Agenda item
APPLICATION FOR A HACKNEY CARRIAGE VEHICLE LICENCE
- Meeting of Special, Licensing Committee, Wednesday, 18 October 2017 9.30 am (Item 4.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 4.
To consider a report, including a confidential appendix, by the Head of Planning and Public Protection (copy enclosed) seeking members’ determination of a request from a Hackney Carriage Proprietor to licence a vehicle for the purpose of hackney carriage licensing.
Decision:
RESOLVED that the
Licensing Committee –
(a) deviate from the
Council’s existing policy to approve the vehicle as suitable to be licensed as
a hackney carriage vehicle, and
(b) the current
policy specification relating to the minimum requirement for available legroom
to be reviewed as soon as practicable.
Minutes:
A
report by the Head of Planning and Public Protection (previously circulated)
was submitted upon –
(i)
a request having been
received from a hackney carriage proprietor to licence a vehicle for the
purposes of hackney carriage licensing;
(ii)
officers having not
been in a position to grant the application as the vehicle presented for
licensing did not comply with the specification with regard to available leg
room for passengers as detailed in the Council’s Private Hire and Hackney
Carriage Vehicle Policy, Specification and Conditions;
(iii)
details having been
provided regarding seating requirements of other local authorities with
officers concluding that there was no national standard or guidance for leg
room space allowances, and
(iv)
the Applicant having
submitted written representations (confidential Appendix 1 to the report) in
support of his request and had been invited to the meeting.
The
Applicant, Mr. T. Leddon (Leddon’s Taxis) was accompanied by his supporter Mr.
G. Higginson (Town & Country Taxis).
[At
this point the Applicant advised that he had not received the report and
committee procedures and the meeting was adjourned to allow sufficient time for
the Applicant to be furnished with all the relevant documentation and peruse
them. Upon resuming proceedings the
Applicant confirmed he was happy to continue.]
The
Public Protection Business Manager presented the report and explained that the
Applicant had approached the Council with a view to licensing a number of new
vehicles to fleet – Dacia Logan estate cars – which had a measured leg room of
157mm. The vehicles had been rejected
because they did not comply with the Council’s current policy which specified a
minimum 200mm leg room for passengers.
The policy had become effective from 1 July 2017 and had been introduced
to provide clarity to licensees and consistency of the standard of vehicles
being licensed. It was noted that there
were already a number of other vehicles licensed prior to adoption of the
current policy which would also fall foul of the new specification at renewal
time and compliance testing. Members
would therefore need to balance the interests and opinion of the Applicant with
possible implications on Denbighshire’s taxi fleet and the potential for an
increased number of similar requests from applicants in the future when
considering the application.
The
Applicant set out his case and questioned the validity of the specification
relating to leg room which he believed was too restrictive given that it served
no purpose in improving the standard of vehicles used or impact on public
safety implications. He also argued that
the condition resulted in the exclusion of the majority of medium and large
saloon and estate cars being suitable for licensing and submitted that there
were licensed vehicles in Denbighshire and other local authority areas which
did not meet the current specification but provided ample leg room for
passengers and it was unlikely that the vehicles would ever operate with the
seats fully extended. He believed that
if those matters had been brought to members’ attention at the outset the
restriction would not have been introduced.
The Applicant also provided details of his specific business and its
operation, with particular reference to his planned investment in order to
upgrade the fleet and improve vehicle standards, arguing that the new vehicles
were clean and modern with a lower carbon footprint and represented best value
for his business and the customer. Mr. Higginson
also spoke in support of the Applicant and he urged members to consider that
neighbouring authorities licensed vehicles of that type and that the licensed
trade should be given appropriate notice of any changes to vehicle
specifications.
The
Chair invited the Fleet Compliance Engineer to advise members on the
measurements for leg room and he provided a prop for members to use as a visual
aid to highlight the range difference between the minimum 200mm specification
and 150mm. The minimum 200mm specification
had been derived from a number of processes including what had been considered
fair and reasonable measurements and related to when the front seat had been
extended to its rearmost position. In
response to a question from the Chair the Fleet Compliance Engineer advised
that the current minimum seat spacing on fleet ranged from 60mm to 270mm with
the differences being predominantly attributed to the runner used by different
manufactures together with the seating type which gave a varied amount of leg
room. It was acknowledged that the rear
seats in the vast majority of vehicles fell below the minimum 200mm
specification when the front seat was fully extended.
