Decisions

1. Discuss and agree key points to make in response to the A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Preferred Route consultation.
2. Agree to delegate the wording of the final joint response and any individual response to the consultation to the Strategy & Economy Manager, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Community Safety.

Matter for Decision

The purpose of the report was to inform Cambridge City Council’s response to the current A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Detailed Alignment consultation, by setting out response points to inform discussion and agreement of key issues to inform a full response being agreed by the Executive Councillor in an out of cycle decision in consultation with Chair and Spokes and submitted ahead of the consultation deadline.

 

Decision of Executive Councilor for Transport and Community Safety.

 

      i.         Noted the key response points to the A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Preferred Route consultation.

    ii.         Agreed the wording of a final joint response and/or any individual response published through an out of cycle decision, in consultation with Chair and Spokes.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Principal Planning Policy Officer.

 

The report set out key response points for discussion, to be refined following the meeting. Discussion with South Cambridgeshire District Council suggests that there is potential to include Cambridge’s comments within a joint response, potentially also with other partners.

 

In response to Member’s comments and questions the Principal Planning Policy Officer said the following:

        i.         The preferred choice for the Oxford to Cambridge arc would go either via Cambourne or Bassingbourn entering Cambridge via the south.

      ii.         The draft response would expand on the different projects undertaken by the Greater Cambridge Partnership schemes and the impact on the city acknowledged.

Following a general discussion the Committee noted the critical importance of the A428 being considered as part of a coherently planned local and regional transport network, that of necessity should interact and integrate with capacity being provided elsewhere.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed the Officer recommendations

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

The purpose of the report was to inform Cambridge City Council’s response to the Cambridgeshire Peterborough Combined Authority Draft Local Transport Plan consultation.

 

Decision of Executive Councilor for Transport and Community Safety.

 

      i.         Noted the initial response to the Local Transport Plan consultation as set out in appendix 1 of the Officer’s report.

    ii.         Agreed the wording of a final joint response and/or any individual response through an out of cycle decision, in consultation with Chair and Spokes

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee received a report from the Principal Planning Policy Officer.

 

The report referred to the Devolution Deal of 2017 which gave the Combined Authority (CPCA) the role of the Local Transport Authority from Cambridgeshire County Council. One of the key responsibilities of the Local Transport Authority was the development of a new Local Transport Plan (LTP), to set out plans and strategies for maintaining and improving all aspects of the local transport system.

 

The Principal Planning Policy Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         Noted the comment regarding the need for a mid or even short term strategy to reduce traffic within the city and improve transport links which should not be ignored when considering the long term local transport plan.

    ii.         Acknowledged a new dual-carriageway standard route, from Cambridge to Chatteris, March and Wisbech would encourage investment in north Cambridgeshire, and share the benefits of the success of the Greater Cambridge area. However this was not a priority project but there were plans for the fenland area to improve rail links, including Wisbech station.

   iii.         The issue of maintenance had been picked up in the plan under policy theme 19.

  iv.         Policy theme 18 of the plan proposed to identify a key local road network, identified parts of the network which should be prioritised for management and maintenance. This policy would also address measures to reduce number of vehicles, picking up on issues addressed in other policy themes.

    v.         Reference to social context and issues had been referenced throughout the document such as affordable travel for all.

  vi.         Discussion of the Dutch-type segregated walking and cycling infrastructure was to give an idea of what could be achieved but did not mean that this was the preferred choice.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed the Officer recommendations

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

To approve the draft Supplementary Planning Document for public consultation.

Matter for Decision

 

The report referred to the public consultation for the Making Space for People interim consultation for work to inform a future Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).  The interim consultation document will be consulted for a period of six weeks, ensuring the needs and aspirations of communities and stakeholders were understood and taken into account in drafting the Making Space for People SPD.

