In article ,
Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 00:04:18 on Tue, 17 Jun
2014, JNugent remarked:
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
It only needs to be a small spot. Just the taxi rank would do.
be in two districts simultaneously?
It doesn't have to *be* in two districts at once. Just DEEMED to be FOR
THE PURPOSES OF HACKNEY HAILING ONLY.
Would occupants be liable to pay council tax to both district
councils? And maybe a double-dose to the county?
Of course not, it's only in South Cambs.
Are you really proposing that local authorities should have the power to
change the law as they see fit?
Any law? What criteria would you apply for choosing which ones are
changeable?
No, he isn't. This sort of thing is done all the time. Perhaps a
better way of putting it would be that South Cambridgeshire would
grant an implicit licence to all Cambridge taxis for that location
alone, and Cambridge would grant a 'wayleave' for South
Cambridgeshire taxis doing the same (if needed). The councils
ALREADY have the powers to issue licences, and there is nothing
forbidding reasonable collaborations between councils.
As I said, God alone knows what The Supremes would make of it,
but who on earth would challenge it? Inter alia, English law has
the concept of "locus standi", and anyone doing so would have to
demonstrate sufficient interest in the result to get the courts
to accept a challenge. Yes, the landowner, Highways Authority
and Whitehall all could, so it would be necessary to get at least
a letter of acceptance from the first two. And, in the current
political climate, any attempt by Whitehall to block collaboration
could easily be opposed (politically).
See, for example:
http://www.1cor.com/1158/?form_1155.replyids=145
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.