The report on survey infront of Council
Page 1 of 1
The report on survey infront of Council
by sheffph Thu 13 Dec 2007 - 4:33
SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL
Chief Executive’s Directorate
Chief Executive’s Directorate
REPORT TO CABINET 12/12/07
REPORT OF: Chief Executive
SUBJECT: Provision of Taxi Services in Sheffield
SUMMARY
This report summarises the findings of the independent report into taxi provision in Sheffield which was commissioned by Full Council. Consideration is given to questions of future demand, limitation, impact of the taxi trade on other modes of transport, the ability of disabled people to access taxi services and comparisons of Sheffield’s position with similar authorities
RECOMMENDATIONS
• That Members note the findings of the recent Taxi Provision Study
• That Members consider the following options and make a recommendation to Council for consideration. Either:
o Retention of the current arrangements without limitation, OR:
o Introduction of a limitation on the growth of the number of taxis as set out in the report
• That the following detailed proposals are referred to Licensing Board for consideration
Introduction of customer care and equalities awareness raising training be for all drivers
Hackney carriage drivers be required to subscribe to a radio circuit as part of their licence conditions
Extending and evaluating the taxi marshal scheme
In conjunction with the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive, the marketing of taxis as part of an integrated public transport network
Provision be made for taxis in all major new developments
Increasing the differential between day and night fares when fares are reviewed by the Board
Additional illegal plying for hire and ranking enforcement activity is carried out, particularly to avoid taxis licensed in other authority areas plying for hire in Sheffield.
RELEVANT SCRUTINY BOARD IF DECISION CALLED IN Strategic Resources and Performance
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Yes
CLEARED BY PARAGRAPHS
BACKGROUND PAPERS Provision of Taxi Services in Sheffield Full Report
CONTACT POINT FOR ACCESS James Henderson tel no 0114 2039681
AREA(S) AFFECTED All
CATEGORY OF REPORT........................Open
1. Purpose
1.1 This report sets out the key conclusions and recommendations from the recently completed study into taxi provision in Sheffield.
2. Background
2.1 The South Yorkshire Local Transport Plan aims to “integrate the provision of Hackney Carriages and private hire vehicles as part of the overall public transport network” and to “improve the quality and delivery of local taxi services”.
2.2 The taxi trade in Sheffield comprises both Hackney carriages (black cabs) and private hire vehicles. Private hire vehicles may only be pre-booked, whereas Hackney carriages may be pre-booked, flagged down or hailed from a rank.
2.3 In November 2000 Sheffield City Council resolved to remove the historical limit on Hackney carriage numbers. Since that date the number of Hackney carriages has increased from 300 to 783, with 1011 private hire vehicles. In addition, there have been a number of other factors that have had an effect on the taxi market, including changes to the premises licensing laws, and the rapid economic and physical development of the city centre.
2.4 On 7th February 2007, Council instructed the Chief Executive to commission an independent survey on taxi provision in Sheffield, and to report back to the appropriate body on any action that may be required.
2.5 Following a competitive tender process, transport consultants Halcrow Ltd were appointed to conduct the independent study into taxi services in Sheffield. The objective of the study was to undertake a broad assessment of the taxi market in the city as a whole (covering both Hackney carriages and private hire) and it therefore had a number of aims:
• To determine whether or not there exists any significant unmet demand or oversupply of Hackney carriage services in Sheffield
• To assess and advise on whether there is an appropriate balance between private hire vehicles and Hackney carriages in Sheffield
• Provide an analysis of the likely future demand for taxi services in Sheffield over the next ten years
• To assess the effect of Hackney carriage numbers on anti-social behaviour at taxi ranks
• To assess and advise on the extent of illegal plying for hire and illegal ranking within Sheffield
• To advise on whether there is adequate provision of taxi services in Sheffield for disabled people, adequate driver training and whether disabled people encounter discrimination in accessing these services
• To provide an assessment of the impact of the taxi trade on other modes of transport
2.6 A number of different methods were used to come to conclusions on these points, including benchmarking exercises with similar authorities; a comprehensive programme of rank observations; extensive consultation with key stakeholders, general public and the trade; analysis of the future demand for taxi services; and an analysis of the impact of taxi services on other forms of public transport.
2.7 In particular, 400 hours of rank observations were undertaken between 11th May 2007 and 24th June 2007, covering all of the city’s ranks, and at various times through the day and night, both on weekdays and at weekends. This allowed an assessment of unmet demand for taxi services to be made.
3. Findings of the Consultants’ Report
3.1 The report comes to a number of key conclusions about the taxi market in Sheffield:
3.2 Demand for taxis has increased dramatically in the last five years, probably as a result of the improving city centre economy, city centre masterplan projects, and rising population. This demand is highly peaked on Friday and Saturday nights.
3.3 Sheffield has the lowest per capita provision of taxis (comprising both Hackney carriages and private hire vehicles) of any of the Core Cities. The ratio of Hackney carriages to private hire vehicles is low compared to many of the Core Cities – the report concludes that this is likely to be because of differential pricing structures and market conditions in the various Core Cities.
3.4 However, the taxi market in Sheffield is currently functioning well and is in balance. There is no unmet demand at most times of the week, although there is evidence of unmet demand at peak times (weekend evenings). Overall, the report finds that there is no significant unmet demand for taxi services in Sheffield
3.5 The report concludes, though, that given the recent sharp increase in demand for taxi services, and the ongoing regeneration work in the city centre, the market is currently experiencing some significant changes, and that future increases in demand are likely (although not necessarily at the rate seen over the past five years).
3.6 The report concludes that there is some evidence of over-supply of taxis during typical daytime periods. Removing licences would, however, be likely to have a detrimental effect on busy night-time ranks.
3.7 The report notes that there has been a decline in the use of the three main city centre ranks (Sheffield Station, Barker’s Pool and Fitzalan Square), but this is coupled with an overall rise in the use of taxis within the city centre. This, combined with the recent review of taxi ranks, indicates that the taxi market is becoming more diffused over the city centre as the wider city centre economy has improved.
Last edited by on Thu 13 Dec 2007 - 7:11; edited 5 times in total
sheffph- Number of posts : 78
Registration date : 2007-10-28
Re: The report on survey infront of Council
by sheffph Thu 13 Dec 2007 - 4:33
3.8 Illegal plying for hire and illegal ranking are both minor problems in Sheffield, which, when they do occur, happen mainly at night when there is highest demand for taxi services.
3.9 Disabled people express dissatisfaction with taxi provision in the city, and are unable to access the same level of service as non-disabled users. There are currently no dedicated private hire vehicles with wheelchair access. Disabled users are therefore reliant on pre-booking Hackney carriages, many of which only operate at ranks and do not subscribe to a private hire radio circuit. It should be noted however, that some Hackney carriages are employed on schools or social services contract work during the day, thereby reducing the number of accessible vehicles available.
3.10 The report also concludes that driver training in equalities issues is not currently comprehensive enough to ensure that disabled people (and other equality groups) receive a good level of service
3.11 Users of taxis were generally satisfied with both private hire vehicles and with Hackney carriages. However, a third of users had given up trying to obtain a vehicle at a rank or by flag-down. Cost was given as the main reason people did not use taxis more often.
3.12 The taxi trade (both Hackney carriage and private hire drivers) were asked for their views about taxi provision in the city. Most wanted to see a smaller fleet of hackney carriages, but there were mixed views about reintroducing a limit, with Hackney carriage drivers very strongly in favour and private hire drivers being less convinced of the merits of this. Safety of drivers was raised as an important issue with some 23% of hackney carriage drivers stating that they never felt safe whilst driving. This figure was somewhat lower for private hire drivers.
3.13 Anti-social behaviour at ranks was not found to be an issue for users and most people felt safe using taxis both at day and at night. However, a significant minority (particularly of women) felt unsafe using taxis at night.
3.14 Little correlation between taxi use and other modes of transport was found. Increasing the number of taxis would have only modest effects on the use of other types of transport. However, 12.4% of car drivers stipulated that their use of taxis would increase if the number of taxis increased.
