interest from Members on items contained within the agenda

There were no declarations of interest stated.

Resolved:     That the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 October, 2023 be

agreed as a correct record.

To consider the minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committees which have met since the previous Licensing and Public Protection Committee.

Resolved:     That the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 October, 2023 be

received.

To receive declarations of interest from Members on items contained within the agenda

There were no declarations of interest stated.

Consideration was given to a report asking members to consider the proposed taxi and private hire fees following a consultation with all licence holders, trade representatives, vehicle hire companies and trade associations.  No responses were received.

The Council’s Licensing Administration Team Leader referred members to paragraph 2.5 which outlined the proposed fees and charges which remained unchanged from the previous meeting.

Resolved:     That the proposed taxi and private hire fees for 2024/25 be approved.     

Watch the debate here

Consideration was given to a report requesting that members consider the proposed amendment to the provisions within the taxi licensing policy in relation to tinted windows.

The Council’s Licensing Administration Team Leader advised that the Council’s current taxi licensing policy was introduced in 2019, since when there had been a requirement that all rear windows had an allowance for a minimum of 35% light transmission through them. 

Members’ attention was drawn to paragraph 2.3 of the report which stated that during a consultation it was found that there was no evidence to suggest that public safety was compromised by vehicles having tinted windows or privacy glass.

At recent trade meetings, an issue had been identified when trying to purchase new vehicles that met the Council’s trade requirements, it was difficult to find ones that did not have factory fitted tinted windows.  As a result, the condition within the Council’s policy had been reviewed and it was recommended that the current condition be removed and to be replaced with a condition that allowed vehicles to have tinted windows and privacy glass provided it was to the manufacturers original specification and fitted at the time of manufacture.

The following recommendation had been put forward by officers:

c) Remove the current condition and allow all vehicles to have tinted and

privacy glass in the rear passenger windows. If this option is favoured then

there is a further decision to determine whether vehicles

(i) can only have factory fitted tinted/privacy windows and not aftermarket tinting

Councillor Brown asked if there had ever been any safeguarding issues in relation to tinted windows and for what reasons would a driver make their windows more tinted than those that were factory fitted.

The Licensing Administration Team Leader stated that as far as he was aware, within Newcastle and the wider area there had been no issues with safety implications.  In terms of the reasons for wanting tinted windows, it could be that they like that style or wanted to do something against public safety.

Councillor Sweeney agreed with the officer recommendation at 5 (c ) i as most newer cars now came with tinted windows as standard.

Councillor John Williams asked what percentage determined a tinted window and blackout window.

The term tinted or blackout was used for windows that were darker than that which was legally permissible for the front windows.  In law there was a specific level of light that had to be able to be transmitted through the front windscreen, driver and passenger windows but there was no legal requirement for any windows in the rear half of the vehicle.

The Chair asked for clarification as she believed it to be anything up to 30% for factory fitted windows.  Taxi drivers could no longer have a vehicle older than 7 years and therefore, all new vehicles would have tinted windows.  Therefore it would be unjust and at odds with the Council’s policy.

It was confirmed that there were some newer vehicles that did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Consideration was given to a report advising members of the findings of the Annual Status Report (ASR) in terms of air quality within the Borough in respect of transport related Nitrogen Dioxide levels and also particulate matter exposure during 2022.

The Council’s Environmental Health Team Manager reminded members that there were four Air Quality Management Areas(AQMA): Town Centre; Porthill-Wolstanton-May Bank; Kidsgrove and Little Madeley.

At the last meeting, it had been resolved to revoke the Little Madeley AQMA so there were three active ones at present.  Across the areas, the Council was compliant with the UK objectives for Nitrogen Dioxide.

DEFRA had advised that the Council should now look to revoke the Porthill-Wolstanton-May Bank AQMA.  This would be reported on at the next stage of the ASR.

Particulate matter had also been looked at and the actions that the Council were taking to reduce emissions were included in the ASR.

Councillor Brown asked, in relation to Walleys Quarry how overall air quality was affected.

The Environmental Health Team Manager stated that in previous years, emissions from the landfill had been looked at which included particulate matter, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide.  Previous reports had considered that the quarry was not a cause of concerning emissions from those pollutants, however that did not mean that other pollutants were not of concern.  Officers were going out regularly to assess emission levels of hydrogen sulphide.  

Councillor Brown asked how Newcastle was doing in comparison to Staffordshire as a whole, in terms of air quality.

There was an area of concern on Etruria Road which was subject to a ministerial direction.  In relation to Nitrogen Dioxide in general, it tended to be the more urbanised Council’s in Staffordshire that experienced issues.  With fine particulate matter, councils did coordinate actions and there was commonality of approach.  Newcastle took account of air quality at the planning stage.  For example, with the Council’s aspirations for the town centre – that was a significant issue that had been addressed and similar development applications for housing development or industrial applications across the Borough.

Councillor Sweeney referred to paragraph 2.3 of the report regarding DEFRA’s advice to revoke the May Bank, Wolstanton and Porthill AQMA and asked if this would be kept running for another year.

It was confirmed that discussions were taking place with DEFRA regarding the Council’s wish to maintain that AQMA for good reasons.  Committee would be updated once a firm answer had been received.

Councillor John Williams asked id assessments had been carried out on Grange Lane and Porthill bank in respect of traffic dispersal as a result of the bus gate on Basford bank.

It was believed that an assessment had been done.  The Service Director for Regulatory Services was the project lead for this and a report was due to go to Full Council in the near future.

Councillor John Williams asked if the Service Director could give a report to this Committee on the alternative routes.  The Chair agreed with this point stating  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider the minutes of the Public Protection Sub-Committees which have met since the previous Licensing and Public Protection Committee.

Resolved:     That the Minutes of the meetings held on 11 October and 15

November, 2023 be received.

To resolve that the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the attached report, because it is likely that there will be disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1, 2 and 7 in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

There were no confidential items.

To consider any business which is urgent within the meaning of Section 100B (4) of the Local Government Act 1972

There was no urgent business.