GBC Licensing Committee livery policy
Dear Councillor,
Your attendance is requested at a meeting of the LICENSING COMMITTEE to be held in the Council Chamber - Millmead House on WEDNESDAY, 18 MARCH 2015 at 7.00 pm.
Yours faithfully,
Satish Mistry
Executive Head of Governance
Contents
- 1 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
- 1.1 A G E N D A
- 1.1.1 2 LOCAL CODE OF CONDUCT – DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS
- 1.1.2 4 HACKNEY CARRIAGE AND PRIVATE HIRE POLICY (Pages 3 - 194)
- 1.1.3 5 LICENSING OF SEX ESTABLISHMENTS - STATEMENT OF LICENSING POLICY: CONSULTATION RESULTS (Pages 195 - 308)
- 1.1.4 PLEASE CONTACT US TO REQUEST THIS DOCUMENT IN AN ALTERNATIVE FORMAT
- 1.1.5 L20 - APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
- 1.1.6 L22 - MINUTES
- 1.1.7 L23 – UNMET DEMAND SURVEY – TAXI VEHICLES
- 1.1.8 L24 – LICENSING COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME
- 1.1 A G E N D A
- 2 1. Purpose of Report
- 3 2. Strategic Framework
- 4 3. Background
- 5 4. Driver training
- 6 4. Vehicle appearance
- 7 Issues for consideration
- 8 5. Taxi Numbers
- 9 6. Wheelchair Accessible vehicles
- 10 7. Financial Implications
- 11 8. Legal Implications
- 12 10. Conclusion
- 13 11. Background Papers
- 14 12. Appendices
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Vice-Chairman: Councillor Nikki Nelson-Smith (The Deputy Mayor)
Councillor David Elms, The Mayor 2014-15 Councillor Anne Meredith
Councillor Gordon Jackson Councillor Marsha Moseley
Councillor Jennifer Jordan Councillor Terence Patrick
Councillor Tony Phillips Councillor David Goodwin
Councillor Philip Hooper Councillor Keith Taylor
Councillor Gillian Harwood Councillor David Wright
Councillor Christian Gilliam
A G E N D A
1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2 LOCAL CODE OF CONDUCT – DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS
In accordance with the revised local Code of Conduct, a councillor is required to disclose at the meeting any Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI) that they may have in respect of any matter for consideration on this agenda. Any councillor with a DPI must not participate in any discussion or vote regarding that matter and they must also withdraw from the meeting immediately before consideration of the matter.
If that DPI has not been registered, you must notify the Monitoring Officer of the details of the DPI within 28 days of the date of the meeting.
3 MINUTES (Pages 1 - 2)
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Licensing Committee held on 14 January 2015.
4 HACKNEY CARRIAGE AND PRIVATE HIRE POLICY (Pages 3 - 194)
To consider consultation results and make recommendations to Council on the adoption of the policy.
5 LICENSING OF SEX ESTABLISHMENTS - STATEMENT OF LICENSING POLICY: CONSULTATION RESULTS (Pages 195 - 308)
To consider consultation results and make recommendations to Council on the adoption of the policy.
- STATEMENT OF LICENSING POLICY - LICENSING ACT 2003: DRAFT POLICY (Pages 309 - 342)
To consider approving the draft policy for public consultation.
- LICENSING COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME (Pages 343 - 348)
To consider the Committee’s work programme for the period 2015-16.
PLEASE CONTACT US TO REQUEST THIS DOCUMENT IN AN ALTERNATIVE FORMAT
This page is intentionally left blank
The Mayor, Councillor David Elms *Councillor Anne Meredith
| Councillor Christian Gilliam | *Councillor Marsha Moseley
|
| *Councillor David Goodwin | Councillor Terence Patrick
|
| *Councillor Gillian Harwood | *Councillor Tony Phillips |
| Councillor Philip Hooper | *Councillor Keith Taylor |
| Councillor Gordon Jackson | *Councillor David Wright |
| *Councillor Jennifer Jordan | *Present |
Councillor Paul Spooner, Lead Councillor for Licensing and Governance, was also in attendance.
L20 - APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were submitted on behalf of Councillors Philip Hooper, Gordon Jackson, and Terence Patrick.
L21 - LOCAL CODE OF CONDUCT – DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
There were no disclosures.
L22 - MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Licensing Committee held on 19 November 2014 were confirmed and signed.