4. Limitation
4.1 A Licensing Authority did, until 1985, have unfettered power to limit the number of taxi licences that it chose to issue. Following changes introduced in the Transport Act 1985, a Licensing Authority could continue to limit taxi numbers but if, and only if, it was satisfied that there was no significant unmet demand for taxi services in that area. There is no indication in the legislation as to what would constitute “significant unmet demand”
4.2 A Licensing Authority does not and never has needed to give a reason for not limiting taxi numbers, nor does it need to conduct a demand survey before deciding to cease limiting numbers.
4.3 Case law has determined that “significant unmet demand” covers both unmet demand at ranks, and “suppressed” demand. Following Maude v Castle Point Borough Council, heard in the Court of Appeal in October 2002, the term “suppressed demand” is interpreted to relate purely to that demand that is measurable. Following Maude, there are two components to “suppressed demand”:
• What can be termed inappropriately met demand. This is currently observable demand that is being met by, for example, private hire cars illegally ranking up; and
• That which arises if people are forced to use some less satisfactory method of travel due to the unavailability of a hackney carriage
4.4 If a limit is in operation, the local authority is required to periodically re-assess whether or not there is unmet demand for taxi services.
4.5 Councils may not limit the number of private hire vehicles operating in their area.
4.6 Until November 2000 the Council had a policy of limiting taxi numbers. The process followed was to review the limitation policy every three years and following confirmation that the policy of limiting taxi numbers was to be retained to commission an independent “demand survey”. Once the results of the survey were known the Licensing Board would determine how many, if any, additional licences to issue. Clearly if the survey identified an unmet demand that would be met by a given number of additional licences then the Council would have to issue at least that number to satisfy the legal test. The Board could, and on one occasion did, issue a greater number of additional licences than the survey had identified were required to meet the “significant demand that was unmet”.
4.7 In November 2000, the Licensing Board considered the taxi limitation policy and heard representations from the Sheffield Taxi Trades Association (STTA), taxi owners and drivers, those that wished to enter the trade, Police, disability representatives, and private hire operators. The decision of the Board was to cease limiting taxi numbers. Prior to that decision there had been a limit of 300 taxis in Sheffield.
4.8 In December 2000, the STTA lodged a petition with the Council requesting a further review of the policy. The petition was referred to the Licensing Board in January 2001 and the Board resolved that “…this Board confirms that the hackney carriage limitation policy was fully and properly considered at its meeting on 22nd November 2000 and has determined not to review that decision”.
4.9 An application for judicial review was launched on behalf of the STTA and was considered in the High Court in London in August 2001. The Judge considered the evidence presented and announced that he was satisfied that the Council had acted in a proper manner, commended the policy determination process, dismissed the application, refused an application for leave to appeal and awarded costs in favour of the Council.
4.10 Of the eight Core Cities, only Sheffield and Birmingham do not currently operate a limit on Hackney carriage numbers. Bristol has also very recently resolved to remove its limit on Hackney numbers. However, across all local authorities, only 36% currently operate a limit, down from 45% in 2003. Therefore, Sheffield is currently in line with the policy adopted by most licensing authorities.
4.11 The consultants’ report makes clear that a reintroduction of the limit would not be advisable at this time for a number of reasons:
• There is no overwhelming evidence in the report that supply and demand for taxi services in Sheffield is unbalanced. Therefore the market is functioning well, indicating that there is no need to impose a limit on taxi numbers
• Demand has risen steadily in Sheffield over the past ten years, with a sharp rise since 2003, linked to the growing economy. There is no evidence that this increase in demand will halt in the near future, and therefore introducing a limit might restrict the ability of the taxi market to respond to this demand.
• Although there is no significant unmet demand at most times of the day, there is pressure on taxi supply at certain critical points, particularly at weekend night times.
• Hackney carriages are the only taxis that are accessible for disabled people. Restricting provision of these vehicles may lead to negative impacts on this group of users.
In addition it is clear that:
• There are no positive benefits for the taxi user of introducing a limit on taxi numbers. The market would be less able to respond to rising demand, and there is no evidence to suggest that the quality of service offered would improve.
• There is a significant risk of legal challenge if the Council reintroduced limitation from people who wanted to enter the market but were prevented from doing so because of the limit (see Section 7).
4.12 On the other hand, however:
• The report does not find that there is any significant unmet demand for taxi services in Sheffield at the present time. This finding is a prerequisite were limitation to be introduced, but it should not be seen as a positive argument in favour of introducing limitation
• Limitation is a common feature of the eight Core Cities, so if a decision were taken to restrict the number of Hackney carriages, Sheffield would not be atypical in this group. However, derestriction is, by a significant majority, the most common position nationally. See also paragraph 4.10. Again, this is not, per se, an argument in favour of limitation.
3.9 Disabled people express dissatisfaction with taxi provision in the city, and are unable to access the same level of service as non-disabled users. There are currently no dedicated private hire vehicles with wheelchair access. Disabled users are therefore reliant on pre-booking Hackney carriages, many of which only operate at ranks and do not subscribe to a private hire radio circuit. It should be noted however, that some Hackney carriages are employed on schools or social services contract work during the day, thereby reducing the number of accessible vehicles available.
3.10 The report also concludes that driver training in equalities issues is not currently comprehensive enough to ensure that disabled people (and other equality groups) receive a good level of service
3.11 Users of taxis were generally satisfied with both private hire vehicles and with Hackney carriages. However, a third of users had given up trying to obtain a vehicle at a rank or by flag-down. Cost was given as the main reason people did not use taxis more often.
3.12 The taxi trade (both Hackney carriage and private hire drivers) were asked for their views about taxi provision in the city. Most wanted to see a smaller fleet of hackney carriages, but there were mixed views about reintroducing a limit, with Hackney carriage drivers very strongly in favour and private hire drivers being less convinced of the merits of this. Safety of drivers was raised as an important issue with some 23% of hackney carriage drivers stating that they never felt safe whilst driving. This figure was somewhat lower for private hire drivers.
3.13 Anti-social behaviour at ranks was not found to be an issue for users and most people felt safe using taxis both at day and at night. However, a significant minority (particularly of women) felt unsafe using taxis at night.
3.14 Little correlation between taxi use and other modes of transport was found. Increasing the number of taxis would have only modest effects on the use of other types of transport. However, 12.4% of car drivers stipulated that their use of taxis would increase if the number of taxis increased.
4. Limitation
4.1 A Licensing Authority did, until 1985, have unfettered power to limit the number of taxi licences that it chose to issue. Following changes introduced in the Transport Act 1985, a Licensing Authority could continue to limit taxi numbers but if, and only if, it was satisfied that there was no significant unmet demand for taxi services in that area. There is no indication in the legislation as to what would constitute “significant unmet demand”
4.2 A Licensing Authority does not and never has needed to give a reason for not limiting taxi numbers, nor does it need to conduct a demand survey before deciding to cease limiting numbers.
4.3 Case law has determined that “significant unmet demand” covers both unmet demand at ranks, and “suppressed” demand. Following Maude v Castle Point Borough Council, heard in the Court of Appeal in October 2002, the term “suppressed demand” is interpreted to relate purely to that demand that is measurable. Following Maude, there are two components to “suppressed demand”:
• What can be termed inappropriately met demand. This is currently observable demand that is being met by, for example, private hire cars illegally ranking up; and
• That which arises if people are forced to use some less satisfactory method of travel due to the unavailability of a hackney carriage
4.4 If a limit is in operation, the local authority is required to periodically re-assess whether or not there is unmet demand for taxi services.
4.5 Councils may not limit the number of private hire vehicles operating in their area.
4.6 Until November 2000 the Council had a policy of limiting taxi numbers. The process followed was to review the limitation policy every three years and following confirmation that the policy of limiting taxi numbers was to be retained to commission an independent “demand survey”. Once the results of the survey were known the Licensing Board would determine how many, if any, additional licences to issue. Clearly if the survey identified an unmet demand that would be met by a given number of additional licences then the Council would have to issue at least that number to satisfy the legal test. The Board could, and on one occasion did, issue a greater number of additional licences than the survey had identified were required to meet the “significant demand that was unmet”.
4.7 In November 2000, the Licensing Board considered the taxi limitation policy and heard representations from the Sheffield Taxi Trades Association (STTA), taxi owners and drivers, those that wished to enter the trade, Police, disability representatives, and private hire operators. The decision of the Board was to cease limiting taxi numbers. Prior to that decision there had been a limit of 300 taxis in Sheffield.
