On 17/06/2014 08:26, 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.

Whilst I appreciate threads have a habit of drifting, how is this
seriously now related to uk.transport.london ?

An answer of "this thread is about Uber minicabs in London, hence all
and any discussion of minicabs/taxis/hackney carriages is on topic" will
probably not go down well as it's as relevant as there are pedants in
Cambridage as well as in London hence any discussion of pedantry is on
topic.

In message , at 08:45:56 on Tue, 17
Jun 2014, Rupert Moss-Eccardt remarked:
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?

They do it all the time. Every speed limit change or new yellow line for
example. Ely recently changed the law applying to the Broad Street car
park (such that it's now half and half long/short stay). They also
changed the law to allow cycling along quay/riverside footpath, which I
don't agree with but they did it anyway.

Any law? What criteria would you apply for choosing which ones are
changeable?

They clearly have the power to change traffic laws, and have lots of
discretion for taxi licensing (who they allow to become drivers, what
the tests are for vehicle and drivers, who they'll permit to be
"authorised" to use the rising bollards etc). This would simply be a
small change in the conditions for a City hackney licence that would say
"only hailable in the City *but also at the taxi rank at Science Park
Station*")
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 00:04:18 on Tue, 17 Jun
2014, JNugent remarked:
Because I'm not talking about the status of the land, it could be owned
by Father Xmas for all I care. What matters is whether it's "inside
South Cambs" or "inside the City" for hackney-hailing purposes.

All that's needed is a derogation which says that for taxi-hailing
purposes it's deemed to be in both.

Is that legally possible? Can one spot

It only needs to be a small spot. Just the taxi rank would do.

be in two districts simultaneously?

It doesn't have to *be* in two districts at once. Just DEEMED to be FOR
THE PURPOSES OF HACKNEY HAILING ONLY.

Would occupants be liable to pay council tax to both district
councils? And maybe a double-dose to the county?

Of course not, it's only in South Cambs.

Are you really proposing that local authorities should have the power to
change the law as they see fit?

Any law? What criteria would you apply for choosing which ones are
changeable?

No, he isn't. This sort of thing is done all the time. Perhaps a
better way of putting it would be that South Cambridgeshire would
grant an implicit licence to all Cambridge taxis for that location
alone, and Cambridge would grant a 'wayleave' for South
Cambridgeshire taxis doing the same (if needed). The councils
ALREADY have the powers to issue licences, and there is nothing
forbidding reasonable collaborations between councils.

As I said, God alone knows what The Supremes would make of it,
but who on earth would challenge it? Inter alia, English law has
the concept of "locus standi", and anyone doing so would have to
demonstrate sufficient interest in the result to get the courts
to accept a challenge. Yes, the landowner, Highways Authority
and Whitehall all could, so it would be necessary to get at least
a letter of acceptance from the first two. And, in the current
political climate, any attempt by Whitehall to block collaboration
could easily be opposed (politically).

See, for example: http://www.1cor.com/1158/?form_1155.replyids=145


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message , at 09:10:31 on Tue, 17
Jun 2014, Nick Maclaren remarked:
Perhaps a better way of putting it would be that South Cambridgeshire
would grant an implicit licence to all Cambridge taxis for that
location alone, and Cambridge would grant a 'wayleave' for South
Cambridgeshire taxis doing the same (if needed).

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

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

In message , at 09:03:42 on Tue, 17 Jun
2014, Someone Somewhere remarked:
Whilst I appreciate threads have a habit of drifting, how is this
seriously now related to uk.transport.london ?

The same principle may apply to several railway stations on the edge of
London.

For example I happen to know the Herts boundary is very close to
Chorleywood station. So there's a wider issue here about hailability of
hackneys in the vicinity of railway stations very close to licencing
boundaries.
--
Roland Perry

On 17/06/2014 09:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:03:42 on Tue, 17 Jun
2014, Someone Somewhere remarked:
Whilst I appreciate threads have a habit of drifting, how is this
seriously now related to uk.transport.london ?

The same principle may apply to several railway stations on the edge of
London.

For example I happen to know the Herts boundary is very close to
Chorleywood station. So there's a wider issue here about hailability of
hackneys in the vicinity of railway stations very close to licencing
boundaries.

And Chorleywood is, as per the charter for U.T.L., in the "London area",
or at least as Wikipedia says "It is part of the London commuter belt,
and included in the government-defined Greater London Urban Area.".

However, the discussion seems to be entirely about pedantic points
regarding Cambridge, and South Cambridgeshire taxi/minicab/hackney
carriage licensing - something that does not relate to the "London area"
at all.

If some of the posts were making entirely general points about licensing
which may be applicable then fine, but I can't see a single post which
does not contain phraseology specific to Cambridge.

I don't have anything against Cambridge, lovely city, just don't give a
toss about its taxis (or whatever the correct term is).

Going back to Uber - I love how people make up things about a service
when actually what they mean is they don't like change.

It's no worse than any minicab company - you just book via the Uber app
on your phone rather than with the phone app on your phone. I assume
they are, as they say, fully licensed as a minicab firm with the PCSO
and all drivers/vehicles are appropriately checked (again, as per a
minicab firm).

If the Uber app were to be banned, then presumably you would have to
(illegally) remove all odometers (oooh - is that a meter? or even an
metre?) from minicabs, along with confiscating drivers watches, and
certainly no calculators or pen and paper could be allowed in case he
tried to calculate a fare based off time and distance...

In message , at 10:22:57 on Tue, 17 Jun
2014, Someone Somewhere remarked:
Chorleywood is, as per the charter for U.T.L., in the "London area", or
at least as Wikipedia says "It is part of the London commuter belt, and
included in the government-defined Greater London Urban Area.".

Which includes the area covered by TfL's tube lines.

However, the discussion seems to be entirely about pedantic points
regarding Cambridge, and South Cambridgeshire taxi/minicab/hackney
carriage licensing - something that does not relate to the "London
area" at all.

If some of the posts were making entirely general points about
licensing which may be applicable then fine, but I can't see a single
post which does not contain phraseology specific to Cambridge.

All the points being made are entirely general, and could just as easily
relate to a hackney from Three Rivers (which covers Chorleywood and
station) being hailed a hundreds yards west of the station, which is in
Chiltern District.
--
Roland Perry

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.

On 2014\06\17 09:23, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:10:31 on Tue, 17
Jun 2014, Nick Maclaren remarked:
Perhaps a better way of putting it would be that South Cambridgeshire
would grant an implicit licence to all Cambridge taxis for that
location alone, and Cambridge would grant a 'wayleave' for South
Cambridgeshire taxis doing the same (if needed).

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

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

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

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 08:45:56 on Tue, 17
Jun 2014, Rupert Moss-Eccardt remarked:
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?

They do it all the time. Every speed limit change or new yellow line
for example. Ely recently changed the law applying to the Broad
Street car park (such that it's now half and half long/short stay).
They also changed the law to allow cycling along quay/riverside
footpath, which I don't agree with but they did it anyway.

They only make regulations in accordance with powers granted to them by
Parliament. No powers, no regulations. What powers to deem somewhere not in
their area to be in their area for any purpose can you describe?

Any law? What criteria would you apply for choosing which ones are
changeable?

They clearly have the power to change traffic laws, and have lots of
discretion for taxi licensing (who they allow to become drivers, what
the tests are for vehicle and drivers, who they'll permit to be
"authorised" to use the rising bollards etc). This would simply be a
small change in the conditions for a City hackney licence that would
say "only hailable in the City *but also at the taxi rank at Science
Park Station*")

--
Colin Rosenstiel