Meeting documents

1 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

The Clerk read out the procedure.

2 ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR(PERSON) (IF DESIRED)

RESOLVED that a Vice-Chair(person) was not required on this occasion.

3 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

Apologies were received from Cllr John Bull, for whom Cllr Eleanor Jackson substituted.

4 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Cllr Batt declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in relation to agenda items 8, 9 and 10 as a former director of a local taxi company. He indicated that he would participate in the debate but not vote on these items.

5 TO ANNOUNCE ANY URGENT BUSINESS AGREED BY THE CHAIRMAN

There were none

6 ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC - TO RECEIVE DEPUTATIONS, STATEMENTS, PETITIONS OR QUESTIONS

Rob Hollingdale, Chairman of Bath Taxi Drivers Association, made a statement in relation to agenda item 8. This concerned the Hackney Carriage Demand Survey, carried out on the Council's behalf, by an independent consultant company named Halcrow. He said that any new Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licence plates should be phased in, as the report by Halcrow gave discretion to the Council to do this. He believed the survey was flawed, because when it was carried out in October/November of 2008, traffic congestion was exacerbated by the Southgate construction work and taxi drivers had difficulty in calling at Bath Spa station. He said that a licence, which had been granted by the Council, to a horse-drawn hackney carriage had been transferred to a hackney carriage vehicle. He stated that this vehicle could pick up several fares in the time it took the horse-drawn hackney carriage to do one. As a result of this, he considered that, the nine new hackney carriage vehicle licences to be issued, as recommended by Halcrow, should be reduced to eight.

Mike Butts made a statement in relation to agenda item 8. He said that, because of the current economic climate, any new hackney carriage vehicle licences should be phased in, as there would be a big impact on the trade if eight new licences were issued at once. The Survey stated that a proportion of the unmet demand related to Bath Spa station, but, taxis wishing to serve the station had to pay £555 for a station permit. Station permits were currently restricted to 66 vehicles. In addition, the ability to call at the station had been severely affected by the Southgate construction works. He stated that, when the first phase of Southgate had been completed, it was to be expected that there would be an increase in the number of shoppers, but there was no taxi rank in the vicinity to cope with the demand. He urged the Authority to try to persuade First Great Western to increase the number of station permits for taxis. He also drew attention to the absence of signs in the City pointing to taxi ranks.

Mr Hollingdale said that First Great Western was proposing to raise the number of station permits from 66 to 72.

Darth Jarrett, Bath Taxi Drivers Association, said that at the time the survey was taking place it had taken an hour and fifteen minutes to drive from McDonalds to Bath Spa station.

Mr Taylor, Secretary of Bath Taxi Drivers Association, asked what would happen if the recommendations of the Halcrow survey were not implemented. The Senior Licensing Officer advised that it would be difficult to refuse any new applications on the grounds that there was no significant unmet need. A Member noted that it was the Council's current policy that unmet need demand surveys should take place every three years. The Environmental and Licensing Manager said that surveys could take place at any time, but were expensive for the Council to commission. He confirmed that legal advice had been given to the effect that, even if the Cabinet Member decided not to accept the recommendations of the report, the Authority would still have to grant new licences because of the evidence of unmet demand.

7 MINUTES: 2^ND NOVEMBER

These were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

8 REVIEW OF HACKNEY CARRIAGE UNMET DEMAND SURVEY

The Environmental and Licensing Manager introduced the agenda report. He reminded Members that the decision as to whether or not to continue to impose a limit on the number of Hackney Carriages in zone 1 (Bath) was an Executive one, and fell within the portfolio of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services. He drew Members' attention to the recommendations in the report to the Cabinet Member contained in Appendix 1.

A Member felt the survey was flawed because it did not take into account traffic congestion or the poor bus service in the evening. The most significant unmet demand seemed to be at the Bath Spa station, but the Authority did not control the number of taxis permitted to call there. The Member also believed that First Great Western should be encouraged to raise the limit on the number of station permits and charge less for them that and it was questionable whether taxi ranks were located in the right places. Another Member agreed that the survey was unreliable because of traffic congestion and the recession.

The Chairman of the Licensing (Taxis, Street Trading and Miscellaneous) Sub-Committee agreed that the survey had not taken congestion into account, but felt that Halcrow's recommendations should be accepted in the main. He supported the suggestion made by Mr Hollingdale that the number of new hackney carriage vehicle licences should be eight and not nine, to allow for the hackney carriage vehicle licence transferred from a horse-drawn hackney carriage to a hackney carriage vehicle. He considered that Officers should seek to persuade First Great Western to remove the limit on the number of taxis permitted to call at Bath Spa station altogether.

The Environmental and Licensing Manager acknowledged that congestion may have had some effect on the Survey results, but the data showed that the periods when there was the most unmet demand were mornings and evenings. Reduced availability of taxis in the morning arose in part because drivers were occupied with school runs and congestion was not as great in the evenings as during the day. These were facts indicating that there was genuine unmet demand.

Officers advised Members that the procedure for licensing a hackney carriage and the legal status of the licence were the same, whether the vehicle was a horse-drawn hackney carriage or a hackney carriage vehicle.

A Member noted that, while the survey had been completed at the end of 2008 and Halcrow's final report was dated March 2009, it had only come before the Committee today. He was concerned there had not been an early opportunity to challenge the report. Members agreed that the Committee should be given an early sight of future reports.

One Member felt that the limit on taxi numbers in zone 1 should be removed altogether. He noted that many taxi ranks in the City were not used by hackney carriages at present. He believed that, if the limit were removed, the majority of owners of private hire vehicles would apply to become hackney carriage owners and that they would use the unused taxi ranks, resulting in a better service for the public. More members of the public would use these taxi ranks if they believed that there would be good chance of obtaining a taxi at them. He pointed out the inconvenience arising from the division of the Authority's area into two taxi zones and the licence condition forbidding a taxi licensed for zone 1 from picking up passengers in zone 2 and vice versa.

