Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
Contact: Claire Tunnicliffe Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies for absence Minutes: No apologies were received. |
|||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||
Minutes of the previous meeting PDF 70 KB Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 13
October 2014 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair. |
|||||||
Public Questions Minutes: Mr Wratten, Chairman of Cambridge City Licensed Taxi’s was present to speak on all three items on the agenda. The Chair informed Mr Wratten that he would be invited to speak at relevant points of the agenda. |
|||||||
THE NUMBER OF HACKNEY CARRIAGE LICENCES POLICY AND DISABLED ACCESS POLICY PDF 131 KB Briefing by Consultant Ian Millership (CTS) followed by
discussion and decision on the officer’s report. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee received a report from the Environmental
Health Manager. The report reminded
the Committee that the Council may, as part of its adopted policy on the
licensing of Hackney Carriages (HCV), consider whether to apply a limit on the
maximum number of HCV licences which it would issue at any time. However, this
power may be exercised only if the Council was satisfied that there was no
significant demand for the services of HCVs which was unmet (section 16
Transport Act 1985). At a meeting on 24
October 2011 the Licensing Committee resolved that a demand survey should be
carried out to establish whether or not the current HCV fleet met the demand
for HCV services within the district, and additionally to cover accessibility
issues and the provision of ranks within the district. Following a meeting
of the Licensing Committee held on 21 July 2014, officers were asked
to seek a further survey to establish if there was evidence that there was no
significant demand that was unmet and to investigate the costs of carrying out
such a survey. The Committee were
advised that the purpose of the January 2015 report was to present the findings
of the survey and to ask whether the Committee were satisfied that there was no
significant demand for the services of HCVs within Cambridge which was unmet,
and if so, whether to impose a limit on the number of HCV licences that the
Council issues. Officers reminded
the Committee that if they decided to impose a limit, then they must also
decide what that limit would be, and the date for implementation. The findings of the
report also indicated the work needed to be done on the disabled access issues
and to recommend that a new disabled access policy be developed The Committee received
a presentation from Ian Millership, CTS Traffic and
Transport Ltd. The presentation
addressed the issues of trade engagement with the 2012 survey and confirmed
there remained no significant unmet demand. Mr Millership concluded that the evidence suggested that the
public would benefit from limiting the numbers as this would reduce congestion
and improve public safety. The limitation would allow the Committee to focus on
disability development and other issues.
In response to the Committee’s questions Mr Millership said the following:
i.
Suspect
there would not be a significant increase in private hire from taxis licenced
by South Cambridgeshire applications.
Drivers would undoubtedly find it hard to break into such a dominant
market in the City.
ii.
Confirmed
that the number of private hires could not be capped.
iii.
If
there was a limit on the number of hackney carriages the plates would start to
accrue a plate value which should be over the cost of the business.
iv.
Agreed
it was possible for plates to have a plate value even if there no limit.
v.
In
theory with regards to the rental market of the plate if there was a limited
number of hackney cabs then the value should increase but this would take time
as presently there was a not a great rental market. If an individual required a
plate they could obtain one.
vi.
Anyone
could have a vehicle plate as long as it is wheel chair accessible.
vii.
If
the numbers were limited drivers could rent out their vehicles when they were
not working making that vehicle available to public for longer. viii.
Without
limiting numbers competition increases and drivers have been known to race back
to the ranks for the next fare.
ix.
Believed
that if the numbers were limited this would improve the service and could
change the mind-set of the drivers.
x.
Limiting
the numbers could allow the City Council tighter controls and brings stability;
this would also allow the trade to discuss development and improvement to the
service. Mr Wratten addressed the Committee
and made the following points:
i.
Limiting
or not limiting the number of hackney cabs would not have an
overall effect on the service. ii.
There were currently 980 private hire vehicles in
the City. iii.
Approximately 806 vehicles licensed to South
Cambridgeshire worked for cab firms in the City, who supplied 50% of the
business. iv.
Advised that 50% of hackney cabs took radio work as
there was not enough work from the taxi ranks. This meant those drivers could
not stop for members of the public, including disabled users, when being
flagged down. v.
