http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext ... cId=100443
Think things are moving along at a pace chaps?
| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Edinburgh - Report to council meeting 23/8 http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6754 |
Page 1 of 4 |
| Author: | jasbar [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Edinburgh - Report to council meeting 23/8 |
http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext ... cId=100443 Think things are moving along at a pace chaps?
|
|
| Author: | JD [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Edinburgh - Report to council meeting 23/8 |
jasbar wrote: http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocId=100443
Think things are moving along at a pace chaps? Can't download it, anyone elsae having the same problem? Regards JD |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Edinburgh - Report to council meeting 23/8 |
JD wrote: Can't download it, anyone elsae having the same problem?
I can. 
|
|
| Author: | gusmac [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Edinburgh - Report to council meeting 23/8 |
JD wrote: jasbar wrote: http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocId=100443 Think things are moving along at a pace chaps? Can't download it, anyone elsae having the same problem? Regards JD |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Very interesting, I wonder why they didn't put in the amount of cash it has cost the council so far to defend it's out-dated policy? 
I reckon between £70,000 and £100,000, any other bids? 
|
|
| Author: | JD [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Edinburgh - Report to council meeting 23/8 |
gusmac wrote: JD wrote: jasbar wrote: http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocId=100443 Think things are moving along at a pace chaps? Can't download it, anyone elsae having the same problem? Regards JD I'm getting it now, thanks. Regards JD |
|
| Author: | gusmac [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Somebody must have been in a hurry. Some of the pages are upside down
|
|
| Author: | JD [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It appears to me they are set on keeping their current policy. But I'll never get tired of seeing this reference. _________________________ However, the Court of Session considered that an extension of time should only be sought in the most exceptional circumstances and that adoption of the policy to limit taxi licences was a “self-imposed burden” whereby the authority must at any time be in a position where it can make a decision on demand in order to either grant or refuse applications for taxi licences. The Court of Session did not consider that a failure to be satisfied as to the issue of demand within the six months was a good reason for an extension. _________________________ The court did not give any opinion as to what might constitute “a good reason”. The effect of this decision is that taxi licences were granted to the three applicants in the appeal cases, bringing the total number of taxi licences to 1263. At the time of the above decision, there were three other outstanding court appeals relating to extensions of time dating back to 2005. These have now been withdrawn from court and licences have been granted. _____________________ JD said in his submission to both the Sherrif principal and the court of Session that, An application is exactly that and it has to be "considered" according to the terms of section 3.1. The "consideration" carries a statutory time frame for determination and "only under exceptional circumstances should that time frame be extended." ____________________________ It's gratifying that the court of appeal upheld my opinion on the law but I'm not going to hijack this thread disecting the outcome of that marathon appeal but I think the time is now right to place some emphasis on that appeal in another thread. Regards JD |
|
| Author: | skippy41 [ Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I Quote: 'm getting it now, thanks.
Regards JD Lucky you 
|
|
| Author: | jasbar [ Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's worth noting that this exercise is a framework for bringing the matter back under council control. Which it clearly isn't currently. The nub of it is that the council is once again looking at de-restriction, because it realises that it is the ONLY way it can regain that control. Whether that proves to be a partial or full de-restriction it is clear that the current licence applications can not be determined on the basis of that exercise. So, if maintaining the cap is their preferred option then it will be set against a background of licences being granted outwith their current policy. We should remember that the Halcrow report offered de-restriction as an option. It was not taken seriously. However times have changed considerably since. There is no longer a fully compliant trade resisting de-restriction. A substantial number of trade members want self determination and the freedom to drive their own taxi. There is greater general public awareness of the issues. Also that there is difficulty getting a cab a peak times. The council has been shown to be involved in the contriving of survey results. This will be tested if and when the current applications come to appeal. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, and we can draw on surveys not just connected to the taxi trade, but also to other projects like the Meadowbank Stadium consultation and the council's congestion charging poll, to p[rove the case. There is also the matter of the OFT to consider. While the Scottish Parliament can ignore their findings, there is a new more robust report coming out, which will deal with the matters in line with EUROPEAN law. Finally, there is the growing number of demand indicators which show the council's policy to restrict to be woefully out of line with the actuality on the ground. PH are still expanding at an exponential rate, 100 in the last two months alone - over 300% over a period when taxis increased by only 20%. BTW Anyone thinking about applying should do so now. The council has no information to stop your licence being granted. Indeed it is likely that the proposal to do any survey will not be on the table for at least the next few months. |
|
| Author: | jasbar [ Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
News report http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index ... 972007#new I believe it's all up in the air. I suspect the council are going to do a root and branch review to sort it out. The only thing which can stop de-estriction is the effect it would have on the council's bus company and its proposed tram system. |
|
| Author: | diesel [ Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
"An application is exactly that and it has to be "considered" according to the terms of section 3.1. The "consideration" carries a statutory time frame for determination and "only under exceptional circumstances should that time frame be extended." where in the document was this? i've searched but can't find it |
|
| Author: | gusmac [ Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
diesel wrote: "An application is exactly that and it has to be "considered" according to the terms of section 3.1. The "consideration" carries a statutory time frame for determination and "only under exceptional circumstances should that time frame be extended."
where in the document was this? i've searched but can't find it maybe it was "an inconvenient truth"
|
|
| Author: | JD [ Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
diesel wrote: where in the document was this? i've searched but can't find it
Well I did say that, "JD said in his submission to both the Sherrif principal and the court of Session" but perhaps I should have said, "in Mrs Salteri's submission". Mr Gladstone will provide you with a copy od the Salteri submission seeing as he stole it from TDO and published it on his website without our permission, or that of the Sheriff court or indeed Mrs Salteri. I shall be posting a complete rundown of the events in both those cases so you might not have to wait long for a copy of the statement of facts that provided at least four of those applicants with a license. Regards JD |
|
| Author: | JD [ Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The following comment caught my eye. You can always rely on someone to promote a little propoganda into the debate and I suppose it is no surprise that the missinformation comes from a vested interest in retaining quantity controls. But Murray Fleming, secretary of Central Radio Cabs, which operates about 380 taxis in the city, said: "With deregulation, there would be a diminishing of standards." Mr Murray forgot to mention that the council implement standards whether they be driver standards or vehicle standards? I think Mr Murray does you guys in Edinburgh a disservice because if he has that opinion now, then he must have had it the last time the council issued licenses back in around 2001. Regards JD |
|
| Page 1 of 4 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|