London Banter - View Single Post

[email protected] · June 16th 14, 05:08 PM posted to cam.transport,uk.transport.london

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
09:55:25 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014, remarked:
Plying for hire requires a licence from the local authority in the
area to be plied in. This is going to be a huge problem with the
new Science Park station whose forecourt will be in South Cambs
that has next to no licensed hackneys. My plan, for a joint
licensing authority covering both councils was making no progress
when other events intervened.

Is there any possibility of a byelaw declaring the station to be in
'joint' territory? It might help swing that if, as I suspect, it's
landlocked by the City (via Milton Rd).

No. I tried to get the new square that will be part of the station
development made public highway but got no support. The developers and
Notwork Rail wouldn't budge.

It shouldn't matter who owns it, just a waiver on the District
Boundary condition for that site.

If a developer won't dedicate land as public highway and the highway
authority won't use compulsory powers to override them, what can be done?
I'm surprised you don't t realise that, Roland.

Because I'm not talking about the status of the land, it could be
owned by Father Xmas for all I care. What matters is whether it's
"inside South Cambs" or "inside the City" for hackney-hailing
purposes.

All that's needed is a derogation which says that for taxi-hailing
purposes it's deemed to be in both.

Under some law you've just made up? It's not feasible. The last attempt to
rationalise the City/South Cambs failed for no good reason.

Sorry I misread your earlier message because it was so fanciful. While
boundaries are not as hard to change as those of US states it appears almost
impossible to change the city boundary set 80 years ago this year.

--
Colin Rosenstiel