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?

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

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).

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

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?

Of course not, except by getting a local Act. Outside London they are rarely
achievable and expensive.

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?

Not that either.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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.
--
Roland Perry

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.

Roland,

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?

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.

In message , at 09:10:31 on Tue, 17
Jun 2014, Nick Maclaren remarked:
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).

I don't think the South Cambs hackneys need a wayleave, they are already
permitted to drive in the City if they have picked up a fare in South
Cambs. The situation at the new station is exceptional because that
small patch of South Cambs [in effect just the railway sidings
themselves] is entirely land-locked by the railway and the only road
access is via the City.

An alternative would be to locate a section of taxi rank a couple of
hundred yards away from the station buildings, which is inside the City.
--
Roland Perry

On 2014\06\17 09:23, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:10:31 on Tue, 17
Jun 2014, Nick Maclaren remarked:
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).

I don't think the South Cambs hackneys need a wayleave, they are already
permitted to drive in the City if they have picked up a fare in South
Cambs. The situation at the new station is exceptional because that
small patch of South Cambs [in effect just the railway sidings
themselves] is entirely land-locked by the railway and the only road
access is via the City.

An alternative would be to locate a section of taxi rank a couple of
hundred yards away from the station buildings, which is inside the City.

Borough boundaries can be moved. The boundary of Enfield was moved to
match the M25 in the 1990s.

On 2014\06\17 11:31, Basil Jet wrote:

Borough boundaries can be moved. The boundary of Enfield was moved to
match the M25 in the 1990s.

That didn't affect many residences, but the College Park area (Ponsard
Road / Waldo Road etc) was transferred from Brent to Hammersmith in the
2000s, transferring a significant number of houses for no good reason
that I can see.

In article ,
(Basil Jet) wrote:

On 2014\06\17 09:23, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:10:31 on Tue, 17
Jun 2014, Nick Maclaren remarked:
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).

I don't think the South Cambs hackneys need a wayleave, they are already
permitted to drive in the City if they have picked up a fare in South
Cambs. The situation at the new station is exceptional because that
small patch of South Cambs [in effect just the railway sidings
themselves] is entirely land-locked by the railway and the only road
access is via the City.

An alternative would be to locate a section of taxi rank a couple of
hundred yards away from the station buildings, which is inside the City.

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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 11:31:48 on
Tue, 17 Jun 2014, Basil Jet remarked:
An alternative would be to locate a section of taxi rank a couple of
hundred yards away from the station buildings, which is inside the City.

Borough boundaries can be moved. The boundary of Enfield was moved to
match the M25 in the 1990s.

Not just boroughs, but whole counties. Back in the day the boundary
between Hertfordshire and Cambridgshire went down the main street in
Royston. It was later moved to co-incide with the northern bypass.

ObRail/Hackney: Which means the railway station moved from Cambs to
Herts, and would affect which licensees were able to ply for hire there.
--
Roland Perry