Meeting documents

The Minutes of the meetings held on 22 October 2009 were agreed by the Committee and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

There were no declarations of interest.

The report before the Committee, detailed proposals in several areas that had been identified during a review of the licensing system, conducted as part of the Council's aim to deliver efficient and effective customer services. Members' considered the recommendations individually in the order they were listed in the report.

Knowledge Test

The Committee stressed the need for tests to be invigilated and Councillor Meacock opined that the use of multiple choice questions in knowledge tests advantaged the participant because the correct answer was displayed on the screen. Councillor Sussum added that multiple choice questions theoretically made it possible for applicants to pass the test through a random selection of the available options, rather than demonstrating sufficient knowledge on the area being tested.

A sample of the current paper knowledge test was circulated to Members and the Committee were given a demonstration of the sample electronic knowledge test. The Licensing Officer reassured Members that the proposed knowledge test required the participant to enter a series of security information including their National Insurance number. This enabled the test software to prevent participants from re-sitting the test within a specified period of time. It was noted that some authorities also restricted the number of test attempts drivers' could make. Drivers would also be required to provide photographic identification that would be checked prior to them sitting the test. It was proposed that Customer Services would operate and invigilate the tests on an appointment only basis. The proposed location of the test computer was near the Duty Planning Officer where distractions would be limited.

In response to a number of questions from the Committee the Licensing Officer detailed the following key features of the electronic knowledge test:

·        The software ensured that participants would be required to answer different questions during retests;

·        All the participant's answers to questions would be logged enabling officers to audit the answers to all tests carried out;

·        Participants were able to review their answers before completing the test;

·        Individual questions could be added or altered by officers;

·        Drivers could be required to answer certain questions correctly in order to pass the test;

·        Questions could be grouped into different sections;

·        Sections of questions could be weighted according to their importance;

·        The software also enabled officers to record participant's answers and monitor where participants were frequently getting questions wrong.

The Committee then considered the proposal to introduce a charge of £25 for the re-sitting of knowledge tests, following the completion of the first test. A list detailing the fees charged by Local Authorities for the first and subsequent tests was circulated to Members at the meeting for comparison purposes.

The Committee were advised that if they were minded to introduce a charge in excess of £25, the Council would be required to advertise this in the local media for a specified period. The same procedure would need to be followed if it was agreed that a fee would also be introduced for the initial test, although the recommendation in the report did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

The Gambling Act 2005 required local authorities to prepare and publish a Statement of Principles for determining applications, and to review that policy every three years.  As such, a review of the Statement of Principles had been undertaken in light of relatively small changes to the legislation and Government guidance.

Members recalled that the draft Statement of Principles was initially considered by the Committee at the last meeting held on 22 October 2009. Since this meeting the Cabinet, Community and Environment Overview Committee, and external bodies had been consulted. During the consultation Members had stressed that there needed to be a flexible approach to considering whether a person was an interested party. Members also felt that the definition of an interested party should include the impact on those who may not be in the immediate locality of the application.

The consultation period had now ended and the Committee were asked to consider the amended Statement of Principles.