Agenda item - Hackney Carriage Unmet Demand Survey

Report of the Head of Planning and Public Protection (copy attached)

16.1         The Committee considered a report of the Head of Planning and Public Protection which presented the results of the Hackney Carriage Unmet Demand Survey and which set out the various options available to members to advise the executive.

16.2    A representative was in attendance from the Halcrow Group who had conducted the study on behalf of the Council and gave a presentation highlighting the purpose of the survey and its key findings. The purpose of this study had been to determine:

·        Whether there was any evidence of significant unmet demand for hackney carriage services in Brighton and Hove;

·        If significant unmet demand was found to recommend how many licences would be required to address this; and to

·        Assess the provision and demand for wheelchair accessible vehicles.

16.3    In the case of disabled access there were currently 167 wheelchair accessible hackney carriages. This equated to 30 6% of the total fleet. There were also 36 wheelchair accessible private hire vehicles licensed which equated to 8.25% of the fleet. The benchmarking exercise carried out had indicated that provision in Brighton and Hove was in the middle of the comparable authorities having neither the best nor the worst provision. Of respondents 42 (9.4%) had considered themselves to have a mobility impairment and 18 (42.9%) of these respondents were wheelchair users. Of those mobility impaired respondents 34 (81.0%) had used a taxi mainly booking by phone. On average those with a mobility impairment were less satisfied than respondents as a whole, particularly with rank hirings, generally. Mobility impaired residents had a longer waiting time for their taxis and were not satisfied with that delay.

16.4    Councillor Hawtree enquired whether there were common findings relating to take up and provision across authorities, particularly neighbouring authorities and whether it had been possible to highlight issues which might have arisen in consequence of the current recession.

16.5    The Chair, Councillor Duncan, referred to the fact that a number of broad ranging responses had been received.

16.6    Councillors Lepper and Simson queried the fact that Rugby had been cited as a comparable authority in a number of instances. They considered that in most instances it was appropriate to consider information which related to neighbouring authorities. The Hackney Carriage Officer explained that information available relating to Rugby had been included as this authority had been cited by the FED centre for Independent Living as an example of best practice in terms of provision for the disabled. Whilst this was noted, Councillors Gilbey and Hawtree considered that it was important also to take account of the size and population of Brighton and Hove which were significantly different.

16.7    Councillor Marsh referred to the data provided seeking clarification as to whether or not there was an unmet demand. Councillor Marsh also made reference to the arrangements in place at the Amex Stadium on match days. It was confirmed that any on-going work in respect of this matter fell within the remit of another Committee (Transport). Investigations carried out, however, had indicated that it would not be possible to provide a permanent hackney carriage rank at the stadium on safety grounds.

16.8    Councillor C Theobald queried whether servicing arrangements for the Amex Stadium had been addressed at the planning stage and it was confirmed that arrangements in respect of the traffic/infrastructure had been agreed.

16.9    Councillor Cobb queried whether as the survey had not identified any significant level of unmet demand, there was any need to increase the number of vehicle licences permitted annually. Councillor Cobb also asked whether there were any plans to increase the existing ranks. The Head of Regulatory Services explained that from time to time applications for new ranks were received, which were sometimes successful and sometimes not. This issue was considered periodically but ultimately limited highway space was available for all of the demands placed upon it.

16.10  Councillor Lepper stated that it was her understanding that if a small increase were to be agreed year on year that would be to ensure that the number of available vehicles remained constant. Councillor Hyde concurred with that view and sought confirmation regarding the bodies and individual service users consulted when the Halcrow Group had prepared their report.

16.11  Councillor Deane welcomed the report and the findings that generally the provision within the city was comparable to that for similar authorities.

16.12  Councillor Pidgeon referred the differing needs of individuals dependent on their disability. For instance those who were not wheelchair bound but had other mobility issues or sight impairment actually experienced significant difficulty in trying to access certain types of wheelchair accessible vehicles.

16.13  The Chair, Councillor Duncan stated that it was important to have a mixed fleet that catered to the differing needs of taxi users.

16.14  Councillor Simson enquired whether it would be possible to review the mix of vehicle types within the Brighton and Hove fleet in advance of the next scheduled review. Councillor Simson referred to paragraph  2.5 as set out in the officers’ report stating that she wished this to be amended to ensure that it fully reflected the appropriate section of the Council’s policy. Councillor Lepper was in agreement with that view. The Head of Regulatory Services explained however that as there was not clear definition of a Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle (WAV) and that any recommendations agreed would need to meet policy requirements that this would be superfluous. Committee Members including Councillors Lepper and Simson agreed.

16.15  Councillor Cobb suggested an amendment to paragraph 2.2 to ensure that it was clear that agreement to that recommendation would result in managed growth. Members also considered that this amendment would also be superfluous and therefore it was lost.

16.16- Following the discussions and voting referred to above the Committee agreed to paragraphs 2.2, 2.5 (with references to paragraphs 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4 removed) and paragraph 2.6. For clarity these are reproduced below.

16.17  RESOLVED – (1 To continue to increase the number of hackney carriage licences issued by the council by 5 annually, such licences to be issued in May each year commencing in May 2013;

            (2) That any additional licences issued under (1) above should be issued in accordance with the conditions attached to the Brighton & Hove City Council Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licence Waiting List and to vehicles which are constructed or adapted and configured to carry passengers seated in wheelchairs, the type and design to be agreed by the Head of Planning and Public Protection;

            (3) That the policy will not support cycle drawn rickshaws.