|
What's it(!) with Uber?
|
What's it(!) with Uber?
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 09:55:25 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014, remarked: Plying for hire requires a licence from the local authority in the area to be plied in. This is going to be a huge problem with the new Science Park station whose forecourt will be in South Cambs that has next to no licensed hackneys. My plan, for a joint licensing authority covering both councils was making no progress when other events intervened. Is there any possibility of a byelaw declaring the station to be in 'joint' territory? It might help swing that if, as I suspect, it's landlocked by the City (via Milton Rd). No. I tried to get the new square that will be part of the station development made public highway but got no support. The developers and Notwork Rail wouldn't budge. It shouldn't matter who owns it, just a waiver on the District Boundary condition for that site. If a developer won't dedicate land as public highway and the highway authority won't use compulsory powers to override them, what can be done? I'm surprised you don't t realise that, Roland. Because I'm not talking about the status of the land, it could be owned by Father Xmas for all I care. What matters is whether it's "inside South Cambs" or "inside the City" for hackney-hailing purposes. All that's needed is a derogation which says that for taxi-hailing purposes it's deemed to be in both. Under some law you've just made up? It's not feasible. The last attempt to rationalise the City/South Cambs failed for no good reason. Sorry I misread your earlier message because it was so fanciful. While boundaries are not as hard to change as those of US states it appears almost impossible to change the city boundary set 80 years ago this year. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
What's it(!) with Uber?
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:55:25 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014, remarked: Plying for hire requires a licence from the local authority in the area to be plied in. This is going to be a huge problem with the new Science Park station whose forecourt will be in South Cambs that has next to no licensed hackneys. My plan, for a joint licensing authority covering both councils was making no progress when other events intervened. Is there any possibility of a byelaw declaring the station to be in 'joint' territory? It might help swing that if, as I suspect, it's landlocked by the City (via Milton Rd). No. I tried to get the new square that will be part of the station development made public highway but got no support. The developers and Notwork Rail wouldn't budge. It shouldn't matter who owns it, just a waiver on the District Boundary condition for that site. If a developer won't dedicate land as public highway and the highway authority won't use compulsory powers to override them, what can be done? I'm surprised you don't t realise that, Roland. Because I'm not talking about the status of the land, it could be owned by Father Xmas for all I care. What matters is whether it's "inside South Cambs" or "inside the City" for hackney-hailing purposes. All that's needed is a derogation which says that for taxi-hailing purposes it's deemed to be in both. Indeed. Whether or not such a decision would be upheld if it were challenged up to The Supremes, I can't see anyone bothering to challenge it at all, if it were agreed by the two councils and the landowner. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
What's it(!) with Uber?
|
What's it(!) with Uber?
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 12:08:02 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014, remarked: All that's needed is a derogation which says that for taxi-hailing purposes it's deemed to be in both. Under some law you've just made up? It's not feasible. A new bylaw. Two, actually - one by each council - and some sort of written agreement from the landowner and County would be useful. But, as you imply, nothing extraordinary. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
What's it(!) with Uber?
On 16/06/2014 17:18, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:55:25 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014, remarked: Plying for hire requires a licence from the local authority in the area to be plied in. This is going to be a huge problem with the new Science Park station whose forecourt will be in South Cambs that has next to no licensed hackneys. My plan, for a joint licensing authority covering both councils was making no progress when other events intervened. Is there any possibility of a byelaw declaring the station to be in 'joint' territory? It might help swing that if, as I suspect, it's landlocked by the City (via Milton Rd). No. I tried to get the new square that will be part of the station development made public highway but got no support. The developers and Notwork Rail wouldn't budge. It shouldn't matter who owns it, just a waiver on the District Boundary condition for that site. If a developer won't dedicate land as public highway and the highway authority won't use compulsory powers to override them, what can be done? I'm surprised you don't t realise that, Roland. Because I'm not talking about the status of the land, it could be owned by Father Xmas for all I care. What matters is whether it's "inside South Cambs" or "inside the City" for hackney-hailing purposes. All that's needed is a derogation which says that for taxi-hailing purposes it's deemed to be in both. Is that legally possible? Can one spot be in two districts simultaneously? Would occupants be liable to pay council tax to both district councils? And maybe a double-dose to the county? |
What's it(!) with Uber?