 

Decision of Executive Councilor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces and the Executive Councilor for Transport and Community Safety

 

      i.         Agreed the draft Making Space for People: Vision, Principles & Strategies document (Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report) for consultation purposes.

    ii.         Approved the draft Baseline Report (Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report) for consultation purpose as amended.

   iii.         Noted the consultation period would take place for six weeks between Monday 2 September and Monday 14 October 2019.

  iv.         Approved the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development was granted delegated authority, in liaison with the Executive Councilor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces, the Executive Councilor for Transport and Community Safety and the Chair and Spokes for the Planning Policy and Transport Scrutiny Committee, to make any editing changes prior to commencement of the consultation period.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Principal Urban Designer referring to the Making Space for People project which would lead to the production of a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This would provide planning guidance for the streets and public spaces that formed the public realm in Central Cambridge. 

 

The Principal Urban Designer informed the Committee of an amendment to recommendation 2.1.2 of the Officers report which would read as follows (additional text underlined).

 

 

 

The draft Baseline Report attached to this committee report at Appendix 2 for consultation purposes is noted and published as part of the evidence base for the Making Space for People: Vision, Principles & Strategies document

 

The Committee unanimously agreed the amendment.

 

The Chair welcomed the Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre to the meeting who made the following comments following the Committee discussion:

 

      i.         A separate review of car parks in the city centre and the Council’s office strategy were currently being undertaken.

    ii.         Did not believe the Council had ever supported the notion ‘the more tourists the better’.

   iii.         The Council did not have the power to determine where coaches parked in the city but had worked with the County Council to create a coach strategy.

  iv.         The coach strategy outlined plans for coaches to park at the Park and Rides sites (but more coach parking would be required). Spaces at Cambridge Backs would have to be pre-booked, however did not agree that coach parking along the Backs was the most suitable.

    v.         Visit Cambridge had been in discussion with other heritage cities regarding the introduction of a tourist tax. Ultimately this would be down to Central Government. A tourist tax would be based on overnight stays in the city.

  vi.         The Council and Visit Cambridge had been working hard to reduce the number of day trippers and encourage overnight stays and would continue to do so.

 vii.         Disputed the claim that the city centre was ‘grubby’.

viii.         A recent Cambridge Improvement District (BID) survey had approximately 80% of responses agreeing that the City was clean or very clean.

  ix.         Would enquire with Officers about the possibility of transferring a proportion of County Council’s food and drink licenses to the City Council concerning those restaurants in the city offering outside seating.

 

 

 

The Principal Urban Designer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         The impact that an increased bus service in Emmanuel and Drummer Street would have on the city centre would be further investigated while working with the Greater Cambridge Partnership and as the SPD was further developed.

    ii.         Was not in the Council’s gift to grant a clean air policy in the city centre but the consultation document made reference to this and how it could be achieved, such as electric vehicles, traffic enforcement and working with outside agencies.

   iii.         Further work would be carried out detailing reliable enforcement mechanisms to underpin motor vehicle access controls.

  iv.         The document references that inclusive design will be paramount to create a City Centre which was accessible, inclusive and safe.

    v.         It was imperative to ensure that disabled users enjoyed the same access to the city centre as all users: the document made reference to inclusivity for all. 

  vi.         Recognised there would be a challenge to balance the allocation of spaces for pedestrians, cyclists and public with transport links in and around the city.

 vii.         Would look at how the dispersal of tourists could be encouraged around the city centre.

viii.         Traffic audits would investigate the flow of traffic into the city centre and parking and how to inspire the use of park and rides services. 

  ix.         The SPD would pick up the issue of city centre street furniture, including ideas around management of table and chairs, when considering the reallocation of space; whilst examining the quality of the space for the hierarchy of users.

    x.         The document looked the rebalancing of streets and spaces looking at the streets of the city as spaces and not just movement corridors.

  xi.         Would look at the wording of the document to ensure it was clear that Cambridge was a working city as well as a tourist attraction and home to local residents living in the centre. 

 xii.         The document acknowledged the importance of local businesses in the city centre and the contribution they made to the local economy; it was imperative the day to day operational needs to support those businesses were not disrupted.

