Agenda item

To consider progress of the Hackney Carriage (Taxi) and Private Hire Policy review and the proposed timetable for completion.

14.1          The report of the Head of Community Services, circulated at Pages No. 13-15, provided an update on the progress of the review of the Council’s Hackney Carriage (Taxi) and Private Hire Policy.  Members were asked to consider the report and the proposed timetable for completion.

14.2           The Senior Licensing Officer explained that it had initially been intended to bring the proposed revised Hackney Carriage (Taxi) and Private Hire Policy to this meeting for debate and discussion; however, work was still ongoing and it was now proposed that it be brought to the next meeting of the Committee on 18 June 2020.  The main reason for the delay was because, towards the end of 2019, Gloucestershire County Council had set-up a countywide taxi group to consider the various policies of the licensing authorities within the county.  The group was comprised primarily of the Chairs of the Licensing Committees for each Council, although Officers had been invited to one meeting to provide technical support.  The group had carried out a public consultation among taxi and private hire users in Gloucestershire to establish people’s priorities and concerns.  That consultation had finished and the group was due to meet on 20 February to consider the results and finalise recommendations to the Licensing Committees; Officers were invited to attend that meeting. The Senior Licensing Officer confirmed that the Chair of Tewkesbury Borough Council’s Licensing Committee had attended the countywide group and the Committee would be able to feed any recommendations into its own policy review.  He clarified that, in the event that the countywide group did not conclude its work at the next meeting, he would still bring the proposed revised policy to the next meeting of the Committee; any recommendations arising from the countywide review could be incorporated into Tewkesbury Borough Council’s policy at a later date without having to undergo a full review, provided it was publicised.

14.3           A Member questioned whether any significant changes had been discussed to date and the Chair advised that no definite decisions had been made as yet, it had been more of an information-gathering exercise which had allowed each of the authorities to explain their priorities, for instance, the biggest concern for Tewkesbury Borough Council – and Cotswold District Council – was taxi coverage whereas Cheltenham Borough Council was concerned about environmental issues and Gloucester City Council was more focused on safeguarding.  In response to a query as to whether environmental concerns were linked to the age of vehicles, the Chair explained that Cheltenham Borough Council was looking to reduce carbon emissions wherever possible so the age of vehicles was one element of that and its policy required taxi and private hire vehicles to be no more than five years old; however, Tewkesbury Borough Council’s proposed revised policy currently had a vehicle age limit of 10 years. 

14.4           A Member indicated that his understanding of the countywide group was that a joint policy or protocol would allow sharing of information, for instance, where licenses had been refused, and he questioned whether that was still the intention.  The Chair confirmed that was the case and explained that Tewkesbury Borough Council would still have its own policy – the County Council could make recommendations but it was ultimately for each licensing authority to determine what was included in its own policy.  Another Member went on to query whether this would overcome the problem whereby applicants were refused a licence by one authority and applied to another instead.  The Senior Licensing Officer reiterated that the policies would not be identical as each area was different so there would be bespoke elements.  Currently, if someone was refused a licence by Cheltenham Borough Council due to a criminal conviction, it was unlikely they would be granted a licence by another licensing authority; however, if they had been refused a licence by Cheltenham Borough Council on the basis that they failed the knowledge test they may apply to another authority, such as Tewkesbury Borough Council, which did not require a knowledge test - this was something which the proposed revised policy intended to address by introducing the same tests meaning there would be no advantage to someone who lived, and planned to work, in Cheltenham applying to Tewkesbury Borough Council for a licence.  A Member questioned whether the same applied environmentally and was informed that it would depend on the content of the policy.  From Cheltenham Borough Council’s point of view, a lot of private hire drivers licensed by Tewkesbury Borough Council legitimately worked within Cheltenham, particularly during Cheltenham Gold Cup week etc. but it was possible to design policies so there was no advantage.  Notwithstanding this, when it came to the age of vehicles, if Tewkesbury Borough Council imposed a 10 year age limit whereas Cheltenham Borough Council imposed a five year age limit then it would still be cheaper for a driver to apply for a licence with Tewkesbury Borough Council as an older car would be less expensive.

14.5           Having considered the information provided, it was

RESOLVED          That the progress of the Hackney Carriage (Taxi) and Private Hire Policy review and the proposed timetable for completion be NOTED.