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote: On 16/06/2014 17:18, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:55:25 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014, remarked: Plying for hire requires a licence from the local authority in the area to be plied in. This is going to be a huge problem with the new Science Park station whose forecourt will be in South Cambs that has next to no licensed hackneys. My plan, for a joint licensing authority covering both councils was making no progress when other events intervened. Is there any possibility of a byelaw declaring the station to be in 'joint' territory? It might help swing that if, as I suspect, it's landlocked by the City (via Milton Rd). It shouldn't matter who owns it, just a waiver on the District Boundary condition for that site. Because I'm not talking about the status of the land, it could be owned by Father Xmas for all I care. What matters is whether it's "inside South Cambs" or "inside the City" for hackney-hailing purposes. All that's needed is a derogation which says that for taxi-hailing purposes it's deemed to be in both. Is that legally possible? Of course not, except by getting a local Act. Outside London they are rarely achievable and expensive. Can one spot be in two districts simultaneously? Would occupants be liable to pay council tax to both district councils? And maybe a double-dose to the county? Not that either. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
What's it(!) with Uber?
In message , at 00:04:18 on Tue, 17 Jun
2014, JNugent remarked: Because I'm not talking about the status of the land, it could be owned by Father Xmas for all I care. What matters is whether it's "inside South Cambs" or "inside the City" for hackney-hailing purposes. All that's needed is a derogation which says that for taxi-hailing purposes it's deemed to be in both. Is that legally possible? Can one spot It only needs to be a small spot. Just the taxi rank would do. be in two districts simultaneously? It doesn't have to *be* in two districts at once. Just DEEMED to be FOR THE PURPOSES OF HACKNEY HAILING ONLY. Would occupants be liable to pay council tax to both district councils? And maybe a double-dose to the county? Of course not, it's only in South Cambs. -- Roland Perry |
What's it(!) with Uber?
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 00:04:18 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014, JNugent remarked: Because I'm not talking about the status of the land, it could be owned by Father Xmas for all I care. What matters is whether it's "inside South Cambs" or "inside the City" for hackney-hailing purposes. All that's needed is a derogation which says that for taxi-hailing purposes it's deemed to be in both. Is that legally possible? Can one spot It only needs to be a small spot. Just the taxi rank would do. be in two districts simultaneously? It doesn't have to *be* in two districts at once. Just DEEMED to be FOR THE PURPOSES OF HACKNEY HAILING ONLY. Would occupants be liable to pay council tax to both district councils? And maybe a double-dose to the county? Of course not, it's only in South Cambs. Roland, Are you really proposing that local authorities should have the power to change the law as they see fit? Any law? What criteria would you apply for choosing which ones are changeable? |
What's it(!) with Uber?
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. |
What's it(!) with Uber?
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 |
What's it(!) with Uber?
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. |
What's it(!) with Uber?
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 |
What's it(!) with Uber?
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 |
What's it(!) with Uber?
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... |
What's it(!) with Uber?
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 |
What's it(!) with Uber?
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. |
What's it(!) with Uber?
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. |
What's it(!) with Uber?
|
What's it(!) with Uber?
On 2014\06\17 11:31, Basil Jet wrote:
Borough boundaries can be moved. The boundary of Enfield was moved to match the M25 in the 1990s. That didn't affect many residences, but the College Park area (Ponsard Road / Waldo Road etc) was transferred from Brent to Hammersmith in the 2000s, transferring a significant number of houses for no good reason that I can see. |
What's it(!) with Uber?
|
What's it(!) with Uber?
|
What's it(!) with Uber?
|
What's it(!) with Uber?
In message , at 11:31:48 on
Tue, 17 Jun 2014, Basil Jet remarked: 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. Not just boroughs, but whole counties. Back in the day the boundary between Hertfordshire and Cambridgshire went down the main street in Royston. It was later moved to co-incide with the northern bypass. ObRail/Hackney: Which means the railway station moved from Cambs to Herts, and would affect which licensees were able to ply for hire there. -- Roland Perry |
What's it(!) with Uber?
In message , at 11:22:34 on
Tue, 17 Jun 2014, Basil Jet 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. I think you mean "incentivise". They are already "allowed" - assuming they meet the criteria and I have no reason to think they wouldn't. As it happens one of the major minicab firms "of" South Cambs which is very much in evidence in the City is located not very far from the new station. -- Roland Perry |
What's it(!) with Uber?
|
What's it(!) with Uber?