4.8 In December 2000, the STTA lodged a petition with the Council requesting a further review of the policy. The petition was referred to the Licensing Board in January 2001 and the Board resolved that “…this Board confirms that the hackney carriage limitation policy was fully and properly considered at its meeting on 22nd November 2000 and has determined not to review that decision”.
4.9 An application for judicial review was launched on behalf of the STTA and was considered in the High Court in London in August 2001. The Judge considered the evidence presented and announced that he was satisfied that the Council had acted in a proper manner, commended the policy determination process, dismissed the application, refused an application for leave to appeal and awarded costs in favour of the Council.
4.10 Of the eight Core Cities, only Sheffield and Birmingham do not currently operate a limit on Hackney carriage numbers. Bristol has also very recently resolved to remove its limit on Hackney numbers. However, across all local authorities, only 36% currently operate a limit, down from 45% in 2003. Therefore, Sheffield is currently in line with the policy adopted by most licensing authorities.
4.11 The consultants’ report makes clear that a reintroduction of the limit would not be advisable at this time for a number of reasons:
• There is no overwhelming evidence in the report that supply and demand for taxi services in Sheffield is unbalanced. Therefore the market is functioning well, indicating that there is no need to impose a limit on taxi numbers
• Demand has risen steadily in Sheffield over the past ten years, with a sharp rise since 2003, linked to the growing economy. There is no evidence that this increase in demand will halt in the near future, and therefore introducing a limit might restrict the ability of the taxi market to respond to this demand.
• Although there is no significant unmet demand at most times of the day, there is pressure on taxi supply at certain critical points, particularly at weekend night times.
• Hackney carriages are the only taxis that are accessible for disabled people. Restricting provision of these vehicles may lead to negative impacts on this group of users.
In addition it is clear that:
• There are no positive benefits for the taxi user of introducing a limit on taxi numbers. The market would be less able to respond to rising demand, and there is no evidence to suggest that the quality of service offered would improve.
• There is a significant risk of legal challenge if the Council reintroduced limitation from people who wanted to enter the market but were prevented from doing so because of the limit (see Section 7).
4.12 On the other hand, however:
• The report does not find that there is any significant unmet demand for taxi services in Sheffield at the present time. This finding is a prerequisite were limitation to be introduced, but it should not be seen as a positive argument in favour of introducing limitation
• Limitation is a common feature of the eight Core Cities, so if a decision were taken to restrict the number of Hackney carriages, Sheffield would not be atypical in this group. However, derestriction is, by a significant majority, the most common position nationally. See also paragraph 4.10. Again, this is not, per se, an argument in favour of limitation.
sheffph- Number of posts : 78
Registration date : 2007-10-28
Re: The report on survey infront of Council
by sheffph Thu 13 Dec 2007 - 4:34
4.13 Were an absolute limit on limitation introduced at this time, there would be a number of significant implications for the Council and the city:
• The growing needs of the city would not be matched by a growing supply. This could be addressed by regular review, but even allowing for this the pace of change may not match the growing levels of demand
• Imposing a limit at current numbers might pose a risk to the city’s economic development, particularly in relation to its rapidly growing nighttime economy.
• The Council would be at significant risk of legal challenge from any person who wished to apply for a new hackney carriage licence, given that the recently completed study does not recommend the reintroduction of a limit. See Section 7 for more details regarding the legal implications of such a decision.
• Around 8 Hackney carriage vehicle licence applications are currently waiting to be processed. However, there are a large number of drivers’ licences currently awaiting processing, and it is to be expected that a proportion of these applicants would want to apply for a vehicle licence once they had been granted a driver’s licence. If an absolute limit were fixed at current numbers, this would again leave the authority open to legal challenge from those persons who would otherwise have expected to have their licence application granted.
• Given the expected continuing rise in demand for taxi services (as set out in the consultants’ report), limiting the number of hackney carriages might reasonably be expected to lead to a rise in the number of private hire vehicle licence applications. In turn, this might lead to increased illegal plying for hire from private hire vehicles in order to meet the expected increased demand.
5. Decision Making Procedure
5.1 The Council at its meeting on 7 February 2007, considered a Notice of Motion and resolved as follows:-
“That the Council:-
therefore instructs the Chief Executive to commission an independent survey on taxi provision in Sheffield funded via the Local Transport Plan and report back to the appropriate body on any action which may be required.”
At the annual Council meeting on 16 May 2007 the Council passed a resolution which delegated decisions in respect of Licensing matters to the Licensing Board
5.2 In view of the public interest in this issue and the fact that the conclusions raised in the report of Halcrow dated 17 October 2007 and attached to this report are significant in the context of a number of the Council's policies and ongoing projects and initiatives, it is proposed that:-
(i) for the purposes of consideration of this report only this report is received by Cabinet and referred, with recommendations, to full Council for consideration at its meeting on 9 January 2008 to enable a full debate to take place on the matter.
(ii) on this occasion, any decision in respect of limitation of numbers of hackney carriages, is reserved to full Council rather than referred to the Licensing Board, and
(iii) that the powers previously delegated by the Council to the Licensing Board at Annual Council on 16th May 2007 be assumed by Council for this item only.
6. Hackney Carriage Fares
6.1 The City Council (through the Licensing Board) has the power to set the maximum fares that Hackney carriages may charge. These fares may vary between day and night.
6.2 Increasing the fare level at night may encourage hackney drivers to work at night. In turn this might alleviate some of the supply issues highlighted in the consultants’ report.
6.3 The fare is composed of four parts – the “drop” (initial fee), a charge for each additional 238 metres beyond the first 146.3 metres up to 16093m, a charge for each subsequent 168m, and a charge for every 57 seconds spent waiting.
6.4 Sheffield’s current fares are:
Daytime: Initial Fee and first 146.3m £2.50
Every additional 238m (up to 16093m) £0.20
(equivalent to £1.35/mile)
Every additional 168m beyond this £0.20
(equivalent to £1.91/mile)
Every 57 sec spent waiting £0.20
Night: Initial Fee and first 146.3m £3.00
Every additional 238m (up to 16093m) £0.20
(equivalent to £1.35/mile)
Every additional 168m beyond this £0.20
(equivalent to £1.91/mile)
Every 57 sec spent waiting £0.20
This means that a typical 3 mile journey during the day costs £6.50 and at night £7.00. Every hour spent waiting costs £12.60 (both during the day and at night).
6.5 The following table shows Sheffield’s position relative to the Core Cities
City Typical 3 mile journey Hourly Waiting
Day Night Day Night
Liverpool £6.00 £7.60 £9.00 £10.84
Manchester £6.00 £8.00 £14.66 £19.57
Nottingham £6.20 £6.60 £13.33 £15.00
Sheffield £6.50 £7.00 £12.60 £12.60
Bristol £6.50 £8.10 £15.48 £21.51
Newcastle £6.60 £7.40 £18.00 £23.23
Birmingham £6.80 £7.30 £12.00 £12.00
Leeds £6.80 £7.60 £9.11 £9.11
Average £6.43 £7.45 £13.02 £15.48
6.6 As can be seen, Sheffield’s daytime fares and waiting charges are broadly in line with the Core Cities average, and nighttime fares somewhat below the average. However, owing to the different cycles that the Core Cities use for considering changes to maximum fares, Sheffield’s relative position tends to move fairly regularly.
6.7 Fares in Sheffield were previously reviewed in October 2006, when Licensing Board agreed a general increase of 3%.
6.8 Licensing Board tends to consider fare levels on the request of the Sheffield Taxi Trades Association. The Licensing Board was due to consider a recent request made by the STTA at its meeting on the 11 December.
6.9 The STTA has requested that the drop for both day and night journeys remains as at present, but that the average charge be increased from £1.35 to £1.50 per mile for journeys under 10 miles, and increased from £1.91 to £2.20 per mile for journeys over 10 miles. In addition they have requested that waiting time charges be increased from 20p for every 57 seconds the cab is kept waiting to 20p for every 50 seconds the cab is kept waiting. The proposals from the STTA, whilst representing an absolute increase in fares, will not, however, significantly affect the differential between the day and night time rates, and would not, therefore, be expected to have any significant impact on the level of nighttime supply.
