London Banter - View Single Post

JNugent[_5_] · June 16th 14, 11:04 PM posted to cam.transport,uk.transport.london

On 16/06/2014 17:18, 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.

Is that legally possible? Can one spot be in two districts
simultaneously? Would occupants be liable to pay council tax to both
district councils? And maybe a double-dose to the county?