|
What's it(!) with Uber?
|
What's it(!) with Uber?
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 |
What's it(!) with Uber?
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. Indeed. Whether or not such a decision would be upheld if it were challenged up to The Supremes, I can't see anyone bothering to challenge it at all, if it were agreed by the two councils and the landowner. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
What's it(!) with Uber?
|
What's it(!) with Uber?
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 12:08:02 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014, remarked: 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. A new bylaw. Two, actually - one by each council - and some sort of written agreement from the landowner and County would be useful. But, as you imply, nothing extraordinary. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
What's it(!) with Uber?
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? |
What's it(!) with Uber?
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 |
What's it(!) with Uber?
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 |
What's it(!) with Uber?
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? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk