Agenda item

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, and voluntary transport, which receive significant public subsidies from local councils and government. At present, the taxi trade is expected to meet these increasing regulatory standards without receiving the same level of financial support.

In conclusion, while the policy’s intentions are good, in rural North Yorkshire it would place unrealistic financial and operational burdens on drivers, reduce service availability, and limit choice for disabled passengers. I urge the Executive to reconsider and adopt a practical, flexible approach that supports both the taxi trade and the communities who rely on it.

Thank you.

Richard Fieldman

 

As representative of 125 drivers, I am here today to address you on the proposed change to the vehicle licence suitability, and to convey our disagreement and total unacceptance of what you are being asked to approve.

Firstly, I was under the impression that the changes in the taxi policy was to be put on hold until the government had made its impending changes on both taxi and private hire national regulations, and its plans to create national standards throughout, as it would be wasting everyone’s time and money changing the policy now, only to have to change it all again once the government had issued its decision on these matters.

I have been working very closely with Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester Transport group, and Louise Haigh MP (former transport minister) on the result of the Baroness Casey report, and having quite a significant input on the discussions currently taking place on the future overhaul of the taxi and private hire trade regulations.

The local taxi trade is already on a downward spiral, with drivers leaving the trade in numbers due to the influx of Uber drivers, and the constant negative conditions being put on the trade since the combined authority took place, with almost no new drivers entering it. The new vehicle recommendations will only result in an even bigger decline, as what is being proposed are either to expensive or impractical. The trade in the rural areas of the county are not making the kind of income to afford such vehicles, and I would challenge the shortage of WAV vehicles that is being sold to you without solid evidence from an unmet demand survey to prove such a statement. It is not good enough to just compare us to other regions before making such a decision that would have a massive impact on local drivers.

Therefore, I would like to request that before this decision is taken, an unmet demand survey is commissioned at the expense of the trade, focused entirely on the disabled community and its ease of acquiring a taxi or private hire vehicle.

The report that is being presented to you for your approval will not increase the quota of WAV vehicles, it will only achieve a decline in the

taxi numbers in North Yorkshire, we are being hit over the head with a big stick, to try and put right the bad decision making previously by the council, in allowing those that had WAV vehicles to off load them in favour of a normal car. A decision I warned councillors of at the time, of what the result would be, and now down the line they are trying to right that decision by introducing an unacceptable choice of vehicle to the trade in order to hopefully force them into purchasing a WAV vehicle, which will not happen.

I would like to remind you that you are under no obligation to accept this proposal, as many other councils up and down the country have not, and numerous other councils including York, have seen the damage this would do to the taxi trade, and have accepted a policy of any vehicle that is Euro 6 emission standards, and that is what I am asking you to adopt today.

The vehicle proposal today will put us at a massive disadvantage to the every increasing Uber numbers in the area, who do not have such damaging conditions to adhere to, and will eventually be your only choice going forward. Would you really want that??

It is imperative that solid evidence is achieved before any decision is made today, otherwise the result could be massive in destroying the taxi numbers that you currently have, and would be irreversible.

Thank you for listening

Graham Watson (Mr Watson was not present. Athough his statement was not read out at the meeting it had been circulated to the Executive beforehand)

 

Due to a pre-arranged estate agent visit, I ask that this statement be read out on my behalf. I am speaking as a North Yorkshire Council licensed driver based in Area G, in response to the proposed policy changes relating to wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs), hybrids and fully electric vehicles (EVs) within the hackney carriage trade.

I find it difficult to understand why the Council is now reconsidering its policy so soon. At a similar meeting around 16 months ago, it was suggested this would not progress for a further two years. Regardless of the reasons for the change in pace, any policy must reflect the realities of operating across a large, mostly rural area, including long-distance and airport work.

1. Fully electric vehicles (EVs): not fit for purpose for my working mileage

For the record, I am not opposed to progress, and I am not opposed to WAVs or hybrids. However, I will not purchase an EV for hackney carriage use because, for the work I do, they are not currently fit for purpose.

My Ford Tourneo, first registered on 1 December 2020, has just completed 337,000 miles. That is the level of mileage some of us in Area G routinely undertake.

Using an example route: James Street, Selby to Manchester Airport is approximately 160 miles in good conditions. A quoted EV range may look workable on paper, but real-world operating conditions reduce it significantly: motorway congestion (M62/M60/M56), winter weather, overnight road closures and diversions in summer, vehicle weight, and continuous use of heating/air conditioning, lights, wipers and customer USB charging.

