GMB PERSPECTIVE ALL TAXI RANKS MATTER
If anyone has read my articles over the past twelve months or so then they will
know that I have always ‘boasted’ about the good relationship we in the trade have with our council here in Brighton & Hove... especially when I hear and read about licensing authorities where those councils run roughshod over the local taxi and PH trade.
However... I cannot express how angry I am about something that our council has recently done to us.
We have had an established hackney car- riage rank in a busy high street in the centre of the city for a long time... and this is very near to a supermarket. So it is quite an important rank especially for the elderly who are not like trendy kids using ‘Apps’.
Not only that, but to show how important this area is there is an unofficial Uber rank that all the OOT’s (Out of Towner PHV’s fromLewes, Southampton etc. which also includes hackneys as well, who should know better) rank up two abreast just around the
corner.In fact we would like to have an official rank there ourselves..
So early one morning I get a phone call telling me that the rank, which is in a bay, has been filled and kerbed. I didn’t actu- ally believe this so I was sent a photograph that showed this to be the case.
Now I am not the best person in the morning (probably not the rest of the day either) but I was livid about this! I had previously had an issue or two about a (different) busy rank being suspended without the proper notification under Section 63 of the Local Government Misc Provisions Act 1976.
Section 63 of the LGMP Act 1976 Stands for Hackney Carriages clearly states:
(1) For the purposes of their functions under the Act of 1847, a district council may from time to time appoint stands for hackney carriages for the whole or any part of a day in any highway in the district which is maintainable at the
76
this and the council employee in charge admitted that a mistake had been made and the ticket was cancelled. I then brought this up at a Trade Forum meeting where all the trade reps, HCOs and local councillors meet four times a year. The council employee that Ihad cor- responded with about
the illegal
suspension of that rank was also present. Consequently we were assured at the time that it would not happen again and it was down to different departments not communicating with each other. So with that assurance I was quite happy that human error was to blame, I mean not even I am perfect.
So we now have this important taxi rank illegally removed and I emailed the Taxi Licensing Department.
However before I had a reply I was then alerted to yet another rank in a different busy high street where it has been closed off with barriers! So this needed address- ing as well
The response I got back was... well... you read it:
public expense and, with the consent of the owner, on any land in the district which does not form part of a highway so maintainable and may from time to time vary the number of hackney car- riages permitted to be at each stand.
(2) Before appointing any stand for hack- ney carriages or varying the number of hackney carriages to be at each stand in exercise of the powers of this section, a district council shall give notice to the chief officer of police for the police area in which thestand is situated and shall also give public notice of the proposal by advertise- ment in at least one local newspaper circulating in the district and shall take into consideration any objections or representations in respect of such proposal which may be made to them in writing within twenty-eight days of the first publication of such notice.
In fact the issue I had was that as this rank had effectively been illegally suspended I ignored the suspensionnotice sign and carried on using it, and then got a parking ticket. Of course I caused a big fuss about
“I have now heard back from Traffic Man- agement. I understand that they have been very busy trying to meet today’s deadline for the shops reopening. The bay in St James Street had to be removed as it is close to a pinch point by Morrison’s and with the queuing they had no choice from a health and safety point of view to remove the rank but are looking to see where they can place an alternative, but this is very much design as we go. With regard to London Road, the bay was iden- tified for removal, but as the road was assessed on site it was decided that there was little benefit in removing that partic- ular bay and it remains in use this morning. Hope this clarifies the situation for you.”
Well actually no it did not clarify the situ- ation for me at all thank you very much although I presumed that this was the message direct from Head of Traffic Man- agement so I won’t shoot the messenger.
But quite frankly this explanation was ridiculous! “Health and Safety”, my back- side!
JULY 2020
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 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112
