What's it(!) with Uber?
 

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2014 09:06, Roland Perry wrote:

They clearly have the power to change traffic laws, and have lots of
discretion for taxi licensing (who they allow to become drivers, what
the tests are for vehicle and drivers, who they'll permit to be
"authorised" to use the rising bollards etc). This would simply be a
small change in the conditions for a City hackney licence that would say
"only hailable in the City *but also at the taxi rank at Science Park
Station*")

Refusal or revocation of a taxi-driver's or taxi-proprietor's licence on
the "fit and proper person" grounds (which must be what you mean when
you say that councils have power over "who they allow to become
drivers", etc) is appealable to the magistrates' court.

The implication is that the council must act reasonably (in the
Wednesbury sense) and must not act capriciously or in furtherance of an
unspoken agenda which disadvantages licence-holders or applicants.

Yes. And one cannot reasonably claim that Roland's proposal fails
on those grounds. I really can't see the problem, provided that it
were negotiated properly and all relevant parties were given a
chance to object. Nor can I see them doing so, as all relevant
parties (i.e. the landowner, Highways Authority and taxi drivers)
would benefit from the rule.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

What's it(!) with Uber?
 

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 17/06/2014 12:57, wrote:
In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

In message , at
06:06:02 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014, remarked:
Borough boundaries can be moved. The boundary of Enfield was moved to
match the M25 in the 1990s.

It seems to be easier in London. Cambridge has been stuck since 1934.
A lot of building across the boundary has taken place since then.

Including of course SJIC, which is literally built "across" the
border. The reception is in the City and the canteen is in South
Cambs. How do they apportion the business rates?

Not a problem. It's been done for years. Only a small part of SJIC is
outside the city, by the way. Unless they have extended it rather since
we were there.

Do business rates vary by council anyway?

I know they used to, but this was abolished by the introduction of
the uniform business rate back in the late 80s.

With the new business rates regime it matters which council area it's in,
but for the councils rather than the ratepayers. This assumes there is no
BID (Business Improvement District) involved.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

What's it(!) with Uber?
 

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 17/06/2014 15:03, Basil Jet wrote:

Bournemouth is a unitary authority so is not covered by Dorset County
Council anyway, unlike Christchurch which also switched from Hants.

Within easy living memory, Bournemouth was a shire district in
Hampshire. Then it was swapped to the same status within Dorset, then
to unitary status.

No it wasn't. It was a County Borough before 1974.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

What's it(!) with Uber?
 

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 17/06/2014 11:22, Basil Jet wrote:

Surely if there was no demand for hackney carriages in South Cambs
previously, and this new science park creates such a demand, one thing
to do would be to allow a small number of South Cambs private hires to
become South Cambs hackney carriages.

There is no recognised system for that.

It would be just as easy - and probably more expedient - to simply
allow some or all of the hackney-carriage owners to apply for an
extra vehicle licence (or licences).

I don't think the same vehicle can be licensed as both a hackney carriage
and hire car. I'm more familiar with the Cambridge City rules which have
conflicting vehicle appearance requirements intended to make a clear
distinction between hackneys and hire cars. I'm fairly sure South Cambs has
similar rules even if they are less prescriptive.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

What's it(!) with Uber?
 

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

That's the thing to remember: London cabs are not controlled by local
authorities.

They weren't and are still less so than in the rest of the country. But they
now come under TfL and therefore under theoretical control of the Mayor.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

What's it(!) with Uber?
 

On 17/06/2014 21:08, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 17/06/2014 15:03, Basil Jet wrote:

Bournemouth is a unitary authority so is not covered by Dorset County
Council anyway, unlike Christchurch which also switched from Hants.

Within easy living memory, Bournemouth was a shire district in
Hampshire. Then it was swapped to the same status within Dorset, then
to unitary status.

No it wasn't. It was a County Borough before 1974.

Was it not in Hampshire?

What's it(!) with Uber?
 

On 17/06/2014 21:08, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 17/06/2014 11:22, Basil Jet wrote:

Surely if there was no demand for hackney carriages in South Cambs
previously, and this new science park creates such a demand, one thing
to do would be to allow a small number of South Cambs private hires to
become South Cambs hackney carriages.

There is no recognised system for that.

It would be just as easy - and probably more expedient - to simply
allow some or all of the hackney-carriage owners to apply for an
extra vehicle licence (or licences).

I don't think the same vehicle can be licensed as both a hackney carriage
and hire car.

What need would there be for it?

I'm more familiar with the Cambridge City rules which have
conflicting vehicle appearance requirements intended to make a clear
distinction between hackneys and hire cars. I'm fairly sure South Cambs has
similar rules even if they are less prescriptive.

Most areas have similar provisions.

None of that has any relevance to what I said, though.

What's it(!) with Uber?
 

Michael R N Dolbear wrote:

"tim....." wrote

hackneys in the vicinity of railway stations very close to licencing
boundaries.

London cabs' operational area is not limited by the outer boundary of
"Greater London".

At least, not unless the boundaries of "Greater London" have become
reconciled with those of the Metropolitan Police District.

happened in 2000

Thus confusing all those reading Dick Francis novels in which the jockey
hero takes a London cab to Sandown Park (was in the MPD, now in Surrey for
everything to include taxis and police).

Surely you can take London taxis to anywhere out of London (I do this
often to just into Surrey)

--
Mark

What's it(!) with Uber?
 

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 17/06/2014 21:08, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 17/06/2014 15:03, Basil Jet wrote:

Bournemouth is a unitary authority so is not covered by Dorset County
Council anyway, unlike Christchurch which also switched from Hants.

Within easy living memory, Bournemouth was a shire district in
Hampshire. Then it was swapped to the same status within Dorset, then
to unitary status.

No it wasn't. It was a County Borough before 1974.

Was it not in Hampshire?

Insofar as any County Borough then or Unitary now is in a county, yes.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

What's it(!) with Uber?
 

On 2014\06\18 00:44, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 17/06/2014 21:08, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 17/06/2014 15:03, Basil Jet wrote:

Bournemouth is a unitary authority so is not covered by Dorset County
Council anyway, unlike Christchurch which also switched from Hants.

Within easy living memory, Bournemouth was a shire district in
Hampshire. Then it was swapped to the same status within Dorset, then
to unitary status.

No it wasn't. It was a County Borough before 1974.

Was it not in Hampshire?

Insofar as any County Borough then or Unitary now is in a county, yes.

Counties existed for hundreds of years before there were any county
councils, and still exist where county councils have lost power. New
"County Of Middlesex" signs were put up by Enfield Council not too long ago.