7. Legal Implications
7.1 Section 16 of the Transport Act 1985 says that a Local Authority may refuse to grant Licence for the purpose of limiting the number of hackney carriages … only in specified circumstances. The legal position can be summarised as follows:
Before a Local Authority can refuse an application for a vehicle licence in order to limit the number of licensed taxis, they must be satisfied there is no significant demand for the services of taxis within the area to which the licence would apply which is unmet.
If the Local Authority is satisfied there is significant unmet demand, there is a discretion to refuse a licence, but if the local authority are not satisfied there is no unmet demand, they cannot refuse to grant a licence for the purposes of limiting the number of licensed taxis and they are, therefore obliged to grant it.
7.2 The above principles have been tested in the courts and that general view confirmed.
7.3 In November 2003 the Office of Fair Trading undertook a study and issued a report recommending to Central Government that legislation that enables local authorities to control the number of hackney carriages should be repealed. The Government’s response was to say that the issue should be determined by local authorities at a local level, taking into account of local need and circumstances but they should justify the existence of any restriction policy and the justification should be in the public domain. They also said that where a local authority cannot justify the restriction, they should de-restrict. The Government’s view is endorsed by the Department of Transport Best Practice Guidance issued in 2006, which suggests that any restriction policy should be included in the transport planning process and any policy seeking to restrict the number of licenses issues should be justified publicly and republished every 3 years.
7.4 The OFT recommends that (pending a change in the law) those authorities that have a limitation policy remove them, and by inference those that do not have such a policy do not implement one. As the OFT has determined that it is to the detriment of the public to limit taxi numbers and that a numeric limit disadvantages those that wish to enter the trade, additional avenues of legal recourse for those refused licences may have opened.
7.5 In setting a limit, a decision would need to be taken about the number at which that should be set. The recently undertaken survey does not reach a view about what that should be. The determination of policy in this respect is currently vested with the Licensing Board who would have to give detailed consideration to the current report, together with any additional information it felt it needed to make an informed and lawful decision, including specialist legal advice on the interpretation and application of reports about whether or not there was any significant unmet demand for services.
7.6 Therefore, the legal implications of the various options for limitation can be summarised as follows:
o Maintaining the current policy of not operating a limit carries no significant risk of successful legal challenge, as this is the option recommended both by the consultants’ report and by the Department for Transport and Office of Fair Trading.
o Reintroducing a fixed limit on taxi numbers carries with it a risk of legal challenge by any applicant who had been refused a licence and of that challenge being upheld, on the grounds that the consultants’ report does not provide firm evidence on which to base the policy, and because it comes to a firm recommendation that a limit should not be introduced at this time. It also does not provide any recommendation as to the number at which the limit should be set – there would, therefore, be a risk with setting a limit at an arbitrary figure.
o Introducing a policy of managed growth in taxi numbers (see paragraph 14.2) carries a somewhat lower risk of legal challenge than the second option above. However, it would still be challengeable on the principle of limitation, as it remains the case that the consultants’ report contains a clear recommendation that a limit should not be
• The growing needs of the city would not be matched by a growing supply. This could be addressed by regular review, but even allowing for this the pace of change may not match the growing levels of demand
• Imposing a limit at current numbers might pose a risk to the city’s economic development, particularly in relation to its rapidly growing nighttime economy.
• The Council would be at significant risk of legal challenge from any person who wished to apply for a new hackney carriage licence, given that the recently completed study does not recommend the reintroduction of a limit. See Section 7 for more details regarding the legal implications of such a decision.
• Around 8 Hackney carriage vehicle licence applications are currently waiting to be processed. However, there are a large number of drivers’ licences currently awaiting processing, and it is to be expected that a proportion of these applicants would want to apply for a vehicle licence once they had been granted a driver’s licence. If an absolute limit were fixed at current numbers, this would again leave the authority open to legal challenge from those persons who would otherwise have expected to have their licence application granted.
• Given the expected continuing rise in demand for taxi services (as set out in the consultants’ report), limiting the number of hackney carriages might reasonably be expected to lead to a rise in the number of private hire vehicle licence applications. In turn, this might lead to increased illegal plying for hire from private hire vehicles in order to meet the expected increased demand.
5. Decision Making Procedure
5.1 The Council at its meeting on 7 February 2007, considered a Notice of Motion and resolved as follows:-
“That the Council:-
therefore instructs the Chief Executive to commission an independent survey on taxi provision in Sheffield funded via the Local Transport Plan and report back to the appropriate body on any action which may be required.”
At the annual Council meeting on 16 May 2007 the Council passed a resolution which delegated decisions in respect of Licensing matters to the Licensing Board
5.2 In view of the public interest in this issue and the fact that the conclusions raised in the report of Halcrow dated 17 October 2007 and attached to this report are significant in the context of a number of the Council's policies and ongoing projects and initiatives, it is proposed that:-
(i) for the purposes of consideration of this report only this report is received by Cabinet and referred, with recommendations, to full Council for consideration at its meeting on 9 January 2008 to enable a full debate to take place on the matter.
(ii) on this occasion, any decision in respect of limitation of numbers of hackney carriages, is reserved to full Council rather than referred to the Licensing Board, and
(iii) that the powers previously delegated by the Council to the Licensing Board at Annual Council on 16th May 2007 be assumed by Council for this item only.
6. Hackney Carriage Fares
6.1 The City Council (through the Licensing Board) has the power to set the maximum fares that Hackney carriages may charge. These fares may vary between day and night.
6.2 Increasing the fare level at night may encourage hackney drivers to work at night. In turn this might alleviate some of the supply issues highlighted in the consultants’ report.
6.3 The fare is composed of four parts – the “drop” (initial fee), a charge for each additional 238 metres beyond the first 146.3 metres up to 16093m, a charge for each subsequent 168m, and a charge for every 57 seconds spent waiting.
6.4 Sheffield’s current fares are:
Daytime: Initial Fee and first 146.3m £2.50
Every additional 238m (up to 16093m) £0.20
(equivalent to £1.35/mile)
Every additional 168m beyond this £0.20
(equivalent to £1.91/mile)
Every 57 sec spent waiting £0.20
Night: Initial Fee and first 146.3m £3.00
Every additional 238m (up to 16093m) £0.20
(equivalent to £1.35/mile)
Every additional 168m beyond this £0.20
(equivalent to £1.91/mile)
Every 57 sec spent waiting £0.20
This means that a typical 3 mile journey during the day costs £6.50 and at night £7.00. Every hour spent waiting costs £12.60 (both during the day and at night).
6.5 The following table shows Sheffield’s position relative to the Core Cities
City Typical 3 mile journey Hourly Waiting
Day Night Day Night
Liverpool £6.00 £7.60 £9.00 £10.84
Manchester £6.00 £8.00 £14.66 £19.57
Nottingham £6.20 £6.60 £13.33 £15.00
Sheffield £6.50 £7.00 £12.60 £12.60
Bristol £6.50 £8.10 £15.48 £21.51
Newcastle £6.60 £7.40 £18.00 £23.23
Birmingham £6.80 £7.30 £12.00 £12.00
Leeds £6.80 £7.60 £9.11 £9.11
Average £6.43 £7.45 £13.02 £15.48
6.6 As can be seen, Sheffield’s daytime fares and waiting charges are broadly in line with the Core Cities average, and nighttime fares somewhat below the average. However, owing to the different cycles that the Core Cities use for considering changes to maximum fares, Sheffield’s relative position tends to move fairly regularly.
6.7 Fares in Sheffield were previously reviewed in October 2006, when Licensing Board agreed a general increase of 3%.
6.8 Licensing Board tends to consider fare levels on the request of the Sheffield Taxi Trades Association. The Licensing Board was due to consider a recent request made by the STTA at its meeting on the 11 December.
6.9 The STTA has requested that the drop for both day and night journeys remains as at present, but that the average charge be increased from £1.35 to £1.50 per mile for journeys under 10 miles, and increased from £1.91 to £2.20 per mile for journeys over 10 miles. In addition they have requested that waiting time charges be increased from 20p for every 57 seconds the cab is kept waiting to 20p for every 50 seconds the cab is kept waiting. The proposals from the STTA, whilst representing an absolute increase in fares, will not, however, significantly affect the differential between the day and night time rates, and would not, therefore, be expected to have any significant impact on the level of nighttime supply.