L23 – UNMET DEMAND SURVEY – TAXI VEHICLES
The Committee received a report seeking approval for Licensing Services to conduct an unmet demand survey. The Environmental Health Manager indicated that the survey results would help determine whether there is evidence to support the introduction of a limit on the number of licensed taxi vehicles. The Committee was advised that the issue of limiting the number of taxi vehicles had been raised a number of times in responses to the ongoing consultation on the draft taxi and private hire licensing policy and also at a recent Taxi Advisory Group meeting.
The Committee was advised that there were no financial implications for the Council as a result of conducting the survey because survey costs would be recovered within the license fees.
Members discussed the merits and drawbacks of undertaking an unmet demand survey and of introducing a limit on the number of taxi vehicles. During discussion, a number of points were raised and clarifications provided:
- With reference to previous unmet demand surveys and the Council’s removal of the cap on the number of licensed taxis in 2004 – and the ensuing increase in taxi numbers – members questioned the value of information from such surveys.
- With reference to the introduction of a number limit on taxi vehicles, members discussed the possible consequences of a trade in taxi vehicle licences due to the fact that the existing licences would acquire a value.
- Members discussed the value in undertaking an unmet demand survey to help establish a robust evidence base to inform subsequent decisions on the issue of a limit on the
Page 1
Agenda item number: 3
number of taxis. The Committee was advised that the survey would provide evidence concerning any unmet need in respect of wheelchair accessible taxi vehicles.
- The Committee was advised that the Environmental Health Manager had attended Guildford’s Access Group and that the Group would be submitting a response to the consultation on the Council’s draft taxi and private hire licensing policy.
- In response to requests from members, the Environmental Health Manager indicated that the questionnaire and methodology of the survey could be shared with Committee members.
- In response to questions, the Environmental Health Manager agreed to provide Committee members with information on authorities that had recently either removed or introduced restrictions on the number of taxi vehicle licences.
- Members questioned the impact on the taxi trade of the taxi service app Uber.
- The Lead Councillor for Licensing and Governance indicated that the results from the unmet demand survey would be reported to the Committee meeting at its meeting on 18 March 2015.
RESOLVED: That the proposal for Licensing Services to conduct an unmet demand survey be approved.
L24 – LICENSING COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME
The Committee received and noted its work programme.
(The meeting concluded at 7.25 p.m.)
Page 2
Licensing Committee Report
Report of Head of Health and Community Care Services
Author: John Martin
Tel: 01483 444380
Email: john.martin@guildford.gov.uk
Lead Councillor responsible: Paul Spooner
Tel: 01252 341666
Email: paul.spooner@guildford.gov.uk Date: 18 March 2015
| Executive Summary
The cost benefit of these measures is assessed and a revised policy is recommended.
|
iv. request the Executive to approve additional expenditure of £87,560 and reduced income of £16,500 in 2015-16, to be financed from the expected General Fund underspend in 2014-15, or by supplementary estimate if this is not possible
Reason(s) for Recommendation:
To enable the taxi and private hire licensing service to be delivered.
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 The purpose of this report is to set out the responses received to the public consultation and to recommend a revised Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Policy for adoption.
2. Strategic Framework
2.1 This policy document sets out the standards we require of drivers and vehicles and the way we will undertake our statutory responsibilities for hackney carriage and private hire vehicle licensing.
2.2 The conclusions of the Casey report on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council following Professors Jay’s inquiry into child sexual exploitation in the borough emphasise how important licensing policy is in providing safeguards to protect public safety.
2.3 It emphasised the need for safety to be the uppermost concern of any licensing and enforcement regime when determining policy, setting standards and deciding how they are enforced.
2.4 The inspectors uncovered serious weaknesses and concerns and judged that Rotherham had not taken sufficient steps to ensure that only fit and proper persons were permitted to hold a taxi licence and, therefore, could not provide assurances that the public including vulnerable people were safe.
2.5 The aim of the changes to this Policy is to protect public safety by improving standards and helping to professionalise the trade.
2.6 Adoption of the policy will contribute to the delivery of the Council’s strategic objectives of Infrastructure, Economy and Society.
3. Background
3.1 The Licensing Committee of 16 July 2014 approved a draft Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Policy for public consultation.
3.2 The draft policy took into account workshop feedback from taxi trade and the key issues raised by them.
3.3 A wide range of consultation took place between October 2014 and 6 February 2015 and included:
Public consultation through an on-line questionnaire on the Councils website (Appendix 1)
Independently facilitated consultation groups attended by the trade
Citizens panel consultation
Hard copy questionnaires
Unmet demand survey
3.4 We received responses from 488 individuals including 336 residents.
3.5 Feedback from the consultation is summarised in a report from Social and Market Strategic Research (SMSR) set out at Appendix 2.
3.6 The consultation focused on the following key areas, which were set out in the report of 16 July:
Drivers training
Vehicles appearance and standards:
Taxi numbers
Wheelchair accessibility requirements
3.7 An unmet demand survey took place in February/March 2015 and the results of this are set out in Appendix 3.
4. Driver training
4.1 Drivers currently take two written/multiple choice examination papers that test knowledge of the byelaws and highway code together with local knowledge of routes to addresses within the Borough. This is administered internally, the invigilation and paper marking consumes considerable officer time and does not help to drive up standards in terms of spoken English and customer care.
4.2 We are seeking to professionalise our drivers whilst using a more effective training tool and therefore propose to replace the current system. In future drivers will need to attend a three day training session which is run by an external company. This will provide training in customer care, highway
and vehicle law, highway code, byelaws, and taxi legislation. Successful candidates will achieve a recognised qualification at level 2.
4.3 They will also need to take a local knowledge test and we have been working with an external company to develop appropriate question papers which will be taken to assess local knowledge. As the drivers will complete these using a desktop computer, the result will be available immediately and the cost will be significantly reduced.
4.4 There is a cost for the threeday course, although this is funded by central government where the person has not already achieved a level 2 NVQ or equivalent. For those that have already achieved above this level of education, we propose that the Council fund existing drivers to take the test, but any new driver applicants will be asked to pay for their test.
4.5 We propose that new applicants will need to pass these tests once the policy is adopted. Existing drivers will be given a period of 18 months in which to pass the tests, after which their licence will be revoked if they haven’t reached the pass standard.
4. Vehicle appearance
5.1 We are proposing the introduction of a uniform livery for all taxis (hackney carriage vehicles) to differentiate them clearly from private hire vehicles.
5.2 A number of other Local Authorities such as Brighton, Bournemouth, and Leeds have chosen to adopt a local livery in the interests of public safety and to provide a strong local identity.
5.3 The benefits of this are that it:
Improves Identification: Vehicles are clearly identifiable as a taxi
Safety/security: Customers can be confident that the taxi is properly licensed and meets the necessary safety standards. This is particularly important to women and to vulnerable clients.
Increases trade: It can improve customer confidence and customers are happier to hail a liveried taxi rather than take a chance on an un-liveried one.
Creates Local identity/brand: A local livery creates a strong local identity, which in the case of cities like London and New York becomes one that is recognized across the world.
Helps professionalise the service: A local livery coupled with clear driver training and vehicle standards helps to create a more professional service.
Enables easier enforcement: Hackney carriage drivers raise regular concern about the loss of trade to alleged touting by private hire vehicles and to hackney carriage vehicles licensed by other Boroughs. A clear and identifiable livery makes enforcement much easier.
5.4 The disadvantages are primarily:
The cost: The livery is best achieved by ‘wrapping’ the car with the new colour and any logos. A typical cost for this is around £750, although this will last the effective life of the vehicle. The wrap can be removed which then enables the car to be sold or used in its original colour scheme and protects the paintwork of the vehiclein the interim.
Private use of vehicles: Some drivers use their vehicle for private use and do not like having their vehicle identified as a taxi when they do so.
Issues for consideration
5.5 There are four issues for consideration, namely, whether a Guildford livery should be adopted, if so what it should be, over what period should it be introduced, what is the cost and who should pay for existing vehicles.
5.6 The primary reason for adopting a livery is to protect public safety.
5.7 The public are strongly in favour of adopting a Guildford livery (84%), whereas drivers are generally opposed. The Guildford Hackney Association (GHA) has written to notify us that they will seek a judicial review if the Council decides to adopt a local livery.
5.8 A large majority of the public are in favour and this support, together with the other benefits set out above, provide strong reasons for adopting a Guildford livery. The Policy is written on the basis that a livery will be required and it is recommended that this be agreed. The only substantive ground to oppose a livery is the financial cost to drivers and this is discussed later in section 6.
5.9 If a livery is adopted, the next issue is what that should be. Respondents were asked to provide their preferences for a livery. The highest preferences were 59% for Guildford branding on the vehicle and 26.2% for a standard full car colour. The consultation feedback shows support for a full car colour and Guildford branding.
5.10 When asked about preferences, the most preferred for a full car colour were yellow (21.7%), black or other dark colour (16.7%) or teal to match the Councils logo (15%).
5.11 We have looked at the colours of the vehicles currently licensed and there are 9 different colours, black and silver being the most popular (51 each). Unfortunately, there are also 56 black and 153 silver private hire vehicles.
5.12 To make a livery distinctive and unique, it is suggested that the scheme should be unusual and not a mainstream colour. We have therefore looked at options to achieve this.
5.13 Some Boroughs have opted to have a livery where the bonnet and/or boot of the vehicle is a local colour. Whilst this is cheaper to achieve it is not necessarily visually very pleasing.
5.14 Preliminary designs for two full body options, both using the Guildford corporate colourPantone 321, have been prepared. These are set out as examples in Appendix 4. The first uses a white vehicle with the inset printing in Pantone 321. The second reverses the colours but uses the same design.
5.15 The technical advice is that there would be no difference in the cost, as there is no standard white paint colour and so vehicles would need to be fully wrapped in order to ensure a uniform livery.
5.16 In terms of public safety, the white vehicle design would be easier to mimic whereas a pantone 321 would be more distinctive and unique both at night and daytime.
5.17 Taking into account the various factors it is suggested that the two livery designs shown at Appendix 4 be subject to a public on-line vote to select the livery we will adopt. Given the customer feedback we will also include a full yellow livery although this will not match with the Corporate logo. The livery colour finally agreed will then be included within the Policy.
5.17 There is then the question of the timescale for the introduction of a livery. Vehicles licensed after the commencement of the new policy will need to have the selected livery from the outset.
5.18 There are 165 hackney carriages currently licensed and they will need to change to the new livery. The cost of this is likely to be in the region of £750 per vehicle, giving a total cost of approximately £120,000.
5.19 There is a need to allow a reasonable period for existing vehicles to change to the livery.
5.20 Vehicle licences have to be renewed annually and on a practical basis it is suggested that 18 months is a reasonable time for full compliance for existing vehicles. This gives drivers time to plan the cost of complying, but achieves a livery compliant fleet within a sensible timescale.
5.21 For new applications, we would expect the vehicle to comply with the requirements from the date the new policy comes into force.
5.22 This leaves the issue of the cost of this change. The Council could assist existing drivers to achieve the change by contributing towards this cost. This would be unusual in that we do not normally provide financial assistance to subsidise business costs, however, given the circumstances it is an option that we should consider.
5.23 A revenue growth bid of £18,000 over the next four years was included as part of the 2015-16 business planning process to provide support to implement the scheme. Of this £3,000 was included in the 2015-16 estimates, and the remainder profiled over the following three years.. However, this was based on preliminary costings and would now fund approximately 15% of the overall cost. The envisaged timescale for compliance is also much shorter.
5.24 The following table indicates the cost at various levels of contribution.
| Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 | |
| Total cost | £123,750 | £123,750
|
£123,750
|
| Trade contribution towards total cost 0% | (£0)
|
-
|
-
|
| Trade contribution towards total cost 25% | -
|
(£5,935)
|
-
|
| Trade contribution towards total cost 50% | -
|
-
|
(£61,876)
|
| Cost to the Council | £123,750 | £117,815
|
£61,876
|
5.25 Officers recommend that the trade be asked to contribute 25% of the total cost, with the Council financing the rest (option 2). Given the short timescale for implementation (18 months) we expect that the majority of vehicles will be wrapped during 2015-16, with a cost to the Council of £90,560. The 2015-16 estimates included a growth bid of £3,000; there is therefore a shortfall of £87,560 in the 2015-16 estimates.
5.26 It is possible that we may be able to finance this shortfall from an expected overall underspend on the General Fund for 2014-15. This will be considered as part of the preparation of the 2014-15 accounts. If
financing from this source is not possible a supplementary estimate will be required.
5. Taxi Numbers
6.1 In 2007, the Council removed a cap on the number of licensed hackney carriages and required any new vehicles to be wheelchair accessible. It also indicated, in light of central government policy, that it was likely that all vehicles may be required to be wheelchair accessible at some point in the future.