He also questioned why all hackney carriage/private hire drivers and vehicle licences had to be renewed at the same time of year. He suggested that licences should be renewable on the anniversary of their issue. He also noted, in one individual case, that the owner of a hackney carriage vehicle licence had sold his licence for £13,500 a few days after it had been issued. The Senior Licensing Officer responded that staggering the issue of licences throughout the year would cause administrative problems and that it was easier for the Licensing team to process them in bulk. The Chairman asked whether there could be a condition requiring licences to be returned to the Authority if they were no longer required. The Senior Licensing Officer replied that it was legal for a licence holder to sell the licensed vehicle to another party and that the legislation provided that the Council must transfer the licence into that person's name.

. A Member wondered whether some form of bond could be issued with licences to prevent their resale. The Senior Licensing Officer stated that he would investigate whether some form of control on resale was possible. A Member thought there was a contradiction between the high resale value of hackney carriage vehicle licences and the drivers' contention that the issue of new hackney carriage vehicle licences would harm the existing trade.

Mr Jarrett said that Bath taxi drivers were extremely unhappy that all licences had to be renewed at the same time. He pointed out that Bristol, which had many more hackney carriages and private hire vehicles than Bath, renewed them throughout the year. He also said that on many occasions he had observed private hire vehicles waiting at taxi ranks.

Members felt that there was scope for improving the number and location of taxi ranks.

After the discussion, it was proposed by Cllr Ball and seconded by Cllr Hedges and RESOLVED to recommend to the Cabinet Member for Customer Services that

Voting: 9 for, 0 against with Cllr Batt abstaining.

9 REVIEW OF THE COUNCIL'S POLICY ON THE LIVERY OF BOTH THE HACKNEY CARRIAGE AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES LICENSED BY THE AUTHORITY

The Environmental and Licensing Manager introduced the report. He said that the item had been brought to the Committee at the request of the Chairman of the Licensing (Taxis, Street Trading and Miscellaneous) Sub-Committee. Any decision in relation to Authority's policy on the livery of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles would be for the Cabinet Member for Customer Services to take.

The Chairman of the Licensing (Taxis, Street Trading and Miscellaneous) Sub-Committee said that Members had not discussed this issue for some time. He noted that many Authorities were moving towards imposing standard liveries on hackney carriages in their area, the main rationale for which seemed to be to distinguish hackney carriages from private hire vehicles. He suggested that the taxi trade should be consulted about the desirability of removing roof-top signs from private hire vehicles and distinguishing the two classes of vehicle by different colour schemes. A Member questioned whether private hire vehicles should be permitted to display the telephone number of their company on their exterior. Representatives of the taxi trade present said they had no objection to this; their concern was that members of the public were getting into private hire vehicles thinking that they were hackney carriages. The Senior Licensing Officer advised that very few complaints were received about private hire vehicles having illuminated roof-top signs. However, in Bristol a number of sexual assaults had taken place in unmarked vehicles taken as taxis.

The Chairman of the Licensing (Taxis, Street Trading and Miscellaneous) Sub-Committee said that he had observed private hire vehicles picking up passengers in the street. He believed that it would be more difficult for them to do this if they did not have roof signs. Another Member said that it was not always clear which vehicles could be flagged down and which could not. Representatives of the trade said they reported incidents of private hire vehicles picking up passengers in the street or at taxi ranks, but that unfortunately the Licensing Service did not appear to have the staff resources for enforcement.

A Member asked whether the Taxis Forum still met. The Environmental and Licensing Manager confirmed that it met twice a year, and that the last meeting had taken place in April 2009. He agreed that in future Members of the Licensing Committee would be invited to attend meetings of the Forum.

It was proposed by Cllr Ball and seconded by Cllr Hedges and RESOLVED to recommend to the Cabinet Member for Customer Services that he review the Authority's current policy on livery for hackney carriages and private hire vehicles and consider whether it would be expedient to require separate uniform colours for hackney carriages and private hire vehicles and to require the removal of roof-top signs from private hire vehicles.

Voting: 9 for, 0 against with Cllr Batt abstaining.

10 REVIEW OF THE COUNCIL'S POLICY ON THE DRESS CODE OF BOTH THE HACKNEY CARRIAGE AND PRIVATE HIRE DRIVERS LICENSED BY THE AUTHORITY

The Environmental and Licensing Manager introduced the report, which had been brought before the Committee at the request of the Chairman of the Licensing (Taxis, Street Trading and Miscellaneous) Sub-Committee. He said that the Licensing Service had received no complaints about drivers' dress.

The Chairman of the Licensing (Taxis, Street Trading and Miscellaneous) Sub-Committee said that there was no problem with the vast majority of drivers, but on one or two occasions he had got into taxis where the driver had a serious personal hygiene problem.

The Senior Licensing Officer said that the Licensing Team would like to receive information where there were serious issues with a driver. However, one problem was that what was acceptable dress to one person was not so to another. One company did have a dress code for drivers. A Member said that it was important that taxi drivers remained aware that they were ambassadors for the City of Bath. Another Member said that she had reported a taxi driver about a month ago as he had been scruffily dressed and had, in her opinion, driven dangerously. She wondered what the policy was on drivers smoking in taxis. The Senior Licensing Officer replied that that smoking was prohibited in licensed vehicles whether they were in service or not.

The Committee RESOLVED that it would make no recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Customer Service about this issue on this occasion.

Voting: 9 for, 0 against with Cllr Batt abstaining.

The meeting finished at 3.51pm.

Chairman.......................................................

Date confirmed and signed.................................