.
DEREG DILEMMA LANCASTER TAXI NUMBERS MAY INCREASE IF THERE’S DEMAND
Restrictions on the number of hackneys which can operate in the Lancaster district are to stay in place. Last month Lancaster City Council’s licens- ing committee con- sidered the results of a consultation which asked if rules limiting the number of hackney taxis should be lifted. The
number
tee opted not to lift the restrictions at
this
time. This follows indications from the government that
the powers to
impose such limits might be scrapped in any event and bringing in new rules locally would therefore be pre- mature.
Instead the of
licences issued to hackneys in the dis- trict is limited to 109. After considering the results and discussing the issue, the commit-
committee approved carrying out a survey which will consider if there is any unmet demand for hackney taxis. Cllr Jonathan Dixon, the committee’s chair-
man said: “The govern- ment is itself consulting on whether to bring new rules which could potentially
scrap
restrictions in any event nationwide, but with
transitional
arrangements which would reduce the impact on the current trade. “Given this, and the views we received against the proposal, the committee decid- ed not to make any changes
at the
moment and continue with the current policy.”
FAREHAM DRIVERS HAND IN PETITION CALLING FOR NUMBERS LIMIT
A 200-strong petition calling for a cap on taxi licences was handed to Fareham Borough Council last month. Fareham Hackney Taxi Association
claims
there are too many taxis in the town. There are 233 hackney carriages licensed in Fareham. In neighbour- ing authorities, Ports- mouth is capped at 234 and Southampton is capped
at
council to stop issuing plates and badges. Any business would not employ more peo- ple if
there wasn’t 283,
although the popula- tion of each of the cities is considerably more than that of Fareham. Fareham removed its cap 27 years ago, when a taxi company threatened the council with legal action unless it made more licences
available.
Fareham Hackney Taxi Association said that now is the time to revisit the regulation. The
association
claims that there is not enough work for driv- ers and that income has been affected. Secretary of Fareham Hackney Taxi Associa- tion Mel Charlton, who runs Meon Cars, told the Portsmouth News: “We are asking the
PAGE 54
enough trade and this should be the same at the council. They are absolutely flooding the market. “This weekend most people went to White- ley. If there’s nothing to come to Fareham for, then there will be no demand for taxis. To keep issuing plates goes against any duty of care that the council should have in making sure we can actually earn a living.” Chairman of Fareham Hackney Taxi Associa- tion Simon Nelson said: “The proportion of taxis in Fareham compared to the population is a lot higher than in Ports- mouth and Southamp- ton. We don’t make a living any more.” Council leader Sean Woodward said: “In Portsmouth, the taxi plates are limited which means they change hands for thousands of pounds. We run an unlimited system which is controlled by the market. If people did
not think they could make a living then they would not apply. “Also, I would ask them, which ones would want to give up their licences if we brought in a cap which was less?” The licensing commit- tee will
WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD LICENCES DEREGULATED
The issuing of taxi
licences has been com- pletely deregulated by the council despite opposition from within the industry. The move, passed by the licensing panel in May, means anyone who applies for a hackney
carriage
licence in the Royal Borough and meets the council’s policy will now be granted one. The Royal Borough used to issue only five licences per month, despite around 400 applicants waiting for a licence. The move was met with dismay by some licence
Mohammed Yasin, a hackney
holders. carriage
licence holder, plead- ed for the council to stop issuing licences because drivers were
struggling to make a living as supply of taxis was outweighing demand. However, numerous councillors said they preferred to let the market decide. Cllr Christine Bateston told the Royal Bor- ough Observer: “It’s a protectionism against choice and people having the market to use taxis if
they
choose to. Derestrict- tion would be better.” Cllr Bateston added that people in rural areas of the borough can wait up to two hours for taxis. A consultation with drivers and operators found 58 per cent wanted the Royal Bor- ough to suspend issuing
while a survey was taken
to whether there was
licences, gauge
demand for more taxis in the area. How- ever,
the Borough
received just 380 responses from 1,417 letters sent out. Of the 217 respondents who voted to suspend issuing licences, 75 currently held a hack- ney carriage licence. Cllr Geoff Hill branded the consultation re- sults ‘appalling’, while Cllr Carwyn Cox added: “Given that the overall response was only just over 25 per cent, it’s hard to really know what the entire trade really thinks.” The panel unanimous- ly voted to derestrict the
issuing
licences. Councillors
of also
agreed to proceed with plans to authorise certain garages to per- form MoTs on its fleet of hackney carriages.
consider
whether or not to review the figure and imple- ment a cap. The council said that a cap would cost £15,000 a year to maintain, which would be added to the cab- bies’ annual licence fee. Mmmm… First and foremost, we believe that the council state- ment that a cap “would cost £15,000 a year to maintain” is incorrect, in that unmet demand sur- veys (even if they do cost £15,000) do not have to be undertaken every year; the usual interval at present is three years. Secondly, following most unmet demand surveys if a cap is recommended it does not mean that existing licence holders have to hand in their taxi licence; it means the council should not issue any additional licences. More re- search needed? – Ed.
TOO MANY TAXIS + NOT ENOUGH RANKS = STOCKTON SYNDROME IN GEDLING
The row over taxi rank spaces in Arnold has taken another twist with residents and drivers alike calling for a limit on licences. There are currently 474 taxi plates regis- tered in Gedling, with just 15 spaces avail- able for parking at four ranks across the bor- ough of Gedling, one of which is part-time. There are also 243 PHVs licensed by this council. The popular rank is outside Asda, on Front Street, where many have been given fixed penalty notices recent- ly. According to thisisnot- tingham, some of the hackney carriage driv- ers resort to parking where they shouldn’t, citing a lack of allocat- ed space on Front Street, for the only spot
that guarantees regular fares in Arnold. An Arnold taxi driver, who didn’t want to be named for fear of losing his licence, said: “Almost five hundred drivers simply can’t park in only 15 spaces.” He said that for many years there were no issues before the num- ber of taxi licences exploded. “Surely they could have seen it coming? If you double the supply it doesn’t make a difference to the demand,” he added. Cllr Marje Paling, chair- woman of
the and
licensing committee, said: “The role of Gedling Borough Coun- cil is to ensure that drivers are fit and prop- er and can provide our residents with a safe service. We understand that this area of busi-
ness is a competitive one, however it is not for us to limit applica- tions. “We are always look- ing at ways to improve the application pro- cess,
for example,
possibly introducing a knowledge test.” Mmmm… One won- ders why drivers who have licensed their hackney carriage in Gedling, but who are working on private hire circuits in places such as Manchester or Derby, would need to have a qualification testing their knowl- edge of the Gedling area…. Just wonder- ing… You know the deal; the same is hap- pening with Ros- sendale
hackneys
working all over the place. And of course it all started in Berwick- on-Tweed - Ed.
PHTM JULY 2013
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 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80