 

 

xiii.         The SPD would explore delivery strategies in the city such as last mile deliveries and delivery hubs.

xiv.         The document would focus on the vision and principles while the SPD would concentrate on the more detailed strategies and how they could materialise. 

xv.         Noted the comment regarding overreaching; concepts were being explored early in the process while the SPD would focus on strategies that would fit within the context of the Greater Cambridge Partnership and the work they were undertaking. 

xvi.         With reference to the term ‘alternative to car parking’, this could mean creating cycle to work schemes, promoting public transport, moving barriers to sustainable movement in the city.

xvii.         Would work on the term ‘demand management’ to how to achieve a 24% reduction in vehicles in the city referenced in the document.

xviii.         There was a separate project looking at the market place which the document would make reference to.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed the Officer recommendations with amendments.

 

The Executive Councillors approved the recommendations as amended.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillors (and any Dispensations Granted)

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillors

 

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL

Record of Executive Decision

 

 

Decision of:	Councillor Robertson, Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
Reference:	19/URGENCY/SR/6
Date of decision:	17 July 2019	Recorded on:  17 July 2019
Decision Type:	Key Decision
Matter for Decision:	Consider the acquisition of long leasehold interest in Units 1-10, Nuffield Close, Nuffield Road Industrial Estate, Cambridge, CB4 1SS
Why the decision had to be made (and any alternative options):	The vendor, required the transaction to complete within 20 working days from receipt of contract documentation and has only offered exclusivity for this period.
The Executive Councillor’s decision(s):	Approve the purchase of Units 1-10 Nuffield Close, Cambridge, for £5.0m plus acquisition costs.
Reasons for the decision:	As detailed in the Officers report.
Scrutiny consideration:	The Chair and Spokesperson of Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised.
Report:	A briefing note was submitted to the Executive Councillor (Chair and spokes) and will be reported t the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee on 7 October 2019.
Conflicts of interest:	None
Comments:	The decision will be reported back to the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee on 7 October 2019.

 

 

Decision of:	Councillor Massey. Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety
Reference:	19/URGENCY/P&T/7
Date of decision:	19/07/19	Published on:  26/07/19
Decision Type:	Non Key
Matter for Decision:	To ensure that the Council responds within the consultation period, the Executive Member is now seeking to finalise the attached joint response with respect to those paragraphs which relate to Cambridge City Council outside of the committee cycle.
Why the decision had to be made (and any alternative options):	The A428 does not pass through Cambridge; however the scheme has potential transport impacts on the city. Highways England has identified the Council as a relevant local authority, and has asked it to comment on the scheme as part of the public consultation process.
The Executive Councillor’s decision(s):	To support the principle of the A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet improvements subject to the relevant points raised in the joint response.
Reasons for the decision:	As set out in the briefing paper from the Senior Planning Policy Officer
Scrutiny consideration:     Report:	The summary points were discussed at the Planning & Transport Scrutiny Committee 16 July 2019. The Chair and Spokespersons of Transport and Community Safety Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised.   A report detailing the joint response is attached.
Conflicts of interest:	None known

 

 

The Chair offered to hand over to the Vice Chair for this item but he declined.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission for a second floor side extension to three storey dwelling.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Referred to comments from the Urban Design Team.

     ii.          Took issue with details in the drawings of the application.

   iii.          Expressed concern that:

a.    The roof extension design.

b.    It would set a harmful precedent if approved.

c.    The design was out of scale with neighbouring properties and out of character with the area.

d.    The application would have a negative impact on car parking and road safety in the area.

 

Mr Handley (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

In response to the report the Committee commented it would be helpful to see how the application would affect other houses in the terrace (rather than viewing pictures of just 10 Lapwing Avenue) and asked if similar elevations could be included in future committee reports. The Senior Planner displayed pictures of the street scene via Google Maps to show the context of the application.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Assistant Director and Senior Planner said the following:

       i.          The Clay Farm Design Code was a material consideration but there was flexibility to make changes provided that these were considered to be acceptable and were highlighted as changes to the Code. 

     ii.          The Design Code did not go into details regarding extensions to individual properties. It provided high level principles for the wider development in terms of layouts of roads/streets and use of materials etc. The Local Plan set out detailed policies on extensions and other changes to existing buildings.

   iii.          The Urban Design Officer (relative to an earlier application for the site) has advised that previous concerns about the  scale and location of the proposed extension had been addressed through the new application now before Committee. The urban design officer had been involved in the design code as well as the two planning applications so there was consistency of urban design inputs.