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 06:06:02 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014, remarked: Borough boundaries can be moved. The boundary of Enfield was moved to match the M25 in the 1990s. It seems to be easier in London. Cambridge has been stuck since 1934. A lot of building across the boundary has taken place since then. Including of course SJIC, which is literally built "across" the border. The reception is in the City and the canteen is in South Cambs. How do they apportion the business rates? Not a problem. It's been done for years. Only a small part of SJIC is outside the city, by the way. Unless they have extended it rather since we were there. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
What's it(!) with Uber?
|
What's it(!) with Uber?
|
What's it(!) with Uber?
|
What's it(!) with Uber?
"Basil Jet" wrote in message ... 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. As Colin has already indicated there was a proposal to move the city boundary, specifically, in this case, to include all of the land south of the A14. He further indicated that this proposal failed to gain support (from someone or other) tim |
What's it(!) with Uber?
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 11:31:48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014, Basil Jet remarked: 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. Not just boroughs, but whole counties. Back in the day the boundary between Hertfordshire and Cambridgshire went down the main street in Royston. It was later moved to co-incide with the northern bypass. and wholes boroughs between counties. e.g. Bournemouth tim |
What's it(!) with Uber?
On 2014\06\17 14:49, tim..... wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... [1] Another anomaly I'm aware of is East Midlands Airport, which despite being sometimes described as "Nottingham East Midlands" and with Derby as the closest conurbation, is actually in Leicestershire. Oh no it's not Rushcliffe District, Nottinghamshire The station is in Notts, the airport is in Leics. |
What's it(!) with Uber?
"Basil Jet" wrote in message ... On 2014\06\17 14:49, tim..... wrote: "Roland Perry" wrote in message ... [1] Another anomaly I'm aware of is East Midlands Airport, which despite being sometimes described as "Nottingham East Midlands" and with Derby as the closest conurbation, is actually in Leicestershire. Oh I see. Roland's always going on about the station so I assumed that what he was talking about here :-( tim Oh no it's not Rushcliffe District, Nottinghamshire The station is in Notts, the airport is in Leics. |
What's it(!) with Uber?
On 2014\06\17 14:55, tim..... wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 11:31:48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014, Basil Jet remarked: 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. Not just boroughs, but whole counties. Back in the day the boundary between Hertfordshire and Cambridgshire went down the main street in Royston. It was later moved to co-incide with the northern bypass. and wholes boroughs between counties. e.g. Bournemouth Bournemouth is a unitary authority so is not covered by Dorset County Council anyway, unlike Christchurch which also switched from Hants. |
What's it(!) with Uber?
"Basil Jet" wrote in message ... On 2014\06\17 14:55, tim..... wrote: "Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 11:31:48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014, Basil Jet remarked: 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. Not just boroughs, but whole counties. Back in the day the boundary between Hertfordshire and Cambridgshire went down the main street in Royston. It was later moved to co-incide with the northern bypass. and wholes boroughs between counties. e.g. Bournemouth Bournemouth is a unitary authority so is not covered by Dorset County Council anyway, It is now. but it wasn't when it moved tim |
What's it(!) with Uber?
In message , at 15:49:44 on Tue, 17
Jun 2014, tim..... remarked: [1] Another anomaly I'm aware of is East Midlands Airport, which despite being sometimes described as "Nottingham East Midlands" and with Derby as the closest conurbation, is actually in Leicestershire. Oh no it's not Rushcliffe District, Nottinghamshire I used to live in Rushcliffe and I know what its borders are (in that vicinity, the River Soar). And also why the policemen patrolling East Midlands Airport were wearing Leicestershire badges. -- Roland Perry |
What's it(!) with Uber?
In message , at 16:01:20 on Tue, 17
Jun 2014, tim..... remarked: [1] Another anomaly I'm aware of is East Midlands Airport, which ******* despite being sometimes described as "Nottingham East Midlands" and with Derby as the closest conurbation, is actually in Leicestershire. Oh I see. Roland's always going on about the station so I assumed that what he was talking about here I think I'm capable of telling the difference between airports and stations. -- Roland Perry |
What's it(!) with Uber?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk