Issue - meetings

Recommendation

That Executive adopts the revised Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy as detailed in Appendix A, taking account of updates prompted by Best Practice Guidance along with the recommendation put forward by the General Licensing and Registration Committee that all new and replacement hackney carriage vehicles be wheelchair accessible, zero emission or hybrid electric vehicles, with existing licensed hackney carriage vehicles retaining ‘grandfather rights’ until they are no longer fit for purpose.

Considered a report of the Corporate Director Environment which sought approval from the Executive to adopt a revised Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy.

Introducing the report, the Executive Member for Managing our Environment noted the challenge of balancing safety, climate obligations, accessibility needs, and financial pressures on the trade in formulating the revised policy which represented a compromise between different positions.

Six public questions and statements were then presented to the Executive as follows:

Lisa Ridsdale

Imagine a small village in North Yorkshire at 10 p.m. A local resident, elderly or disabled, needs to get to a hospital appointment, a care visit, or simply home safely. They phone for a taxi—and there isn’t one available because the driver couldn’t afford the new vehicle the council now requires. That’s the reality this policy could create.

While the goals of accessibility and reducing emissions are admirable, this policy is out of touch with rural reality. Requiring all new or replacement taxis to be either wheelchair accessible, electric, or hybrid might work in a city—but in North Yorkshire, it is impractical and potentially devastating. Many villages and small towns lack reliable electric charging infrastructure, and drivers regularly cover long distances between communities. Expecting them to run electric vehicles without sufficient charging points is unsafe and unrealistic.

Then there’s cost. Wheelchair-accessible, hybrid, or electric vehicles can cost tens of thousands more than standard cars. Most rural taxi drivers are self-employed, running small businesses with tight margins. For many, this requirement would be financially impossible, forcing experienced drivers out of the trade. The consequence? Fewer taxis, longer waits, and reduced service—directly harming the very people the policy is intended to help.

Accessibility isn’t one-size-fits-all. Not all disabled passengers can travel in wheelchairs or use ramped vehicles. Some require assisted seating or find standard cars easier to enter and exit. Forcing all new taxis into one of these categories actually reduces flexibility and choice, undermining the policy’s stated goal of improving access.

Rural operational realities also matter. Long distances, unpredictable demand, and limited charging options make electric vehicles impractical for many drivers. Mandating this combination of vehicle types without supporting infrastructure or financial assistance risks a significant reduction in service, leaving rural communities stranded.

A better approach is flexible and locally tailored. A mixed fleet, combined with incentives or phased adoption, can improve accessibility and environmental outcomes without destroying the rural taxi trade. Councils elsewhere have achieved these goals successfully without imposing prohibitive costs.

When I visited the Netherlands and Norway last year, I saw that many taxi ranks had subsidised electrical charging points specifically installed for taxis to encourage drivers to move towards these vehicles. Would this be something North Yorkshire Council would be willing to consider if it genuinely wishes to encourage drivers? And similarly, in many European countries, licensed taxi vehicles receive subsidies from the government to help operators maintain standards and modernise fleets. This helps bring the taxi sector more in line with other transport sectors such as buses, rail,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 864