6.2 The recent Law Commission review of Taxi Licensing concluded that decisions on taxi numbers be left to the discretion of Local Authorities.
6.3 Taxi drivers are concerned about the number of licensed taxis in the Borough and the competition this creates, particularly set against the perception of touting by private hire drivers and vehicles from other Boroughs.
6.4 Over the 8 years since the deregulation of taxi numbers, there has been an increase of 66 vehicles although most of this took place in the first three years and has slowed considerably.
6.5 To provide evidence of unmet demand or over supply, Vector Transport Consultancy undertook an unmet demand survey on our behalf in February/ March 2015. The findings are set out in Appendix 5.
6.6 The study concluded that there was some evidence of unmet demand, through the presence of passenger queues from time to time. However, this was periodic, rather than continuous, and was not sufficient to indicate the presence of significant unmet demand. Therefore, Vector concluded that there is no significant unmet demand.
6.7 The question therefore is whether there are adequate reasons for the Council to re-introduce a cap on the number of licensed vehicles. Guildford is comparable to other similar Boroughs in terms of the number of vehicles per 1000 head of population.
6.8 In light of the changes to be implemented as a result of the revised Policy, there is a need to provide an 18 month period of transition without major disruption. For that reason, it is suggested that an interim embargo limiting taxi numbers to 170 be adopted, and that the additional 5 new vehicle licences be restricted to new rather than existing operators.
6.8 It is proposed that an unmet demand survey be carried out in 18 month’s time so that the situation can be reviewed. The cost of the survey is recoverable within the taxi fees.
6. Wheelchair Accessible vehicles
7.1 The recent Law Commission review of Taxi Licensing concluded that decisions on wheelchair accessibility be left to the discretion of Local Authorities.
7.2 The current situation is that the first 99 taxi vehicle plates are used for saloon vehicles. All vehicles subsequently licensed, of which there are currently 66, must be wheelchair accessible.
7.3 This creates a source of friction. Those who have to provide a wheelchair accessible vehicle feel that this is not a level playing field. They have to provide a vehicle which costs more to purchase and run, yet the number of customers requiring this is extremely small. There is wide agreement that customers overwhelmingly prefer to take a saloon rather than wheelchair accessible vehicle.
7.4 Conversely, drivers with vehicle plates 1-99 are happy with the status quo because saloon vehicles are more in demand and there is potential value in transferring their vehicle plates to another driver.
7.5 The unmet demand survey indicated that feedback received from elderly, disabled or mobility-impaired representatives suggested that services from Hackney Carriage vehicles generally met their requirements. Most users who rely on licensed vehicles have an existing relationship with a provider and they regularly use this provider.
7.6 Only one wheel chair hire was observed during the four days of rank observation. The wheel chair user had to let several Hackney Carriages leave the rank as the vehicles at the head of the vehicle queue were unable to cope with the wheel chair. The nature of the rank configuration is such that it is not feasible for a wheel chair to access vehicles further back in the queue. The wheel chair user managed to board a Hackney Carriage after 10 minutes.
7.7 In terms of wheelchair accessibility, there are three main options:
Status Quo
Fully accessible wheelchair accessible fleet
Remove requirement for wheelchair accessible vehicles but encourage provision through financial incentives.
7.8 The current situation with an arbitrary part of the fleet wheelchair accessible and part not, is unsustainable. This situation needs correcting. Therefore maintaining the status quo is not a real option.
7.9 Evidence from the unmet demand survey indicates that many people with disabilities prefer to travel in a saloon vehicle and the demand for wheelchair accessible journeys is low and mainly met by pre booked private hire companies.
7.10 Whilst requiring all taxis to be wheelchair accessible would provide uniformity across the fleet, it does seem disproportionate given the cost of purchase and running such vehicles.
7.11 It is proposed, that the requirement for all new taxis to be wheelchair accessible should be removed, but that financial incentives including through the fee system be used to encourage the provision of wheelchair accessible vehicles. This will need careful monitoring to ensure that operators continue to provide wheelchair accessible vehicles, and if numbers fall significantly then this requirement can be revisited.