If an EV requires an en-route charging stop, that is not customer-friendly—particularly on return journeys after long-haul flights—and it removes me from the road and unable to earn. For many taxi/private hire drivers doing long-distance work, mandating EVs at this time would cause genuine hardship through loss of working capacity.

2. 2. Hybrids and plug-in hybrids (PHEVs): benefits, but limitations and cost barriers

Hybrids can be a good option in the right operating environment.

The Institute of Motorists (IOM) states that, in real-world city driving, hybrids can outperform standard internal combustion engines. The quoted annual average mileage for a hybrid is around 9,300 miles, with a lifespan of around 200,000 miles. In the taxi world, 200,000 miles can be roughly four years with proper maintenance.

I spoke to Danny at the Taxi Centre on 10/03/2026. The cheapest hybrid they have available was £15,995, but it was not North Yorkshire Council compliant due to its age. Realistically, drivers appear to be looking at around £23,000 for a three-year-old Toyota Corolla, plus the meter, MOT, licence plates and other setup costs.

To replace my WAV with the current-spec plug-in hybrid equivalent, I would be looking at £56,995 for a new basic model, before the usual costs.

3. The economics in practice: depreciation, replacement cost and working life

In December 2020, I paid £33,019 for my current vehicle. I have just renewed my insurance with a current forecourt value of £13,009. In five years I have covered 337,000 miles. I am on my second engine and, with proper maintenance, I would hope to achieve a further 100,000 miles this year.

By comparison, the PHEV option uses a 2.5 litre petrol engine and delivers around 35 miles on a full electric/hybrid charge. The fully electric Tourneo is currently around £79,000, with an advertised maximum range of roughly 350 miles in ideal summer conditions and without air conditioning.

4. What happens next: the realistic choices available to me

1. Keep my current vehicle on the road for as long as it remains safe and compliant (the most realistic all-round option).
2. Remortgage my house to buy a replacement vehicle (not an option—I have only just paid my mortgage off).
3. Sell up, return to full-time employment, and leave another gap in the Area G hackney carriage market.
4. Move from hackney carriage to private hire and spend around £50,000 on a non-WAV—again leaving a gap in hackney provision.

5. WAV demand and suitability: real demand versus mandated supply

In the five years I have operated a WAV, I have only carried a handful of wheelchair passengers—no more than six jobs across roughly 1,560 days. I actively advertise that I am wheelchair friendly, including on local radio and in local magazines and programmes, but the demand I see in practice is very limited.

WAVs can also introduce additional background noise (for example, ramps and securing equipment), which can affect passenger experience on longer journeys.

6. Taxi ranks and WAV safety: current infrastructure is not fit for purpose

A further issue is that many Council taxi ranks are not suitable for safe WAV operation. I will use Selby (James Street) as an example. The dropped kerb is located at the top of James Street, which can force a wheelchair user into the road to access the taxi. This is one of the busiest roads in Selby, frequently used by through-traffic and HGVs, and the taxi rank itself is also used for deliveries.

To load safely, a driver typically needs a minimum of around five metres: approximately three metres to deploy the ramp, around one metre for the wheelchair itself, and additional working space for the driver. Five metres is effectively two taxi bays—so if another taxi is parked directly behind, safe loading becomes very difficult or impossible. I am willing to demonstrate this if it helps.

I have written to Gareth Bentley asking for a risk assessment. The response I received indicated there was nothing wrong with the James Street rank, but I do not believe a proper, on-site risk assessment was completed. I ask the Council to carry out and publish a formal risk assessment of WAV loading/unloading at ranks such as James Street, with an on-site review at busy times.

7. 7. Enforcement and unintended consequences

I also believe that forcing hackney carriage drivers into unaffordable vehicle choices will further reduce trade in towns and could open the door to larger app-based operators. If the Council cannot enforce consistent standards across all licensed vehicles—especially those licensed elsewhere but operating locally—then any additional burdens placed on existing local drivers may simply accelerate the decline of the current, high-quality fleet.

On enforcement, my personal experience is that I have not seen a North Yorkshire Council licensing or enforcement officer in Selby for an extended period. The only enforcement officers I recall seeing recently were from neighbouring authorities. Consistent local enforcement matters, particularly if policy changes are introduced that increase cost and complexity for compliant drivers.

