In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
03:23:29 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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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.
--
Roland Perry

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

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.

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.

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.

For the third time, I'm not proposing to change the boundary.
--
Roland Perry

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.

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?