7. Legal Implications
7.1 Section 16 of the Transport Act 1985 says that a Local Authority may refuse to grant Licence for the purpose of limiting the number of hackney carriages … only in specified circumstances. The legal position can be summarised as follows:
Before a Local Authority can refuse an application for a vehicle licence in order to limit the number of licensed taxis, they must be satisfied there is no significant demand for the services of taxis within the area to which the licence would apply which is unmet.
If the Local Authority is satisfied there is significant unmet demand, there is a discretion to refuse a licence, but if the local authority are not satisfied there is no unmet demand, they cannot refuse to grant a licence for the purposes of limiting the number of licensed taxis and they are, therefore obliged to grant it.
7.2 The above principles have been tested in the courts and that general view confirmed.
7.3 In November 2003 the Office of Fair Trading undertook a study and issued a report recommending to Central Government that legislation that enables local authorities to control the number of hackney carriages should be repealed. The Government’s response was to say that the issue should be determined by local authorities at a local level, taking into account of local need and circumstances but they should justify the existence of any restriction policy and the justification should be in the public domain. They also said that where a local authority cannot justify the restriction, they should de-restrict. The Government’s view is endorsed by the Department of Transport Best Practice Guidance issued in 2006, which suggests that any restriction policy should be included in the transport planning process and any policy seeking to restrict the number of licenses issues should be justified publicly and republished every 3 years.
7.4 The OFT recommends that (pending a change in the law) those authorities that have a limitation policy remove them, and by inference those that do not have such a policy do not implement one. As the OFT has determined that it is to the detriment of the public to limit taxi numbers and that a numeric limit disadvantages those that wish to enter the trade, additional avenues of legal recourse for those refused licences may have opened.
7.5 In setting a limit, a decision would need to be taken about the number at which that should be set. The recently undertaken survey does not reach a view about what that should be. The determination of policy in this respect is currently vested with the Licensing Board who would have to give detailed consideration to the current report, together with any additional information it felt it needed to make an informed and lawful decision, including specialist legal advice on the interpretation and application of reports about whether or not there was any significant unmet demand for services.
7.6 Therefore, the legal implications of the various options for limitation can be summarised as follows:
o Maintaining the current policy of not operating a limit carries no significant risk of successful legal challenge, as this is the option recommended both by the consultants’ report and by the Department for Transport and Office of Fair Trading.
o Reintroducing a fixed limit on taxi numbers carries with it a risk of legal challenge by any applicant who had been refused a licence and of that challenge being upheld, on the grounds that the consultants’ report does not provide firm evidence on which to base the policy, and because it comes to a firm recommendation that a limit should not be introduced at this time. It also does not provide any recommendation as to the number at which the limit should be set – there would, therefore, be a risk with setting a limit at an arbitrary figure.
o Introducing a policy of managed growth in taxi numbers (see paragraph 14.2) carries a somewhat lower risk of legal challenge than the second option above. However, it would still be challengeable on the principle of limitation, as it remains the case that the consultants’ report contains a clear recommendation that a limit should not be
sheffph- Number of posts : 78
Registration date : 2007-10-28
Re: The report on survey infront of Council
by sheffph Thu 13 Dec 2007 - 4:34
introduced at this time. The risk of challenge is lower because a managed growth policy would mean that unless there was a sharp increase in demand for licences, most applicants would be granted a vehicle licence over time. Even were the limit to have been reached, an applicant would be able to reapply in the following year when the limit had been increased. It is also easier to provide a suggested value for the annual increase in taxi numbers, by referring to the estimated growth in demand for taxi services, than would be the case for an absolute limit.
8. Equality Impact Assessment
8.1 There are no negative equality implications arising from this report
8.2 If taken forward, there will be positive implications for disabled people of requiring Hackney carriages to subscribe to a private hire radio circuit, and of requiring drivers to undertake equalities training as part of their licence conditions
8.3 There would also be positive implications for women if the recommendation to extend the taxi marshal scheme were taken forward. Women were identified in the survey as feeling significantly less safe at taxi ranks and in taxis at night than men.
9. Environmental Implications
9.1 Taxis are recognised in the South Yorkshire Local Transport Plan as having a role to play in the public transport network. They are used to access other forms of public transport (particularly the national rail network), and are particularly used late at night when local public transport services are infrequent or not running. They therefore have an important part to play in encouraging people to use public transport rather than private cars, thereby reducing congestion and harmful emissions.
9.2 This report sets out recommendations for strengthening taxi provision in Sheffield and therefore has positive environmental implications.
10. Financial Implications
10.1 There would be no financial implications from a decision not to reintroduce a limit on taxi numbers.
10.2 Were a managed growth option to be reintroduced as outlined in paragraph 13.2, there would be no direct financial implications from so doing. However, if this decision were challenged in the courts, there could be significant associated legal costs.
10.3 A basic one-day customer services and equalities awareness-raising course for around 20 people could be delivered at a cost of approximately £1000. Given that all 1,794 drivers would require training, it is anticipated that a bulk discount of approximately 20% could be achieved with a provider, bringing the cost of each session to approximately £800.
Therefore, to train all 1,794 Hackney carriage and private hire drivers would cost:
90 sessions @ £800 each £72,000
However, this could be incurred over a number of years if a staggered approach were taken to introducing the training. If a quarter of the existing drivers per year (approx 450) were required to undertake training, the cost could be spread over 4 years:
2008/09: 22 sessions @ £800 each £17,600
2009/10: 22 sessions @ £800 each £17,600
2010/11: 23 sessions @ £800 each £18,400
2011/12: 23 sessions @ £800 each £18,400
Total: £72,000
Drivers applying for a licence for the first time would also be required to undertake the training. Assuming 75 new entrants per year, a further 4 sessions would be required, at an approximate cost of a further £3,200 per year.
These figures are provisional, and would be dependent on the results of a full procurement exercise. This would, however, be additional expenditure and is not currently funded.
10.4 There would be no financial implications to the Council of introducing a requirement for Hackney carriage drivers to subscribe to a radio circuit, as this would become a condition of holding a licence in the same way that passing annual mechanical checks or holding a taximeter currently is.
11. Community Safety Implications
11.1 This report contains an assessment of anti-social behaviour at taxi ranks and of safety in taxis. It recommends that more use be made of taxi marshals in order to reduce the incidence of disorder at taxi ranks. This would have a positive impact on community safety if implemented.
12. Human Rights Implications
12.1 There are no human rights implications arising from this report.
13. Property Implications
13.1 There are no property implications arising from this report.
14. Conclusions and Recommendations
14.1 Members are asked to note the findings of the independent study into taxi provision, and the fact that a number of other issues in relation to taxis (e.g. provision of ranks) are being dealt with through other mechanisms.
14.2 It is recommended that the following proposal is referred to Council for decision (see Section 5).
The findings of the study mean that it is not possible to recommend the introduction of a limit on taxi numbers, either based on the evidence presented in the report or on what is in the best interests of the city of Sheffield.
Recommended Option A – Maintain current policy of not imposing a limit on Hackney carriage numbers
The consultants’ report makes it clear that the Council should retain the current policy of operating a derestricted market for Hackney carriages. This is the logical option for the city to adopt, and is also supported by the latest Department for Transport guidance. For these reasons, this is the preferred option recommended for approval by Members.
In order to monitor the changes in demand and to ensure that the provision of taxis remains balanced, it is also recommended that a further study be carried out in 2 or 3 years time if this option is taken forward.
Option B – To introduce controlled growth in Hackney carriage numbers
However, there is recognition that there are anxieties about unrestricted growth in Hackney carriage numbers. Although the position outlined in Option A is the most logical one to adopt, if Members are concerned about unrestricted growth, it may be possible to introduce a policy to manage growth in Hackney numbers. It would be recommended, however, that this be done in such a way as to allow sufficient annual growth in numbers to cope with the continued expected rise in demand.
As explained in detail below, in order to meet the expected rise in demand for taxis, it would be prudent to allow for managed growth of up to between 70 and 100 additional Hackneys per year:
The consultants’ report analysed how demand for taxis has evolved over the past two decades. Using this trend allows the future demand for taxis to be estimated.
It is recommended that any control on growth in the number of taxis aims to keep the average delay experienced by customers at no more than the current delay of 0.42 minutes. To ensure that passenger delay does not increase, future taxi provision should attempt to ensure that the number of Hackneys on the road is able to meet any additional future demand.
Over the past two decades, passenger demand has increased by approximately 8000 journeys per week. Almost all of this rise in demand has been seen in the last five years. At the current rate, therefore, demand is growing at a rate of an additional 400 passenger journeys per week every year.
Although it is not certain that this high rate of growth will be sustained, the city centre economy (particularly the night time economy) is expected to continue growing over the next three years or so. For planning purposes, it seems prudent to assume that demand will continue to grow at roughly its current rate over the next two or three years.
The report indicates that since derestriction, the number of Hackney carriages in operation has risen roughly in line with demand (rising by around 300 in the period from 2003 to 2007 - that is, by around 75 Hackneys per year).
Therefore, if a policy of managed growth is to be introduced, it is recommended that this be set to allow up between 70 and 100 additional taxis to enter the market in any one year. This figure seems prudent, as 2006 and 2007 have seen 108 and 156 new licences issued respectively. These figures include licences for replacements for existing Hackneys, and the real growth in numbers will therefore have been somewhat below this. This indicates that allowing for between 70 and 100 additional Hackney licences per year would not result in increased delay for taxi users.
If Members were minded to control the growth in taxi numbers, it is recommended that licences be awarded on a “first come first served” basis, providing that applicants met all other criteria for being awarded a licence. If, in any one year, there were more eligible applicants than this system would permit, it is recommended that those unsuccessful applicants would be the first to be offered a licence in the following year.
One of the requirements of operating a system of limitation is that regular surveys are undertaken to ensure that there is no significant unmet demand. Therefore if Members did decide to manage the growth in numbers, it is recommended that a further study be undertaken in 2 or 3 years time.
As explained in paragraph 7.6 above, this option does constitute a policy of limitation, albeit with a somewhat reduced risk of legal challenge, as the likelihood of an applicant being refused a vehicle is less.
14.3 It is further recommended that the following proposals are referred to Licensing Board for consideration and further consultation:
• That customer service and equalities training is introduced for all Hackney carriage and private hire drivers, covering a wide range of issues, including equality issues such as race, disability and gender.
• That Licensing Board consider the possibility and lawfulness of Hackney carriages being required to subscribe to a radio circuit as part of their licence conditions. This would ensure that disabled people are more easily able to book an accessible taxi, and will ensure greater choice for all users. To ensure that there is minimal adverse effect on Hackney carriage drivers, it is recommended that
8. Equality Impact Assessment
8.1 There are no negative equality implications arising from this report
8.2 If taken forward, there will be positive implications for disabled people of requiring Hackney carriages to subscribe to a private hire radio circuit, and of requiring drivers to undertake equalities training as part of their licence conditions
8.3 There would also be positive implications for women if the recommendation to extend the taxi marshal scheme were taken forward. Women were identified in the survey as feeling significantly less safe at taxi ranks and in taxis at night than men.
9. Environmental Implications
9.1 Taxis are recognised in the South Yorkshire Local Transport Plan as having a role to play in the public transport network. They are used to access other forms of public transport (particularly the national rail network), and are particularly used late at night when local public transport services are infrequent or not running. They therefore have an important part to play in encouraging people to use public transport rather than private cars, thereby reducing congestion and harmful emissions.
9.2 This report sets out recommendations for strengthening taxi provision in Sheffield and therefore has positive environmental implications.
10. Financial Implications
10.1 There would be no financial implications from a decision not to reintroduce a limit on taxi numbers.
10.2 Were a managed growth option to be reintroduced as outlined in paragraph 13.2, there would be no direct financial implications from so doing. However, if this decision were challenged in the courts, there could be significant associated legal costs.
10.3 A basic one-day customer services and equalities awareness-raising course for around 20 people could be delivered at a cost of approximately £1000. Given that all 1,794 drivers would require training, it is anticipated that a bulk discount of approximately 20% could be achieved with a provider, bringing the cost of each session to approximately £800.
Therefore, to train all 1,794 Hackney carriage and private hire drivers would cost:
90 sessions @ £800 each £72,000
However, this could be incurred over a number of years if a staggered approach were taken to introducing the training. If a quarter of the existing drivers per year (approx 450) were required to undertake training, the cost could be spread over 4 years:
2008/09: 22 sessions @ £800 each £17,600
2009/10: 22 sessions @ £800 each £17,600
2010/11: 23 sessions @ £800 each £18,400
2011/12: 23 sessions @ £800 each £18,400
Total: £72,000
Drivers applying for a licence for the first time would also be required to undertake the training. Assuming 75 new entrants per year, a further 4 sessions would be required, at an approximate cost of a further £3,200 per year.
These figures are provisional, and would be dependent on the results of a full procurement exercise. This would, however, be additional expenditure and is not currently funded.
10.4 There would be no financial implications to the Council of introducing a requirement for Hackney carriage drivers to subscribe to a radio circuit, as this would become a condition of holding a licence in the same way that passing annual mechanical checks or holding a taximeter currently is.
11. Community Safety Implications
11.1 This report contains an assessment of anti-social behaviour at taxi ranks and of safety in taxis. It recommends that more use be made of taxi marshals in order to reduce the incidence of disorder at taxi ranks. This would have a positive impact on community safety if implemented.
12. Human Rights Implications
12.1 There are no human rights implications arising from this report.
13. Property Implications
13.1 There are no property implications arising from this report.
14. Conclusions and Recommendations
14.1 Members are asked to note the findings of the independent study into taxi provision, and the fact that a number of other issues in relation to taxis (e.g. provision of ranks) are being dealt with through other mechanisms.
14.2 It is recommended that the following proposal is referred to Council for decision (see Section 5).
The findings of the study mean that it is not possible to recommend the introduction of a limit on taxi numbers, either based on the evidence presented in the report or on what is in the best interests of the city of Sheffield.
Recommended Option A – Maintain current policy of not imposing a limit on Hackney carriage numbers
The consultants’ report makes it clear that the Council should retain the current policy of operating a derestricted market for Hackney carriages. This is the logical option for the city to adopt, and is also supported by the latest Department for Transport guidance. For these reasons, this is the preferred option recommended for approval by Members.
In order to monitor the changes in demand and to ensure that the provision of taxis remains balanced, it is also recommended that a further study be carried out in 2 or 3 years time if this option is taken forward.
Option B – To introduce controlled growth in Hackney carriage numbers
However, there is recognition that there are anxieties about unrestricted growth in Hackney carriage numbers. Although the position outlined in Option A is the most logical one to adopt, if Members are concerned about unrestricted growth, it may be possible to introduce a policy to manage growth in Hackney numbers. It would be recommended, however, that this be done in such a way as to allow sufficient annual growth in numbers to cope with the continued expected rise in demand.
As explained in detail below, in order to meet the expected rise in demand for taxis, it would be prudent to allow for managed growth of up to between 70 and 100 additional Hackneys per year:
The consultants’ report analysed how demand for taxis has evolved over the past two decades. Using this trend allows the future demand for taxis to be estimated.
It is recommended that any control on growth in the number of taxis aims to keep the average delay experienced by customers at no more than the current delay of 0.42 minutes. To ensure that passenger delay does not increase, future taxi provision should attempt to ensure that the number of Hackneys on the road is able to meet any additional future demand.
Over the past two decades, passenger demand has increased by approximately 8000 journeys per week. Almost all of this rise in demand has been seen in the last five years. At the current rate, therefore, demand is growing at a rate of an additional 400 passenger journeys per week every year.
Although it is not certain that this high rate of growth will be sustained, the city centre economy (particularly the night time economy) is expected to continue growing over the next three years or so. For planning purposes, it seems prudent to assume that demand will continue to grow at roughly its current rate over the next two or three years.
The report indicates that since derestriction, the number of Hackney carriages in operation has risen roughly in line with demand (rising by around 300 in the period from 2003 to 2007 - that is, by around 75 Hackneys per year).
Therefore, if a policy of managed growth is to be introduced, it is recommended that this be set to allow up between 70 and 100 additional taxis to enter the market in any one year. This figure seems prudent, as 2006 and 2007 have seen 108 and 156 new licences issued respectively. These figures include licences for replacements for existing Hackneys, and the real growth in numbers will therefore have been somewhat below this. This indicates that allowing for between 70 and 100 additional Hackney licences per year would not result in increased delay for taxi users.