   iv.          3m of terrace amenity space would be lost through the application. If a neighbour wished to extend their terrace property too, then any such application would be determined on its merits.

    v.          The application site was not in a Conservation Area, Permitted Development rights existed, resulting in less control on any development than if the site had been in a Conservation Area.

   vi.          Permitted Development rights had not been removed from the garages so spaces could be transferred for other uses. The existence of any restrictive covenants across the Skanska (Seven Acres) development was noted in the Officer’s report, but these are not material planning considerations.

 vii.          An obscure glazed privacy screen is proposed within the application and prevents overlooking of neighbouring properties.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved by 8 votes to 1 (SCDC Councillors did not vote)) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission for a four storey office development (B1 use) with associated car and cycle parking, plant room, substation and landscaping.

 

The Senior Planner updated his report. The wording of Paragraph 9.37 within the committee report has been amended to:

 

-        The energy strategy remains consistent with the original application 16/2058/FUL with additional PV placement on the roof to ensure the building design adopts sustainable principles to provide at least 10% of the developments total predicted energy requirements on site from renewable energy sources.

-        The triggers of conditions 9, 10, 12, and 13 were amended from ‘or phase of’ to ‘or each phase of development where phased’ to be consistent with condition 11.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report.

       i.          The application was on a sensitive site. It could exacerbate existing traffic issues in the area.

     ii.          Officers should consult the Highways Authority, Public Transport Team and Combined Authority when seeking comments on highway matters.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Assistant Director and Senior Planner said the following:

       i.          Specialist advice had been sought from the County Transport Team. They had suggested no changes to the application, after reviewing the accompanying Transport Strategy, due to the extant permission. The Highways Authority had liaised with the Public Transport Team with regard to cycling provision.  On-going discussions were held with the Combined Authority to check which applications they wished to be consulted on. This application was not of sufficient scale to warrant formal consultation.

     ii.          There was an agreed timescale to bring forward the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan. The City Planning Policy Team were liaising with the County Transport Team in case interim guidance for smaller scale developments was required to ensure consistent development in the area before the Area Action Plan was adopted.

   iii.          Officers had taken specialist advice (agenda pack P21) at face value that the development would not have a significant impact on transport in the area.

   iv.          (Ref para 2.7 P14). The number of car parking spaces had reduced from the amount in the extant permission. A condition had been included requiring a Traffic Management Plan.

    v.          Traffic modelling was based on the original extant permission numbers, so the application should now have less of an impact in the area as the number of car parking spaces had reduced from 116 to 96.

   vi.          There were a number of targets in the Travel Plan to encourage a modal shift from cars to other forms of transport. If the modal shift did not occur, some form of mitigation would be required.

 vii.          It was not possible stipulate that a gas assisted system for two tier cycle racking system must be in place, but an informative recommending one could be included.

viii.          Officers would draw the applicant’s attention to Members’ request for fire proof cladding and a sprinkler system through an informative. Details would be covered through building regulations.

   ix.          Materials would remain the same as extant permission approved in 2017. Conditions would control the look and quality of materials, they would be assessed in detail. The issue of the cladding could be dealt with as part of this conditions submission.  Officers would ensure appropriate landscaping was provided as per condition 5.

    x.          Conditions would control the future provision of electric vehicle charging points. The Sustainability Officer was satisfied that sufficient points had been provided. The situation would be monitored through the discharge of the condition.

 

Councillor de Lacey proposed an amendment to the officer’s recommendation to include informative requesting a gas assisted system for two tier cycle racking system.

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

Councillor Bradnam proposed amendments to the officer’s recommendation to include informatives requesting high quality fire resistant materials and a sprinkler system

 

These amendments were carried unanimously.

 

Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the officer’s recommendation to include a bird and bat boxes condition.

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers plus the amendments below.

 

Amended wording of condition No.4 (materials):

 

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, with the exception of below ground works, full details including samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces (including the grey fibre cement cladding) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the external surfaces is appropriate. (Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policies 55 and 57)

 

Amended triggers of conditions 9,10,12,13:

 

The triggers of conditions 9, 10, 12, and 13 were amended from ‘or phase of’ to ‘or each phase of development where phased’ to ensure consistency with condition 11.

 

Additional condition- (No.33) - Bird and bat boxes

 

No development shall commence until a plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Authority detailing the proposed specification, number and locations of bird and bat boxes on the site.  The installation shall be carried out and subsequently maintained in accordance with the approved plan.

 

Reasons: to provide ecological enhancements for protected species on the site. In accordance with Cambridge Local Plan policy 70.

 

Amended wording of paragraph 8.45

 

The energy strategy remains consistent with the original application 16/2058/FUL with additional PV placement on the roof to ensure the building design adopts sustainable principles to provide at least 10% of the developments total predicted energy requirements on site from renewable energy sources.

 

Additional informative: Sprinkler system

 

The Local Planning Authority strongly advises the applicant to install an adequate fire sprinkler system within the development site in order to protect the future employees, the property and the environment. 

 

Additional informative: Gas assisted system for two tier racking system

 

The Local Planning Authority recommends that the two tier cycle rack system approved as part of the development be gas assisted to improve the usability of the system for all cyclists. 

 

Additional informative: High quality materials

 

The Local Planning Authority advises the applicant to ensure that the proposed materials for the external surfaces are of a high quality and the cladding material will not impose increased risks in terms of fire safety/combustion issues.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 April 2019 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendments:

 

Councillor	Item	Interest
South Cambs Councillor Bygott	19/18/JDCC	Personal: South Cambs County Councillor representing Girton
South Cambs Councillor de Lacey	19/18/JDCC	Personal: South Cambs County Councillor representing Girton
County South Cambs Councillor Richards	19/18/JDCC	Personal: County Councillor representing Castle Ward
County South Cambs Councillor Harford	19/18/JDCC	Personal: County Councillor representing Bar Hill
County South Cambs Councillor Bradnam	19/19/JDCC	Personal: County Councillor representing Milton

 

The Committee received a report from the Team Manager (Commercial & Licensing).

 

The Officer’s report advised that under the powers conferred to Cambridge City Council under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, (as amended), Cambridge City Council has responsibility for licensing Hackney Carriage, Private Hire and Dual Licence Drivers as well as vehicle proprietors and Private Hire Operators within the City.

 

The Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing policy (the ‘policy’) was produced in order to provide the Council, its officers, the trade and the public with appropriate guidelines that put the Council’s licensing requirements into practice in a clear and transparent manner. In exercising its discretion in carrying out its regulatory functions, the Council shall have regard to the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing policy document.

 

At Full Licensing Committee on 28 January 2019, Members agreed for a public consultation to be undertaken on the existing Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy. The Consultation took place from 4 February 2019 until 10 March 2019.

 

Members were requested to review responses received during the public consultation and determine if:

       i.          There should be a mandatory requirement for Hackney Vehicles or Private Hire, or both Hackney Vehicles, Private Hire to carry card payment method to accept debit/credit card payments.

     ii.          The addition of information on NR3 should be added to policy.

 

Members were also requested to consider the timescale for implementation.

 

In response to the report, the Committee supported the introduction of card payment facilities in licensed vehicles.

 

The Team Leader (Environmental Health and Licensing Support) said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          NR3 was not a statutory database. Local Authorities were encouraged to sign up to it as it was a good scheme. It was thought that the neighbouring councils had either signed up or were in the process of signing up to NR3, this included Wolverhampton and South Cambs.

     ii.          It was a lengthy process to review the NR3 database so officers proposed to only do so when a licence was due for renewal. If councillors wanted more frequent checks (eg every 6 months) then a change to policy was recommended.

   iii.          (Reference agenda pack P49).

a.    It was illegal to display a sign refusing credit card payments that were less than £10.

b.    It was illegal to add credit card service fees to the journey charge.

c.    There were exceptional circumstances where credit card payments could be cancelled by the card holder, but they would need to demonstrate they had not approved/authorised payment.

 

The Committee:

 

Considered responses received from the consultation (Appendix C of the Officer’s report) and unanimously agreed:

       i.          The mandatory requirement of card payment methods to be applicable for both Hackney and Private hire vehicles.

     ii.          The addition of NR3 information.