8. 8. Requests to the Council

• Do not mandate full EV ownership for hackney carriage drivers who undertake high-mileage and long-distance/airport work until the vehicles and infrastructure are demonstrably fit for purpose.
• If changes are introduced, include realistic exemptions or transitional arrangements based on mileage patterns and operating area.
• If WAV numbers are to be increased, provide meaningful financial incentives and a clear funding route—otherwise supply will reduce rather than grow.
• Carry out formal risk assessments of WAV loading/unloading at taxi ranks (including Selby, James Street) and make physical improvements where required.
• Provide reliable taxi-accessible EV charging infrastructure if electrification is expected.
• Maintain consistent, visible local enforcement to protect standards and ensure a level playing field.

In my opinion, North Yorkshire currently has one of the best fleets of taxis and private hire vehicles in the country. I am concerned that an overly rapid or unrealistic policy shift—without infrastructure, exemptions and funding—will damage that fleet and reduce service provision in towns like Selby. Thank you for considering this statement.

Jackie Snape, Chief Executive, Disability Action Yorkshire

 

Chair and councillors, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I want to ask you to reconsider whether the option recommended in this report is the right one for wheelchair users in North Yorkshire.

This decision is ultimately about whether disabled residents will have the same practical access to taxi services as everyone else. At present, North Yorkshire has just one wheelchair accessible hackney carriage for every 10,250 people. The national rural average is one per 8,150, and the best performing rural authorities provide one per 2,000 to 3,000 people. That clearly shows wheelchair users here are already significantly underserved.

The question for councillors today is therefore not simply about vehicle standards. It is whether this policy will increase the number of wheelchair accessible taxis in North Yorkshire — or allow the current shortage to continue.

Given that starting point, councillors may wish to ask whether the recommended option, which allows new taxis to be licensed as zero-emission or hybrid vehicles instead of being wheelchair accessible, will actually improve accessibility

Improving air quality is clearly important, but the key question is why accessibility and environmental progress are being treated as competing options rather than priorities that should move forward together.

The council’s own report notes that only 8.5% of private hire vehicles are wheelchair accessible. That means more than 90% of the fleet is unavailable to wheelchair users. Councillors may therefore wish to question whether relying on pre-booking alone is a realistic solution in a large rural county like North Yorkshire.

The consultation results also raise an important question. Wheelchair users ranked the option requiring all new taxis to be wheelchair accessible as their first choice, while the trade ranked it fourth. Yet the proposed policy adopts the option wheelchair users ranked lowest. If the people most affected by a policy are asking for stronger accessibility, why does the recommended option move in the opposite direction?

For many wheelchair users, taxis are not simply a convenience — they are the only form of independent transport available, particularly in rural areas where other public transport options are limited. Without enough accessible vehicles, people face longer waits, fewer spontaneous journeys, and reduced opportunities to participate fully in everyday life.

The Public Sector Equality Duty requires the council not only to avoid discrimination but to actively advance equality of opportunity. With the current shortage of accessible vehicles,  we ask councillor to consider whether the recommended option does enough to meet that duty.

I would therefore ask councillors to reconsider the recommendation and to look again at a stronger option — such as requiring new hackney carriage vehicles to be wheelchair accessible.

Because the real test of this policy is simple: will it leave wheelchair users with better access to taxis than they have today — or not?

Ian Lawson

 

The council had the opportunity to address the shortage of wheelchair taxis (WAVs) back in February 2023. The proposed Licensing Policy believed that by removing the 7 zones and deregulating the number of licensed taxis the acknowledged shortage of wheelchair taxis would disappear. That was wishful thinking as 67 WAVs on 31 March 2023 is now 60 despite an increase of 112 non-WAV taxis. In my opinion, the current proposal to amend the Licensing Policy will see a significant increase in zero emission taxis like the Toyota Prius, and little if any increase in the number of WAVs. If I am correct then NYC will have fallen short of its PSED once again by failing to eliminate the indirect discrimination imposed on wheelchair users by the taxi trade.

Despite numerous and lengthy documents provided for the Executive meeting today and only two clear days for us to study them I have not found any explanation why 1320 PHVs are not to be subject to the same low and no emissions as are proposed for taxis. Paragraph 6.3.1 in the Report of the Corporate Director states that “practical and legal reasons rule” it out. Surely, the Executive and the disabled community deserve to know what these reasons are, as PHVs using diesel and petrol engines are an attractive 4th option for taxi drivers when they change their vehicle.

The second issue which is a mystery is why was the second-place option for both the taxi Trade and Wheelchair Users & Others not pursued? All new and replacement taxis to be wheelchair accessible until a certain number are reached would be an outcome demonstrating that the council is compliant with its PSED. It would also guarantee an increase in the number of WAVs. Surprisingly, the EIA does not address this decision, so I ask why not? I believe that the public would find this an anomaly which makes a mockery of the Consultation process. Giving the taxi trade their first choice which is the disabled communities last choice is simply wrong.

The raising of the age limits on licensed taxis is beneficial to the taxi trade enabling them to keep their current taxis for at least 5 more years. So, the potential increase in WAVs and a cleaner, greener climate is a number of years away.

Transport related social isolation is very real in North Yorkshire, even more so for wheelchair users. The review does not “incentivise the uptake of wheelchair accessible taxis” as advised in the Dept of Transport Best Practice Guidance 2023 for Licensing authorities. In reality, it is difficult to understand how the Report, if adopted, will increase the number of wheelchair taxis.

I ask that the members of the Executive reject this discriminatory proposal.

9. Diane Roworth (attending remotely)

I am Diane Roworth, I am the Chair of York Access Forum, and a disabled person. 

I love North Yorkshire – it is just the best place to live – unless you are a wheelchair user without your own transport.

In consultation with disabled people, York Council has done a lot of work to increase the number of WA taxis. Disabled people now have the freedom to leave the confines of their home to work, play, study, shop, visit relatives, all the sorts of everyday activities non disabled people take for granted.

We have championed a pro-active approach to increasing the numbers of WAV – we now have one-third more than in the whole of North Yorkshire – that’s why I say NY is not such a great place for disabled people to live. But it could be.

WAVs are one part of the transport jigsaw.

If I want to go out with a friend who is a wheelchair user, it’s not easy. Neither of us drive because of our impairments, BUT we can book a wheelchair taxi for the first leg to the Station. Once there, Passenger Assist will help us onto the train, and off again at the other end. But then what?  Are we going to be able to get a WAV to take us where we want to go? 

It doesn’t matter how accessible the Railway Station, or the bus or the shop or the museum or the streets are -  if a disabled person cannot get a WA taxi, they cannot complete the first stage of their journey, so the whole journey is out of reach. How many times must that happen every day?

Taxi drivers AND disabled people will benefit by increasing WAV across North Yorkshire.

Taxi drivers get more passengers; disabled people get more opportunities to leave their homes. That’s why BOTH parties put option 2 as their second choice.

The argument about emissions is one side of the coin – but this will happen anyway – there are more opportunities to buy fuel efficient vehicles, with less running costs than ever before. WAV’s can be bought 2nd hand and still meet emissions targets.

So, let’s listen to what disabled people are saying. You asked them for their priorities, and they told you more WAVs.  You specifically consulted them - they were strong in their feedback, but you have not taken account of their views.

There IS a way out.  You can demonstrate your commitment to improving the sad situation for disabled people in North Yorkshire, and your duty under the Public Sector Equality Act by choosing Option 2. 

This meets the 2nd choice of the taxi drivers, AND the 2nd choice of disabled people – a win-win for everyone and a more accessible North Yorkshire for everyone.

Please think again, don’t imprison disabled people in their own homes, choose Option 2 as a pro-active way forward.

Reply

The Executive Member, Councillor Richard Foster replied as follows:

Prior to Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) on 1 April 2023, the Council had 67 wheelchair accessible hackney carriage vehicles whereas the total is now 60. While this is true, the number of wheelchair-accessible private hire vehicles has risen significantly—from 29 to 60. Overall, the total number of licensed wheelchair-accessible vehicles has increased by 25% from 96 to 120 since LGR.

We recognise the continued need for more WAV hackney carriages because, unlike private hire, there is not always an opportunity to discuss any accessibility needs at the time of booking a hackney carriage vehicle. It is for these reasons that the proposed revisions focus specifically on hackney carriage vehicles. The Council intends to build on the incentives for WAVs included in the previous policy, which had already contributed to growth in total WAV numbers. As declared in February 2023, the Council always intended to consider its position further. Following the formulation of the Draft Inclusive Service Plan (ISP), the priority is now clear, and the focus is on increasing WAV hackney carriages to build on the progress already made.

Paragraphs 1 to 28 of Appendix D to the report entitled ‘Adoption of an Inclusive Service Plan focused on Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing’ details the expected outcomes of the proposed policy:

https://edemocracy.northyorks.gov.uk/documents/s64768/Appendix%20D%20-%20Analysis%20-%20HC%20PH%20ISP%20Policy%20Review.pdf

This projects an increase in wheelchair accessible vehicles after implementation of the proposed policy.

The report also confirms that a review of the effectiveness of the new policy will commence 12 months from full implementation, with further research and consultation, to decide whether any further adjustments are needed.

After consideration of the responses made to the options which the Council consulted upon, the proposed policy is considered a more reasonable and proportionate measure to satisfy the Council’s public sector equality duty and its air quality obligations without imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens on businesses.

Imposing similar requirements on private hire vehicles is considered at paragraphs 83 and 84 in the proposed Inclusive Service Plan and are not considered appropriate:

83.        A hackney carriage vehicle can be hailed by passengers on the roadside, it can stand on a rank to await the approach of passengers and it can be pre-booked by telephone. In contrast, private hire vehicles are licensed to perform pre-booked work only, which must be obtained through a licensed private hire operator. On that basis, any accessibility needs can be discussed at the time of booking a private hire vehicle, which will not necessarily be the case for hackney carriage vehicles. It is perhaps for this reason that 64.5% of all licensing authorities require all or part of their hackney carriage fleet to be wheelchair accessible while only 4.8% of licensing authorities require all or a part of their private hire fleet to be wheelchair accessible.

84.        It is therefore not considered necessary to also apply the WAV/ZEV/HEV requirement to private hire vehicles at present, particularly in light of the fact that 8.5% of the private hire vehicles in North Yorkshire are wheelchair accessible under existing arrangements – slightly above the average of 7.2% across all ‘largely rural’ areas in England and Wales. However, it is proposed to introduce new obligations on all private hire operators to identify a passenger’s accessibility needs prior to taking a booking, to ensure that an appropriate vehicle is provided.

The Head of Licensing, Gareth Bentley then added:

 

The prospect of conducting an unmet demand survey was considered shortly after the decision was made to formulate an Inclusive Service Plan. In practice, a substantial amount of this work has been carried out. We have evaluated and monitored the number of wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs) in the area, compared these figures against national data, consulted with taxi drivers, operators, wheelchair users, disability action groups, and other stakeholders, and drawn evidence-based conclusions from this work.

 

By any relevant metric, the number of wheelchair accessible taxis in North Yorkshire is low - low compared against national averages; low compared against other rural authorities; low as a proportion of the fleet; and low as a ratio against population figures.

 

The one element sometimes included in a standard unmet demand survey that we have not undertaken is direct rank observations (to measure queue lengths, waiting times, and vehicle availability at taxi ranks). For WAVs specifically, such observations would be ineffective and would significantly underestimate the true demand, for two key reasons:

 

1. Wheelchair users represent around 2.4% of the population and therefore conventional rank-based survey methods lack the statistical power to reliably detect and quantify unmet demand for WAVs.

 

2. There are only 60 WAV taxis in the entire area at present, so wheelchair users are already discouraged from attending ranks in North Yorkshire because they would have little expectation of finding a suitable vehicle.

 

On that basis, all of the meaningful and effective components of a standard unmet demand survey have already been carried out. The evidence in this respect has been presented in the form of statistical analysis and stakeholder engagement. It shows that WAV availability in this area is significantly lower than national averages (even when compared only against other rural authorities), and wheelchair users experience substantial difficulty accessing taxi services.

 

The Corporate Director Environment, Karl Battersby commented further that the Council recognised the concerns expressed and was seeking a proportionate approach that supported both accessibility and environmental objectives. Several elements of the wider report had broad support across the trade. He emphasised that while national regulation would be helpful, current government consultations appeared focused on transferring responsibilities rather than introducing comprehensive national standards. The Council’s view was that licensing powers were best retained locally but supported by clearer national regulation.

 

Invited to comment further, the public speakers raised further concerns around private hire fare levels for WAVs, that wheelchair users don’t use taxi ranks because they don’t expect to find a WAV, and the need for public subsidy for the taxi trade in similar manner to community transport. Councillor Greg White also addressed the meeting highlighting the risk that further drivers may switch from Hackney to private hire licences.

 

Members of the Executive then discussed the report. Members appreciated the difficulty in achieving a balance, of trying to encourage more WAVS whilst mitigating the impact on the taxi trade, but welcomed the initiative to arrange a bulk deal supply of WAVs to resell or lease to the trade at cheaper than normal market value, and stressed the importance of reviewing the efficacy of the policy in 12 months.

 

Resolved (unanimously) 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.

 

Reasons

 

The Council has committed to reviewing the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy with a view to making hackney carriage and private hire services more inclusive and the Council must have regard to the Department for Transport’s Best Practice Guidance. A review of the effectiveness of the new policy will commence 12 months from full implementation to decide whether any further adjustments are needed. The recommendation seeks to increase the number of wheelchair accessible vehicles whilst balancing its impact on the trade.