Officers
responded to members’ questions as follows –
·
physical alterations
to seat runners would weaken the structure and have serious safety
implications, however it might be possible to place something in the runner to
prevent the seat extending to its rearmost position
·
the prospect of the
authority being able to influence vehicle manufactures with respect to those
measurements was unrealistic given that vehicles were type approved and subject
to rigorous testing
·
explained the
comprehensive consultation process since starting the review of hackney
carriage and private hire conditions in 2015 which involved two workshops and
consultation with all interested parties including the licensed trade on two
separate occasions with further updates provided in newsletters to licence
holders with final approval by Licensing Committee in December 2016 and
implementation of the policy on 1 July 2017
·
officers were
available to provide advice and guidance and were regularly approached in that
regard – potential vehicles for licensing were also assessed free of charge to
ensure specifications were met before individuals committed to financial outlay
·
the leg room for the
front seat passenger was not in question and in the normal operating position
those vehicles would meet the leg room requirement
·
there was no grace
period for the leg room specification and vehicles currently licensed which did
not meet the new specification upon renewal or compliance testing would no
longer be able to be licensed. It was
accepted that the new ruling would affect a large number of vehicles currently
licensed including models such as Ford Mondeo, BMW 5 Series and Skoda Octavia.
The
Applicant responded to questions and issues raised by members as follows –
·
in terms of passenger
comfort a computerised monitoring system was used when taking bookings with
mobility and other issues being noted and an appropriate vehicle sent to fulfil
the booking
·
he had engaged with
the consultation process on the policy review but given the wealth of
information and major changes considered in terms of vehicle age and colour the
new leg room requirement and its significance had gone unnoticed
·
the Dacia Logan model
had not been checked for seat compliance beforehand because he had been unaware
of the new leg room condition and its implications, particularly given that the
same vehicle type was currently licensed by the Council
·
the Dacia Logan had
been chosen for licensing because it was a medium estate car with good luggage
space which met the needs of customers and also provided value for money, and
the intention was to replace and modernise the existing fleet with those
vehicles – there were currently six two year old vehicles awaiting licensing
with four more new vehicles currently on order
·
the new ruling would
affect the vast majority of vehicles currently licensed and have a devastating
effect on the licensed trade.
The
Applicant was given the opportunity to make a final statement and indicated
that he had nothing further to add.
The
committee agreed to deliberate on the application in private session and it was
RESOLVED that under Section 100A of the Local
Government Act 1972, the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting for the
following item of business on the grounds that it would involve the likely
disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 14 of Part 4 of
Schedule 12A of the Act.
Following
deliberations it was –
RESOLVED that the
Licensing Committee –
(a) deviate from the Council’s existing policy
to approve the vehicle as suitable to be licensed as a hackney carriage
vehicle, and
(b) the current policy specification relating
to the minimum requirement for available legroom to be reviewed as soon as
practicable.
The
reasons for the Licensing Committee’s decision were as follows –
Members
had carefully considered the case as set out by the Applicant and accepted that
he had bought a number of vehicles which were economic, safe, modern, more
environmentally friendly, and improved the existing fleet. The Applicant had admitted that he had failed
to notice the significance of the leg room requirement in the policy because of
the wealth of new information it contained and the concern amongst the trade
had been focused around the age/colour requirements of vehicles. Members considered that in practical terms
the leg room requirement meant that a large proportion of licensed vehicles
would be removed from the road.
Consequently members found that the policy had unintended consequences
on the industry and appeared unduly restrictive and on that basis they would be
calling for a review of the policy in order to assess the impact across the
trade. On this occasion though and
specifically in relation to the Applicant’s vehicles, members agreed to deviate
from the policy to approve them as suitable to be licensed.
The
committee’s decision and reasons therefore were conveyed to the Applicant.
At this
juncture (10.45 a.m.) the meeting adjourned for a refreshment break.
Supporting documents:
- HC VEHICLE LICENCE REPORT, item 4. PDF 153 KB
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 4./2 is restricted
- HC VEHICLE LICENCE REPORT - APP 2, item 4. PDF 334 KB