If Members were minded to control the growth in taxi numbers, it is recommended that licences be awarded on a “first come first served” basis, providing that applicants met all other criteria for being awarded a licence. If, in any one year, there were more eligible applicants than this system would permit, it is recommended that those unsuccessful applicants would be the first to be offered a licence in the following year.
One of the requirements of operating a system of limitation is that regular surveys are undertaken to ensure that there is no significant unmet demand. Therefore if Members did decide to manage the growth in numbers, it is recommended that a further study be undertaken in 2 or 3 years time.
As explained in paragraph 7.6 above, this option does constitute a policy of limitation, albeit with a somewhat reduced risk of legal challenge, as the likelihood of an applicant being refused a vehicle is less.
14.3 It is further recommended that the following proposals are referred to Licensing Board for consideration and further consultation:
• That customer service and equalities training is introduced for all Hackney carriage and private hire drivers, covering a wide range of issues, including equality issues such as race, disability and gender.
• That Licensing Board consider the possibility and lawfulness of Hackney carriages being required to subscribe to a radio circuit as part of their licence conditions. This would ensure that disabled people are more easily able to book an accessible taxi, and will ensure greater choice for all users. To ensure that there is minimal adverse effect on Hackney carriage drivers, it is recommended that
sheffph- Number of posts : 78
Registration date : 2007-10-28
Re: The report on survey infront of Council
by sheffph Thu 13 Dec 2007 - 4:35
introduced at this time. The risk of challenge is lower because a managed growth policy would mean that unless there was a sharp increase in demand for licences, most applicants would be granted a vehicle licence over time. Even were the limit to have been reached, an applicant would be able to reapply in the following year when the limit had been increased. It is also easier to provide a suggested value for the annual increase in taxi numbers, by referring to the estimated growth in demand for taxi services, than would be the case for an absolute limit.
8. Equality Impact Assessment
8.1 There are no negative equality implications arising from this report
8.2 If taken forward, there will be positive implications for disabled people of requiring Hackney carriages to subscribe to a private hire radio circuit, and of requiring drivers to undertake equalities training as part of their licence conditions
8.3 There would also be positive implications for women if the recommendation to extend the taxi marshal scheme were taken forward. Women were identified in the survey as feeling significantly less safe at taxi ranks and in taxis at night than men.
9. Environmental Implications
9.1 Taxis are recognised in the South Yorkshire Local Transport Plan as having a role to play in the public transport network. They are used to access other forms of public transport (particularly the national rail network), and are particularly used late at night when local public transport services are infrequent or not running. They therefore have an important part to play in encouraging people to use public transport rather than private cars, thereby reducing congestion and harmful emissions.
9.2 This report sets out recommendations for strengthening taxi provision in Sheffield and therefore has positive environmental implications.
10. Financial Implications
10.1 There would be no financial implications from a decision not to reintroduce a limit on taxi numbers.
10.2 Were a managed growth option to be reintroduced as outlined in paragraph 13.2, there would be no direct financial implications from so doing. However, if this decision were challenged in the courts, there could be significant associated legal costs.
10.3 A basic one-day customer services and equalities awareness-raising course for around 20 people could be delivered at a cost of approximately £1000. Given that all 1,794 drivers would require training, it is anticipated that a bulk discount of approximately 20% could be achieved with a provider, bringing the cost of each session to approximately £800.
Therefore, to train all 1,794 Hackney carriage and private hire drivers would cost:
90 sessions @ £800 each £72,000
However, this could be incurred over a number of years if a staggered approach were taken to introducing the training. If a quarter of the existing drivers per year (approx 450) were required to undertake training, the cost could be spread over 4 years:
2008/09: 22 sessions @ £800 each £17,600
2009/10: 22 sessions @ £800 each £17,600
2010/11: 23 sessions @ £800 each £18,400
2011/12: 23 sessions @ £800 each £18,400
Total: £72,000
Drivers applying for a licence for the first time would also be required to undertake the training. Assuming 75 new entrants per year, a further 4 sessions would be required, at an approximate cost of a further £3,200 per year.
These figures are provisional, and would be dependent on the results of a full procurement exercise. This would, however, be additional expenditure and is not currently funded.
10.4 There would be no financial implications to the Council of introducing a requirement for Hackney carriage drivers to subscribe to a radio circuit, as this would become a condition of holding a licence in the same way that passing annual mechanical checks or holding a taximeter currently is.
11. Community Safety Implications
11.1 This report contains an assessment of anti-social behaviour at taxi ranks and of safety in taxis. It recommends that more use be made of taxi marshals in order to reduce the incidence of disorder at taxi ranks. This would have a positive impact on community safety if implemented.
12. Human Rights Implications
12.1 There are no human rights implications arising from this report.
13. Property Implications
13.1 There are no property implications arising from this report.
14. Conclusions and Recommendations
14.1 Members are asked to note the findings of the independent study into taxi provision, and the fact that a number of other issues in relation to taxis (e.g. provision of ranks) are being dealt with through other mechanisms.
14.2 It is recommended that the following proposal is referred to Council for decision (see Section 5).
The findings of the study mean that it is not possible to recommend the introduction of a limit on taxi numbers, either based on the evidence presented in the report or on what is in the best interests of the city of Sheffield.
Recommended Option A – Maintain current policy of not imposing a limit on Hackney carriage numbers
The consultants’ report makes it clear that the Council should retain the current policy of operating a derestricted market for Hackney carriages. This is the logical option for the city to adopt, and is also supported by the latest Department for Transport guidance. For these reasons, this is the preferred option recommended for approval by Members.
In order to monitor the changes in demand and to ensure that the provision of taxis remains balanced, it is also recommended that a further study be carried out in 2 or 3 years time if this option is taken forward.
Option B – To introduce controlled growth in Hackney carriage numbers
However, there is recognition that there are anxieties about unrestricted growth in Hackney carriage numbers. Although the position outlined in Option A is the most logical one to adopt, if Members are concerned about unrestricted growth, it may be possible to introduce a policy to manage growth in Hackney numbers. It would be recommended, however, that this be done in such a way as to allow sufficient annual growth in numbers to cope with the continued expected rise in demand.
As explained in detail below, in order to meet the expected rise in demand for taxis, it would be prudent to allow for managed growth of up to between 70 and 100 additional Hackneys per year:
The consultants’ report analysed how demand for taxis has evolved over the past two decades. Using this trend allows the future demand for taxis to be estimated.
It is recommended that any control on growth in the number of taxis aims to keep the average delay experienced by customers at no more than the current delay of 0.42 minutes. To ensure that passenger delay does not increase, future taxi provision should attempt to ensure that the number of Hackneys on the road is able to meet any additional future demand.
Over the past two decades, passenger demand has increased by approximately 8000 journeys per week. Almost all of this rise in demand has been seen in the last five years. At the current rate, therefore, demand is growing at a rate of an additional 400 passenger journeys per week every year.
Although it is not certain that this high rate of growth will be sustained, the city centre economy (particularly the night time economy) is expected to continue growing over the next three years or so. For planning purposes, it seems prudent to assume that demand will continue to grow at roughly its current rate over the next two or three years.
The report indicates that since derestriction, the number of Hackney carriages in operation has risen roughly in line with demand (rising by around 300 in the period from 2003 to 2007 - that is, by around 75 Hackneys per year).
Therefore, if a policy of managed growth is to be introduced, it is recommended that this be set to allow up between 70 and 100 additional taxis to enter the market in any one year. This figure seems prudent, as 2006 and 2007 have seen 108 and 156 new licences issued respectively. These figures include licences for replacements for existing Hackneys, and the real growth in numbers will therefore have been somewhat below this. This indicates that allowing for between 70 and 100 additional Hackney licences per year would not result in increased delay for taxi users.
If Members were minded to control the growth in taxi numbers, it is recommended that licences be awarded on a “first come first served” basis, providing that applicants met all other criteria for being awarded a licence. If, in any one year, there were more eligible applicants than this system would permit, it is recommended that those unsuccessful applicants would be the first to be offered a licence in the following year.
One of the requirements of operating a system of limitation is that regular surveys are undertaken to ensure that there is no significant unmet demand. Therefore if Members did decide to manage the growth in numbers, it is recommended that a further study be undertaken in 2 or 3 years time.
As explained in paragraph 7.6 above, this option does constitute a policy of limitation, albeit with a somewhat reduced risk of legal challenge, as the likelihood of an applicant being refused a vehicle is less.