 

Considered and agreed the following proposed implementation plan:

   iii.          The installation of payment card machine will need to be in place at the next vehicle Certificate of Compliance, as of 12 August 2019.

   iv.          Changes in the Policy in relation to NR3 with immediate effect.

The Committee received a report from the Team Manager (Commercial & Licensing).

 

The Officer’s report advised that under the powers conferred to Cambridge City Council under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, (as amended), Cambridge City Council has responsibility for licensing Hackney Carriage, Private Hire and Dual Licence Drivers as well as vehicle proprietors and Private Hire Operators within the City.

 

The current Hackney Carriage & Private Hire Licensing Handbook, is guidance provided to all drivers, vehicles and operators and was last updated in April 2019.

 

Since January 2019, Licensing officers have noted that some vehicles wishing to be licensed are failing their Certificate of Compliance, due to vehicle rear passenger windows not complying with Cambridge City Council current window tint requirement. As a result, in order for vehicle to be licensed, vehicles are requiring to get their windows replaced.

 

Taxi licensing policies have been implemented to transform the vehicle fleet into a low emission fleet which will lead to a significant reduction in emissions and a significant improvement in air quality in Cambridge.

 

The taxi trade has requested the City Council to reconsider the current tint requirement due to the lack of electric vehicles manufactured in the car market that meet current tint requirements.

 

The taxi trade has also expressed concern during Taxi Trade Forums, over the cost of changing windows, the requirement of purchasing electric vehicles, and the need to install CCTV cameras in their vehicles.

 

Following research, there are several options to Cambridge City Council include:

·       Retain current tint requirement (70% transition/ 30% tint).

·       Have no specification for Taxi window tints.

·       Allow for manufactured window tint up to a specific level of tint, i.e maximum tint of either 70%, 80% or 90%, ensuring complete black out tints are not permitted.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Team Leader (Environmental Health and Licensing Support) said the following:

       i.          Dealers gave conflicting information whether window tint levels recommended by officers would allow licensed drivers a wider choice of vehicles. It was anticipated that 70% tint would do so. Manufactures were changing their specifications over time so the levels of tint in windows may change over time.

     ii.          Officers had no data how many licensed vehicles currently had 70% window tints.

   iii.          Taxis met current specifications. The tint policy would be applied in future if agreed. Officers had kept a list of vehicles that did not meet the current 30% tint maximum and 70% transition requirement, as their windows were much darker. This list includes those vehicles tested at Certificate of Compliance since April 2019, that had failed there Certificate of Compliance in regards to dark tinted windows. Once members had decided on new tint requirement, these vehicle owners would be contacted regarding what was required of their vehicle windows.

   iv.          (Reference agenda pack P29). All listed Toyota cars met current licensing policy and should meet/exceed future tint policy ones.

    v.          The window tint policy would be applied to vehicles when they were being tested for their Certificate of Compliance (not required before). Depending what rear window specification was agreed by Members, vehicles would be required to comply with this at their next Certificate of Compliance test.

   vi.          The policy to require installation of CCTV in licensed vehicles was agreed in 2017, but its implementation had been delayed.

 

Councillor Johnson suggested amending recommendation 2.4 to remove the word “no”, to avoid a double negative.

 

2.4 No film tinted windows will not be approved to be licensed.

 

The amendment was unanimously agreed.

 

In response to Councillor Johnson’s amendment the Team Leader proposed the following amendment which was agreed.

 

2.3 Only vehicles with manufactured tinted windows, meeting up to above standard will be approved to be licensed.

 

 

The Committee:

 

Considered and unanimously approved the following change to current Taxi Window tint specification:

       i.          70% window tint maximum and 30% transition minimum for rear passenger windows (as per Appendix E of the Officer’s report).

     ii.          Only vehicles with manufactured tinted windows, up to above standard will be approved to be licensed.

   iii.          Film tinted windows will not be approved to be licensed.

   iv.          Front windscreen and Front passenger and driver windows to meet national legal requirement.

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 January and 22 May 2019 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.