There was not enough work from the taxi ranks. vi.
Taxi ranking was required in Regent Street, the additional ranking in Regent Street would meet
demand for the next twelve months with the current level of hackney cabs. vii.
Acknowledged that drivers did chase back for the
next job. viii.
Stated that the figures for the rental market were
higher than had been reported in the presentation and that were 300 hackney
cabs with 500 licences. ix.
Advised that the drivers were not always honest
about the number of hours worked and were probably working longer than they had
been reported. x.
Stated that both the City Council and the County
Council needed to bring in proper management for hackney vehicles regarding
additional rank space. xi.
While reducing the number of hackney
cabs the number of private hire would continue to grow. xii.
The trade would like a management
system and a cap on numbers. In response to the Committee’s questions the Licensing &
Enforcement Manager said approximately had been a total of 700 dual driver licences issued. The Environmental Health Manager then provided further background to the
report and reminded the Committee of the recommendations. In response to the Committee’s questions, the Licensing &
Enforcement Manager and Environmental Health Manager confirmed the following:
i.
To
date a total of 315 HCV
licences had been issued.
ii.
There
were two pending applications which would be processed by the end of the week.
iii.
The
ISUD calculations in Cambridge did not take into account the activity at the
private railway station rank. The issue of permits to operate at the station
rank was controlled by the railway company on their private land, and outside
the control of the City Council.
iv.
170
permits had been issued for the railway station rank.
v.
The
present legal provision on quantity restrictions for taxis outside London was
set out in section 16 of the Transport Act 1985, and best practice guidance
from Department of Transport as referenced in page 142 of the Officer’s report.
vi.
The
Committee should take into account for consideration as referenced by James T H
Button. Licensing Law and Practice, such as congestion and public safety. vii.
If
the Committee agreed to limit the number of hackney cabs, the number of HCV
licences could be increased under exceptional circumstances considered by the
Licencing Sub Committee. viii.
If
an additional licence was added under exceptional circumstances then the number
would not reduce back to the number that had been set until a plate had been
given up.
ix.
Could
not give the Committee any evidence from the Local Authorities referenced in
the report on the impact of limiting HCV licences. They had been contacted
about administration processes only.
x.
Reminded
the Committee that the Council only had the power to limit the number of
hackney carriage vehicles and not private hire vehicles.
xi.
Advised
that they could not provide figures on ethnicity but these figures would be
collected in future as identified in the recent Equality & Poverty Impact
Assessment. xii.
If
the Committee decided not to put a limit on number of hackney cabs the current
policy would continue so that any new vehicles would have to be wheel chair
accessible. xiii.
If
the number was limited, the number of wheel chair accessible vehicles would remain
the same which would meet the requirements of the Equality Act, as the number
of vehicles to meet these requirements stood at 63%. xiv.
Currently
a new policy on wheel chair accessibility was being developed as a number of
issues had been highlighted including the ramps used to enter the vehicle. xv.
South
Cambridgeshire District Council would be responsible for the proposed train
station in Chesterton. xvi.
No
policy was absolute and therefore the Licensing Sub Committee could determine whether
an application was exceptional or not. The Committee
discussed the following issues concerning the Officer’s report.
i.
Reduction
of congestion
ii.
Improvements
to public safety.
iii.
Improvements
to air quality.
iv.
Improvement
to over ranking.
v.
Development
and stability of the trade. Councillor Smith asked for the following to be minuted:
i.
There
were extensive waiting times at the Railway Station compared to the 2012 survey
not just because of the development works at Station Road. Although the taxi
rank at the Station did not come under the Council’s jurisdiction, Councillors
must acknowledge the problem there. The Committee The Environmental Health Manager informed the Committee of an amendment
to the wording of 2.3 of the recommendation in the Officer’s report (deleted
text struck through and new text underlined), should the Committee agree
to introduce a limit on the number of HCV licences which may be issued. Officers recommend that if a limit is
introduced Members set the limit at the levels currently licensed, including
those applications awaiting processing. The Committee:
i.