14.3 It is further recommended that the following proposals are referred to Licensing Board for consideration and further consultation:
• That customer service and equalities training is introduced for all Hackney carriage and private hire drivers, covering a wide range of issues, including equality issues such as race, disability and gender.
• That Licensing Board consider the possibility and lawfulness of Hackney carriages being required to subscribe to a radio circuit as part of their licence conditions. This would ensure that disabled people are more easily able to book an accessible taxi, and will ensure greater choice for all users. To ensure that there is minimal adverse effect on Hackney carriage drivers, it is recommended that
8. Equality Impact Assessment
8.1 There are no negative equality implications arising from this report
8.2 If taken forward, there will be positive implications for disabled people of requiring Hackney carriages to subscribe to a private hire radio circuit, and of requiring drivers to undertake equalities training as part of their licence conditions
8.3 There would also be positive implications for women if the recommendation to extend the taxi marshal scheme were taken forward. Women were identified in the survey as feeling significantly less safe at taxi ranks and in taxis at night than men.
9. Environmental Implications
9.1 Taxis are recognised in the South Yorkshire Local Transport Plan as having a role to play in the public transport network. They are used to access other forms of public transport (particularly the national rail network), and are particularly used late at night when local public transport services are infrequent or not running. They therefore have an important part to play in encouraging people to use public transport rather than private cars, thereby reducing congestion and harmful emissions.
9.2 This report sets out recommendations for strengthening taxi provision in Sheffield and therefore has positive environmental implications.
10. Financial Implications
10.1 There would be no financial implications from a decision not to reintroduce a limit on taxi numbers.
10.2 Were a managed growth option to be reintroduced as outlined in paragraph 13.2, there would be no direct financial implications from so doing. However, if this decision were challenged in the courts, there could be significant associated legal costs.
10.3 A basic one-day customer services and equalities awareness-raising course for around 20 people could be delivered at a cost of approximately £1000. Given that all 1,794 drivers would require training, it is anticipated that a bulk discount of approximately 20% could be achieved with a provider, bringing the cost of each session to approximately £800.
Therefore, to train all 1,794 Hackney carriage and private hire drivers would cost:
90 sessions @ £800 each £72,000
However, this could be incurred over a number of years if a staggered approach were taken to introducing the training. If a quarter of the existing drivers per year (approx 450) were required to undertake training, the cost could be spread over 4 years:
2008/09: 22 sessions @ £800 each £17,600
2009/10: 22 sessions @ £800 each £17,600
2010/11: 23 sessions @ £800 each £18,400
2011/12: 23 sessions @ £800 each £18,400
Total: £72,000
Drivers applying for a licence for the first time would also be required to undertake the training. Assuming 75 new entrants per year, a further 4 sessions would be required, at an approximate cost of a further £3,200 per year.
These figures are provisional, and would be dependent on the results of a full procurement exercise. This would, however, be additional expenditure and is not currently funded.
10.4 There would be no financial implications to the Council of introducing a requirement for Hackney carriage drivers to subscribe to a radio circuit, as this would become a condition of holding a licence in the same way that passing annual mechanical checks or holding a taximeter currently is.
11. Community Safety Implications
11.1 This report contains an assessment of anti-social behaviour at taxi ranks and of safety in taxis. It recommends that more use be made of taxi marshals in order to reduce the incidence of disorder at taxi ranks. This would have a positive impact on community safety if implemented.
12. Human Rights Implications
12.1 There are no human rights implications arising from this report.
13. Property Implications
13.1 There are no property implications arising from this report.
14. Conclusions and Recommendations
14.1 Members are asked to note the findings of the independent study into taxi provision, and the fact that a number of other issues in relation to taxis (e.g. provision of ranks) are being dealt with through other mechanisms.
14.2 It is recommended that the following proposal is referred to Council for decision (see Section 5).
The findings of the study mean that it is not possible to recommend the introduction of a limit on taxi numbers, either based on the evidence presented in the report or on what is in the best interests of the city of Sheffield.
Recommended Option A – Maintain current policy of not imposing a limit on Hackney carriage numbers
The consultants’ report makes it clear that the Council should retain the current policy of operating a derestricted market for Hackney carriages. This is the logical option for the city to adopt, and is also supported by the latest Department for Transport guidance. For these reasons, this is the preferred option recommended for approval by Members.
In order to monitor the changes in demand and to ensure that the provision of taxis remains balanced, it is also recommended that a further study be carried out in 2 or 3 years time if this option is taken forward.
Option B – To introduce controlled growth in Hackney carriage numbers
However, there is recognition that there are anxieties about unrestricted growth in Hackney carriage numbers. Although the position outlined in Option A is the most logical one to adopt, if Members are concerned about unrestricted growth, it may be possible to introduce a policy to manage growth in Hackney numbers. It would be recommended, however, that this be done in such a way as to allow sufficient annual growth in numbers to cope with the continued expected rise in demand.
As explained in detail below, in order to meet the expected rise in demand for taxis, it would be prudent to allow for managed growth of up to between 70 and 100 additional Hackneys per year:
The consultants’ report analysed how demand for taxis has evolved over the past two decades. Using this trend allows the future demand for taxis to be estimated.
It is recommended that any control on growth in the number of taxis aims to keep the average delay experienced by customers at no more than the current delay of 0.42 minutes. To ensure that passenger delay does not increase, future taxi provision should attempt to ensure that the number of Hackneys on the road is able to meet any additional future demand.
Over the past two decades, passenger demand has increased by approximately 8000 journeys per week. Almost all of this rise in demand has been seen in the last five years. At the current rate, therefore, demand is growing at a rate of an additional 400 passenger journeys per week every year.
Although it is not certain that this high rate of growth will be sustained, the city centre economy (particularly the night time economy) is expected to continue growing over the next three years or so. For planning purposes, it seems prudent to assume that demand will continue to grow at roughly its current rate over the next two or three years.
The report indicates that since derestriction, the number of Hackney carriages in operation has risen roughly in line with demand (rising by around 300 in the period from 2003 to 2007 - that is, by around 75 Hackneys per year).
Therefore, if a policy of managed growth is to be introduced, it is recommended that this be set to allow up between 70 and 100 additional taxis to enter the market in any one year. This figure seems prudent, as 2006 and 2007 have seen 108 and 156 new licences issued respectively. These figures include licences for replacements for existing Hackneys, and the real growth in numbers will therefore have been somewhat below this. This indicates that allowing for between 70 and 100 additional Hackney licences per year would not result in increased delay for taxi users.
If Members were minded to control the growth in taxi numbers, it is recommended that licences be awarded on a “first come first served” basis, providing that applicants met all other criteria for being awarded a licence. If, in any one year, there were more eligible applicants than this system would permit, it is recommended that those unsuccessful applicants would be the first to be offered a licence in the following year.
One of the requirements of operating a system of limitation is that regular surveys are undertaken to ensure that there is no significant unmet demand. Therefore if Members did decide to manage the growth in numbers, it is recommended that a further study be undertaken in 2 or 3 years time.
As explained in paragraph 7.6 above, this option does constitute a policy of limitation, albeit with a somewhat reduced risk of legal challenge, as the likelihood of an applicant being refused a vehicle is less.
14.3 It is further recommended that the following proposals are referred to Licensing Board for consideration and further consultation:
• That customer service and equalities training is introduced for all Hackney carriage and private hire drivers, covering a wide range of issues, including equality issues such as race, disability and gender.
• That Licensing Board consider the possibility and lawfulness of Hackney carriages being required to subscribe to a radio circuit as part of their licence conditions. This would ensure that disabled people are more easily able to book an accessible taxi, and will ensure greater choice for all users. To ensure that there is minimal adverse effect on Hackney carriage drivers, it is recommended that
sheffph- Number of posts : 78
Registration date : 2007-10-28
Similar topics» Taxi Survey
» The report on testing
» DEMAND SURVEY (HACKNEY CARRIAGE LIMITATION)
» TAXI & PRIVATE HIRE SERVICE SURVEY
» Report on Advertising 10 Feb' Meeting
» The report on testing
» DEMAND SURVEY (HACKNEY CARRIAGE LIMITATION)
» TAXI & PRIVATE HIRE SERVICE SURVEY
» Report on Advertising 10 Feb' Meeting
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum