ROUND THE COUNCILS - FEES LEWES:
TRADE DECLARES WAR ON FEE HIKES
Taxi campaigners have launched an urgent petition against Lewes DC, demanding an immediate freeze on licensing fees and a comprehensive overhaul of the district’s fare structures. The move comes as the council’s Licensing Committee voted to push forward with a fresh wave of fee increases - some exceeding 50% - despite claims that the trade is already “struggling” under the weight of rising overheads and a 66% hike implemented just last year. Lead petitioner and former councillor Sean Macleod warned that the cumulative impact of these costs is threatening the livelihoods of local drivers. “It’s clear the trade is struggling and after a 66 per cent fee increase last year to be hit with another 50 per cent in some cases this year is a clear kick in the teeth,” Mr. Macleod stated. “It’s time councillors stood up for the trade and listened to their demands as they quite frankly have been ignored for too long.” The petition highlights a “stagnant” fare tariff that has failed to keep pace with the “dramatic and ongoing increases in operational costs, including fuel, insurance, vehicle maintenance, and the overall cost of living.” The campaign outlines four “minimum steps” required to restore faith in the council’s regulatory process: l Independent audit: a demand for external scrutiny of “ring-fenced” licensing funds to ensure fees are not being “misapplied or diverted.”
lPrompt fare review: an immediate increase in the tariff to reflect modern inflation.
l Unmet demand survey: a professional assessment to determine if the current number of hackney carriages meets public needs.
l Fee freeze: a total halt on increases until the audit is completed. While the council has signalled that a fare increase is “waiting to be signed off,” officials could not provide a timeframe, despite the process reportedly dragging on for nine months. Lewes DC defended the fee hikes, citing a £140,869 budget deficit and the costs of managing CCTV systems. A spokeswoman stated that “proposed increases reflect the actual cost of administering the scheme,” adding that “fee adjustments are never taken lightly.” However, following a Licensing Committee meeting on January 22, Mr. Macleod accused officers of providing “incorrect information” and dismissed a proposed
22
internal audit as the council “marking their own homework stating: “The trade wants an independent audit as stated and why.” He added: “So disappointing... the four steps the trade is asking for are totally reasonable given the concerns the trade have. It makes the trade feel listened to and that their concerns are being addressed. “And no unmet demand inquiry will be carried out as apparently they don't need to do one. The taxi drivers and I will write to the licensing committee to fight back against incorrect information that was given and also state how disappointed we are in what was agreed. With the Licensing Committee having approved the fees, the proposals now move to a full council vote.
UTTLESFORD: ANGER AT PROPOSED LICENCE FEE HIKE
Local taxi and PH drivers have reacted with fury to Uttlesford DC’s plans to increase licensing fees for the second consecutive year, with one driver branding the move “utterly ridiculous and pure greed.” The council argues that the increases are necessary to prevent a potential shortage of drivers and to ensure the licensing department remains financially viable. However, a recent consultation has revealed deep-seated resentment within the trade, as drivers struggle with rising operational costs. Out of 18 formal responses to the consultation, the majority expressed fear that the new costs would push drivers out of the industry. One driver noted that the added expense, combined with surging insurance premiums, was “looking more like a scam.” The proposed changes would see: l 3-year driver licences rise from £250.20 to £259.00. l 5-year operator licences increase from £539.84 to £556.00.
l Annual vehicle licences jump from £161.27 to £167.50. Despite the backlash, the council maintains that the law requires the licensing service to be self-funding. Addressing the trade’s concerns, the council added that they
remain “committed to working
constructively” with drivers and that all feedback will be reviewed by the upcoming Licensing and Environmental Health Committee. However, some drivers remain cynical about the consultation process, with one respondent noting the fees seem “disproportionately higher than necessary, although once you’ve made your mind up, it’s done.”
FEBRUARY 2026 PHTM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74