Resolved (11 votes to
1 vote)
that they were satisfied that there was no significant demand for hackney
carriages in Cambridge which is unmet. The following reason
that there was no significant demand for hackney carriages in Cambridge which
is unmet was given as follows: ·
The
recent survey carried out showed that there was no significant unmet demand in
Cambridge. (9 Votes in favour).
ii.
Resolved (9 votes to
2 votes with 1 abstention) to
introduce a limit on the number of HCV licences which may be issued. The following reasons to introduce a
limit on the number of HCV licences were given:
·
Public Safety (8 Votes in favour) ·
Congestion and Air Pollution (8
Votes in favour) ·
Over
Ranking (8
Votes in favour) ·
To
allow the development of the trade. (7 Votes in favour). Councillor Owers proposed the Officer
recommendation that the Committee set the limit at the levels currently
licensed, including those applications awaiting processing, totalling 317, with
immediate effect.
iii.
Resolved (8 votes to 2 votes) to limit at the levels currently licensed, including those applications awaiting
processing, totalling 317, with immediate effect. The following reason
to limit the number of hackney carriages in Cambridge to 317 was as follows: ·
It
would be difficult to lower the number of licences as they could not be taken
away from individuals. The number would
only reduce when a licence had expired and not been renew until the set limit
had been met. To set a higher limit would not meet the objectives of the
Committee; therefore the current number of licences would allow the Committee
to meet the objectives that had been agreed. (8 Votes in favour).
iv.
Resolved
(10 Votes to 0) that Officers were
instructed to develop a new disabled access policy and to report back to
Licensing Committee within the next 12 months for adoption of the new policy. Councillors Bick
and Pippas were not present for the vote on recommendation iv. |
|||||||
Medical Examinations of Taxi Drivers PDF 61 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee received a report from the Licensing &
Enforcement Manager. The report referred to the checks which the City Council undertakes to ensure that drivers of
Hackney Carriages and Private Hire Vehicles were fit and proper people to be
licensed, they must, from time to time, pass a medical examination. The Committee were informed that following the consultation, it was
proposed that along with the already nominated approved medical practitioner,
the Council would allow drivers the option of using their own GP (if they are
familiar with the Group II Medical Standards). This would provide more
flexibility and, potentially, a more robust service. Mr Wratten spoke in favour of the proposals
and informed the Committee that the scheme was welcomed by Cambridge City
Licensed Taxis. In response to member’s questions the Licensing & Enforcement
Manager confirmed that the drivers would pay for their own medical examination.
The Committee: Resolved
(unanimously) to approve the following arrangement in determining the
medical fitness of hackney carriage, private hire and dual drivers:
i. To
maintain a Council approved list of medical practitioners, to undertake
certification of drivers fitness in accordance
with the Group II standards for C1 vehicles and also
ii. To
allow the drivers’ GPs, to undertake certification of drivers fitness in
accordance with the Group II standards for C1 vehicles with effect from 1st
April 2015. |
|||||||
Annual Review of Licensing Fees and Charges PDF 75 KB Minutes: The Committee received a report from the Licensing &
Enforcement Manager. The report referred to the City Councils responsibility for
processing and issuing licences for a wide range of activities, setting out the
fees and charges for licences and associated items, which it is proposed should
be made with effect from 1st April 2015. The approved charges would
be submitted to full Council to note on 26th February 2015. Mr Wratten advised the Committee
that Cambridge
City Licensed Taxis were in agreement with the fees In response to member’s questions the Licensing &
Enforcement Manager confirmed the following: i.
The increase
in charges for Skin Piercing – Practitioners, reflected the
fact that Officers spent more time undertaking diligent checks. ii.
The Disclosure and
Barring Service check was a set price. iii.
The fees were linked on
how much time an inspection and administration process took. iv.
Profits of the businesses
were not a consideration when setting fees. The Committee: Resolved (unanimously) to: Approved
the level of fees and charges with effect from the 1st April 2015,
as set out in Appendix A of the Officer’s report, and to request officers to
communicate the charges to the trade and public. |