Agenda item

To consider the Fees for Drivers, Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicles and Private Hire Operators report.

The Committee considered the Licensing Team Leader’s report, which stated that the current fees charged did not cover the costs incurred by the service in issuing licences. It was anticipated that the current fee structure would result in an under recovery of costs relating to taxi licensing of over £100,000 for 2018-19. The proposed increase to fees were considered appropriate to recover the administration and associated costs of the service, in light of deregulation and, consequentially, the large increase in applications received that required proper assessment to ensure that the safety of users of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles was not compromised. Subject to consultation, the proposed change to licensing fees would come into effect on 1 April 2019.

In response to a Member question, the Licensing Team Leader confirmed that this was an annual process, although it was being carried out earlier than in previous years.

Councillor Gerard said even with the proposed increase, the fees would be competitive and were necessary to ensure the proper checks were carried out and to maintain public safety.

Councillor Barker asked whether the licensing department could maintain its current productivity without an increase in resources.

The Licensing Team Leader said if fees were not raised to cover the costs of increased resources, then all licences would take longer to process and the service would not be able to function properly.

RESOLVED to:

1)    Approve the fee structure proposed in Appendix B to come into effect on 1 April 2019

2)    That the fees in respect of Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle Licences and Private Hire Operators Licences be advertised for a period of 28 days in at least one local newspaper circulating in the district.

3)    If any objections are received then Members will need to meet to consider the same and must then set a further date (not being later than two months after the first) on which the variation to fees will come into force with or without modification. They will be reported back to the Licensing and Environmental Health Committee for consideration.

            The meeting ended at 8.00pm.

Public Speaking 

Doug Perry said the proposed rise in fees and charges was astronomic, ranging between 11.9% and 150% for the next financial year, and strongly urged Members to vote against them until Council officers met with the Trade to discuss them in detail. He asked why there had been no consultation with the Trade as there had been in previous years when he was Chairman of the Licensing Committee. He said for a consultation to be ‘proper’ it must be undertaken at a formative stage and requested Members to defer the decision. 

Richard Ellis read out a statement on behalf of Barry Drinkwater. The statement said that in the past the Trade was properly involved in forming licensing policy and played an important check and balance role, as demonstrated by participation in Licensing Task Groups and joint annual reviews. This was no longer the case. The Trade wanted to understand the reasons for the licensing team’s under resourcing and invited Members to give time and consideration to the Trade’s statements.

Doug Perry read out a statement on behalf of Andy Mahoney. The statement asked Members to uphold an agreement made between the Trade and Council leadership back in 2010, which stated that each set of annual Licensing budgets would be discussed with the Trade. The Trade had also agreed for UDC to repay the £138,000 surplus without interest and now that the money was repaid, the ‘shutters were coming down’ on this working relationship. He said there was no risk in deferring the decision and urged Members not to vote until the Trade was properly consulted.

Robert Sinnott said a decade ago the Trade and Council used to enjoy a collaborative and co-operative relationship when reviewing licensing costs and agreeing fees for the year ahead. He said this had now stopped, without consultation, and that this was disrespectful to those who had worked hard in the past to establish this working relationship. Furthermore, until details had been discussed with the Trade, and the assertions in the report substantiated, he would not be able to trust the proposals put before Members. He asked the Committee to defer their decision and said if this was approved, ULODA would consider approaching the Local Government Ombudsman.