7.12 If this proposal is agreed officers will bring forward proposals setting out how this could best be achieved.
7. Financial Implications
Drivers’ knowledge tests
7.1 We do not know how many existing drivers will receive central government funding to take their level 2 qualification although this is likely to be around two thirds (110). The cost to the Council of funding the remaining third will be approximately £16,500. There is an underspend of £4,000 for taxi maintenance in the 2014-15 budget and it is recommended that this be carried forward and added to the provision of £12,000 in 2015-16, which will then fund the cost of training.
Vehicles appearance
7.2 If the Council funded 75% of livery for 165 vehicles it will cost £117,815, of which £3,000 was included as a growth bid in the 2015-16 estimates. Officers recommend that consideration is given to funding the shortfall (£114,815) from an expected overall underspend on the General Fund for 2014-15. This will be considered as part of the preparation of the 2014-15 accounts. If financing from this source is not possible, a supplementary estimate will be required.
Wheelchair accessibility
7.3 Funding to encourage wheelchair accessible vehicles will be through reduced charges and will result in reduced income rather than new expenditure. The cost is likely to be £16,500 in 2015-16.
Summary
7.4 The drivers’ knowledge test can be financed from existing resources within the Taxi Licensing service. However the costs of the vehicle appearance and wheelchair accessibility can’t. Officers therefore proposed that when closing the 2014-15 accounts, consideration is given to setting up a reserve of £134,315 (assuming that we contribute 75% of the wrapping costs). If this is not found to be possible a supplementary estimate will be required.
8. Legal Implications
8.1 The basis for key changes within the policy is to protect public safety and to encourage a more professional service within the Borough.
8.2 The current Taxi byelaws remain unchanged.
8.3 There is no statutory requirement to have a Hackney carriage and private hire licensing policy, however it is good practice to do so. A policy assists with consistent decision making, however it is only a guide and each case must be considered on its own merits.
8.4 The Local Government Act 2000 gives a local authority a general power to ‘do anything they consider is likely to achieve’ the promotion of the economic, social or environmental well being of their area.
8.5 In relation to hackney carriage and private hire licensing there are specific powers contained in the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, Transport Act 1985 and Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
8.6 Section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (as amended by Section 16 of the Transport Act 1985) permits the Council to licence such number of hackney coaches or carriages of any kind or description adapted to the carriage of persons as they think fit.
8.7 The Council is not required to limit hackney carriage numbers if it is satisfied that demand in the Borough is met, but the effect of Section 37 of the 1847 Act (as amended) is to forbid the Council from restricting the numbers for any reason other than that there is no significant unmet demand for hackney carriage services. A limit on numbers can be removed at any time provided relevant factors are considered.
8.8 Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires that, so far as possible, legislation must be read and given effect to in a way that is compatible with the Convention rights, and section 6 makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.
8.9 The Committee in making decisions must ensure that these factors are taken into account.
8.10 As this is a Council Policy, the Committee is asked to recommend to the Council that it be adopted.
8.11 There are potential equality implications arising from withdrawing the requirement to provide wheelchair accessible vehicles. An Equalities Impact screening assessment of all the changes proposed does not indicate issues that would necessitate a full assessment to be made. A copy of the assessment is available as a background document.
8.12 The proposal has been discussed at the Guildford Access Group who are broadly supportive of the reasons for change. Together with the findings from the unmet demand survey, the commitment to review the situation on a regular basis and financial incentives to encourage provision of wheelchair accessible vehicles should ensure that any negative impact is minimised.
- Human Resource Implications
9.1 There are no human resource implications arising from these proposals.
10. Conclusion
10.1 Adoption of the revised Policy and the measures within it will help to protect public safety and professionalise the taxi trade within the Borough
11. Background Papers
Guildford Borough Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Policy - approved 2007
Report of Professor Jay into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham
Casey report into Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
Law Commission report 2014 – ‘Reforming the regulation of taxis and private hire vehicles’
12. Appendices
Appendix 1 Draft Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy Appendix 2 SMSR - consultation feedback report.
Appendix 3 Vector Transport Consultancy - Unmet demand survey 2015 Appendix 4 Preliminary designs for full car body livery.
| I confirm that I have consulted with relevant Officers, where appropriate, in the following services: | ||
| Financial Services | YES / NO | Christine Davies |
| Legal and Democratic Services | YES / NO | Bridget Peplow |
| Human Resources | YES / NO | Lucy Marchington |
| PR and Marketing | YES / NO | Carolyn Patterson |
