On 2014\06\19 14:55, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:27:27 on
Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Basil Jet remarked:
NRES says: "Details of nearest taxis are shown on station information
poster".

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...Q!2e0!4m2 !3m

1!1s0x47d87b7c5681cfff:0xe4a7bc96e2ddce18?hl=en

Is that a taxi-rank? Looks more like general car parking.

It is probably not a rank, as there is no signage indicating that it is
a rank. It is probably a taxi ranking where there is no rank.

In article ,
(Basil Jet) wrote:

On 2014\06\19 11:48, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
Basil Jet wrote:



https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...6603,3a,75y,26
9.25h,65.83t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sPztYSZKWVcGa4LdVEtCQDQ!2e0!4m2 !3m1!1s0x47d87
b7c5681cfff:0xe4a7bc96e2ddce18?hl=en

Quite. And we don't know if the driver was using that as a private
car at the time. I could just about believe that, if a taxi driver
were in the vicinity during rush hour, he might drop by to see if
anyone wanted one, but Whittlesford is near-deserted at other times.
Almost all regular users are commuters, who almost never use taxis
(in the sense of looking out for one plying for hire).

Although if there were no taxis licensed for South Cambs when the
picture was taken, he must have been licensed for a different area
and shouldn't have been plying for hire there, if he was plying for hire.

South Cambs DC has had a small number of hackney carriages licensed for
quite some time. That looks like one of theirs to me. It's certainly not a
city one.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Basil Jet) wrote:

On 2014\06\19 14:55, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:27:27 on
Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Basil Jet remarked:
NRES says: "Details of nearest taxis are shown on station information
poster".


https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...6603,3a,75y,26
9.25h,65.83t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sPztYSZKWVcGa4LdVEtCQDQ!2e0!4m2 !3m1!1s0x47d87
b7c5681cfff:0xe4a7bc96e2ddce18?hl=en

Is that a taxi-rank? Looks more like general car parking.

It is probably not a rank, as there is no signage indicating that it
is a rank. It is probably a taxi ranking where there is no rank.

The signing of ranks of railway land always seems to be pretty limited to
me. As I said, it's definitely not a City Hackney. Wrong roof sign.

It's not plying for hire in the photo. No driver!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Phil W Lee) wrote:

considered Mon, 16 Jun 2014 09:55:25
-0500 the perfect time to write:

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.

The Highway Authority can create a public highway across land it
doesn't own.

True. Most minor highways are not on land owned by the highway authority but
the owners have no effective rights because of the highway status. If the
highway is stopped up the ownership rights revert.

I know a highway authority /can/ a highway but the highway authority
concerned /won't/ do so. Now what?

The fact that the land under most roads has actually been purchased by
the Highway Authority is largely for simplicity, as it allows
installation of other services under the roadway.
But it is very rarely the case for public footpaths or bridleways,
which are almost all owned by private landowners.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 00:51:08 on
Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Phil W Lee remarked:
Surely if there was no demand for hackney carriages in South Cambs
previously, and this new science park creates such a demand, one thing
to do would be to allow a small number of South Cambs private hires to
become South Cambs hackney carriages.

Tht would be very disappointing for any fare who expected that a
Hackney Carriage hired at the station could necessarily find their way
to anywhere in Cambridge (or anywhere else, given that SCDC don't have
a knowledge test at all).

All the more reason to make it possible for Cambridge Hackneys to
operate from there. Although city residents by and large seem happy to
use South Cambs private hire vehicles to get around on a day to day
basis.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 01:02:12 on
Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Phil W Lee remarked:
London cabs' operational area is not limited by the outer boundary of
"Greater London".

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

happened in 2000

How do you explain the existence of the City of London Police then?

That's an inner 'boundary' not an outer one.

Being completely surrounded by the Met area, that would seem to put
them into an identical situation to Cambridge City being entirely
within South Cambridgeshire.

Only if South Cambs hackeys were allowed to ply for hire in Cambridge.
--
Roland Perry

On 18/06/2014 21:50, tim..... wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 18/06/2014 15:02, Roland Perry wrote:

Jun 2014, JNugent remarked:


A minicab. (aka private hire).

A cab is a cab.

I'm sorry, it's not

You need to read the case-law (especially within London) before being so
bullish.

You're the one nitpicking trivial technical detail and the term "cab"
has no legal meaning.

That's not correct.

On 19/06/2014 13:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:30:14 on
Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Basil Jet remarked:
Whatever. There is essentially no plying for hire in South
Cambridgeshire, and won't be any in the forseeable future, despite
what some non-residents may think. The solution to the northern
station remains a simple agreement by which the two councils
agree that a taxi licensed by either are licensed by the other
for that location. No boundary changes needed, and well within
the scope of "acting reasonably and fairly".

I believe this would also require that taxis in both areas have meters
which run at the same rate, which would require the two councils to
bind their rates together indefinitely, and hold joint meetings to set
the rate.

To avoid that, would it be OK if the Cambridge Hackneys didn't start
their meters until 200yds from the station and safely within the City?

Not if the hiring was made outside the city boundary.

In any event, 99.9% of customers would expect to be paying City rates
for a cab from that station, given its particular access arrangements.