Report of the Director of Early Intervention and Support (enclosed)

The Director of Early Intervention and Support submitted a report advising Members of the Licensing and Public Safety Committee to review the quantity control policy that currently limits the number of Hackney Carriage Vehicle licences the Council issues.

The Council currently has a Policy limiting the number of Hackney Carriage Vehicle licences it issues to 36; this includes provision for 9 Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles (WAV). The Council is not obliged to maintain a limited number of Hackney Carriage Vehicle licences. The Council may determine that the maintenance of the limit is not in the public interest in serving the transport needs of the borough and does not provide an adequate level of service for residents and visitors to the area.

Members were advised that where a limit exists and the Council wish to maintain that limit, the Council must be satisfied that there is no significant unmet demand.

CTS Traffic and Transportation Consultants were appointed for the purpose of undertaking a survey to determine whether or not there was any significant unmet demand for the services of Hackney Carriage Vehicles within the Borough of Chorley and to assess the Public interest in the provision of Hackney Carriage Vehicles within the Borough. In the interest of efficiency a cohesive approach was taken between the Council and CTS which extended to assimilating the questionnaires of the unmet demand survey and of the public interest survey; this enabled a more concise approach to the interpretation of the results that have been evaluated impartially by CTS.

It was noted to Members that the majority of existing WAV Hackney Carriage Licenses were first granted in approximately 2007, following the recommendation of a significant unmet demand report considered at that time, which recommended the issue of 7 WAV HC licenses. Since statistics were available, nine WAV have been added to the fleet. In a similar time period 20 per cent extra hackney carriages have been added to by 90 per cent more private hire vehicles. Market forces have not added further WAV to either fleet, and in fact have recently seen the general accessibility of the WAV in the fleet reduce. The estimated 2015 weekly usage of hackney carriages in Chorley was 3,122 passengers, an increase of 12 per cent since the last survey.

The council survey found a third of people said they had used an out of town vehicle in Chorley. It was clear that hackney carriages were clearly visible and known to people, just not used; part of this was potentially due to the perceived cost. The impact and influx of such vehicles was reportedly having a detrimental effect on the trading capabilities of the Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Trade in Chorley; this was placing further burdens on officers in relation to enforcement. However, there is no legislative power available to prevent this activity taking place.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer highlighted the challenges of cross-border risks and the ‘Uber effect’ which had the potential to influence customer decisions to use out of town taxis. The Licensing Enforcement officer informed Members that they had rang care homes around the borough to discover that none of them were using these WAV’s – potentially due to their position on the ranks as opposed to operating across the whole Borough. This therefore presented a gap/risk that needed addressing.

The Legal Services Team Leader asked about the availability of ranks and any effect on disabled access provision. The Lead Licensing Enforcement Officer indicated that the report highlighted how there was only one real active rank, in the High Street in Chorley; this location was properly used by Hackney Carriages and not significantly abused by any other vehicles. Observations found 15 per cent of the hackney vehicle movements were WAVs compared to the 25 per cent available in the fleet. On Market Day two people used wheelchair access Hackney Carriages at the rank.

Most of those surveyed knew of the High Street rank, and the only two places new ranks were requested were Chorley Bus Station and the hospital, although this demand was small. Members were invited to instruct the Council to repeat the process of seeking out and appointing additional ranks where necessary but include outlying villages in order to provide a wider service to the public and provide the taxi Trade with more options to operate elsewhere.

Members of the committee were presented with the recommendations. The Legal Services Team Leader advised members that with regards to the Crown Court and High Court, fearing appeal shouldn’t inform their decision. Decisions should be legally correct and not made solely on moral grounds. In addition, the Lead Licensing Enforcement Officer drew Members attention to the legal requirements of the decision making process as outlined in paragraph 29 on page 29 of the report.

With regards to the options available the potential risks that Option at paragraph 8C would provide and the challenges this could open the Council up to were highlighted. It was advised that increasing the number of Hackney Carriage WAV licences to as many as Members saw fit could create a tombola effect as was experienced previously. This would present the danger of WAVs operating from the rank only and not serving the wider Borough and the outer community residents.

Furthermore, it was suggested to Members present that they could take this back to consultation, however they were advised that appeal might be more likely if numbers increased to a higher limit as per 8(c). Members were reassured that the Council had strictly followed protocol required for the consultation. It was indicated that the Trade had been included in this consultation and had provided a sound response.

The Legal Services Team Leader queried why the option of further consultation was suggested to Members if the initial consultation had provided an adequate response. The Lead Licensing Enforcement officer said that there had been two schools of thought but a need for further consultation was a matter for members. The relevant officers had been contacted and were satisfied with the conclusions, but members would decide whether further consultation was required to provide further reassurance. Following discussion, Members were satisfied and therefore agreed that no further consultation was required.

Members discussed the feasibility of Private Hire licence holders changing their vehicles to WAVs. Officers recognised the large demand however the extensive undertaking this required was indicated. Members were informed that PHVs had the ability and were entitled to convert to WAVs however evidence suggested they were choosing not to. Therefore to address any unmet demand of WAVs would be best encouraged via HCVs as they present greater scope to do so.

Concerns were raised that Option B needed rewording in order to avoid unintended consequences and avoid the floodgates opening to WAV licence holders. Members were assured that the prohibitive cost of the WAVs alone would be likely to act as a limiting measure to avoid potential ‘free-for-all’ in addition to conditions implemented to ensure that this would not occur. Members were advised that the intrinsic transfer value of the plate must not be a material consideration in maintaining restricted numbers as the value of the public takes precedence.

The Regulatory Services Manager read out a revised wording of the Option at paragraph 8(b) to make clear that the requirement for wheel chair access would not apply to renewals of the 27 non-WAV hackney carriage vehicles currently benefitting from a licence from the Council.

Subsequently, Cllr John Walker proposed Option B with no further consultation. This would ensure that the current 27 non-WAV vehicles would be maintained and allow the additional application of Hackney Carriage WAVs to the nine at present, but only when all conditions were met. Cllr Anthony Gee supported this and expressed the importance of only allowing special cases to help guarantee that the demand would be met, especially in rural areas.

Initially, Cllr Adrian Lowe proposed a combination of Options C and D which would maintain the limit at 36 however based on Equality and Diversity reasoning as included in the agenda this could be increased where considered significant on a case by case basis. Members were made aware by the Lead Licensing and Enforcement Officer of the potential legal risks of granting a licence on merit which could be challenged in the courts.

Following discussion this proposal was amended to Option D by Cllr Adrian Lowe with no further consultation as maintaining the current system in order to simplify and avoid the aforementioned risk was the favoured option.

Councillor Walker proposed Option B with no consultation. The motion was seconded by Councillor Muncaster. A vote was taken and the motion was lost (4:9:0).

After discussion amongst the committee and careful consideration of all the options it was proposed by Adrian Lowe, seconded by Hasina Khan and subsequently RESOLVED (7:6:0) to;

d)   maintain the limited number of HCV licenses the council will issue at 36 with no further additional consultation.