Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jeffree, Qureshi and Taj

There was a change of Committee membership for this meeting: Councillor Bell replaced Councillor Connal and Councillor I Brown replaced Councillor Crout.

There were no disclosures of interest.

To approve for signature the minutes of the meeting held on 15 June 2011.

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 June 2011 were submitted and signed.

The Committee received a report of the Head of Environmental Services asking Members to consider whether the current policy of no quantity restriction on hackney carriage vehicle numbers should be reviewed.

The Licensing Manager introduced the report and informed the Committee that the purpose of the report was to help Members decide whether to review the policy. There was currently no limit on the number of hackney carriage licences.  Before delimitation was introduced in 2006 there were 73 hackney carriages which rose to a peak of 345; the current level was 293. This increase had had an impact in a number of areas including the number of private hire vehicles which had reduced and was now increasing again, a decrease in illegal plying for hire and increased congestion around the ranks, in particular near Watford Junction. The cost of licence plates was also a factor; when a limit was in place they commanded a premium but this was not the case currently.

The Watford Hackney Carriage Drivers’ Association (WHCDA) had submitted two appendices to the officers’ report which contained points for the Committee to consider.  Fewer trains now stopped at Watford Junction Station and this has meant less demand for taxi services. The recession had also had an impact and drivers often earned below the national minimum wage. The cost of petrol, insurance and national insurance had all increased. The WHCDA did not feel that reintroducing a cap was protectionist but would result in a better service for users.

The Licensing Manager informed the Committee that there were two factual inaccuracies in the WHCDA submission. On page 5 of Appendix 1 it stated that “The law requires that an unmet demand survey is carried out” and this was not the case.  Secondly also on page 5 the submission stated that “by carrying out an unmet demand survey the Council is protected against claims from individuals who may be refused licences”. Having undertaken a survey of unmet demand, the Council would not be protected against such claims but would have a strong basis to their case for refusal.

The last government was more in favour of delimitation; as a result only 85 local authorities now had a limit. The current government had yet to pronounce on the issue.  The Licensing Manager stated that should the Committee decide to review the policy then the Council would need to cover the costs of a survey of unmet demand. The surveys were undertaken by specialist consultants who conducted the survey across a whole week in various locations. There would also be other consultations including speaking with passengers.  The Licensing Manager advised that consultants would not be free to start a survey until at least September and a report back to the Committee would not be possible until the end of the year. The advice from the Department for Transport was that the cost should not be met by the trade but some of the costs could be recouped through licence fees. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.