Licensing (Public Protection) Committee - Thursday 19 March 2026, 6:30pm - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

Licensing (Public Protection) Committee
Thursday, 19th March 2026 at 6:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Heather Wallace
  2. Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer
  3. Lindsay Vallis - Service Director for Communities
  4. Laura Heller - Legal
  5. Clare Gray - Democratic Services Officer
  6. Jacqui Bromilow - Head of Regulatory Services
  7. Michelle Shelly - Head of Taxi Licensing
  8. Jo Bowles - Senior Licensing Officer
  9. Cllr Heather Wallace
Share this agenda point
  1. Clare Gray - Democratic Services Officer
  2. Cllr Heather Wallace
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer
  2. Cllr Heather Wallace
  3. Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer
  4. Cllr Heather Wallace
  5. Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer
  6. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  7. Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer
  8. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  9. Cllr Heather Wallace
  10. Cllr Phil Gomm
  11. Cllr Heather Wallace
  12. Cllr Kirsten Ashman
  13. Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer
  14. Cllr Kirsten Ashman
  15. Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer
  16. Cllr Chris Chilton
  17. Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer
  18. Cllr Chris Chilton
  19. Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer
  20. Cllr Heather Wallace
  21. Cllr Phil Gomm
  22. Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer
  23. Lindsay Vallis - Service Director for Communities
  24. Cllr Phil Gomm
  25. Cllr Heather Wallace
  26. Cllr Dean Field
  27. Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer
  28. Cllr Dean Field
  29. Cllr Heather Wallace
  30. Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer
  31. Cllr Heather Wallace
  32. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  33. Cllr Heather Wallace
  34. Cllr Kirsten Ashman
  35. Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer
  36. Lindsay Vallis - Service Director for Communities
  37. Cllr Dean Field
  38. Cllr Heather Wallace
  39. Jo Bowles - Senior Licensing Officer
  40. Cllr Heather Wallace
  41. Cllr Kirsten Ashman
  42. Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer
  43. Cllr Kirsten Ashman
  44. Cllr Heather Wallace
  45. Lindsay Vallis - Service Director for Communities
  46. Cllr Heather Wallace
  47. Cllr Dean Field
  48. Cllr Heather Wallace
  49. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  50. Cllr Heather Wallace
  51. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  52. Cllr Heather Wallace
  53. Cllr Phil Gomm
  54. Lindsay Vallis - Service Director for Communities
  55. Cllr Heather Wallace
  56. Cllr Matthew Hind
  57. Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer
  58. Cllr Heather Wallace
  59. Cllr Phil Gomm
  60. Cllr Heather Wallace
  61. Cllr Phil Gomm
  62. Cllr Heather Wallace
  63. Cllr Chris Chilton
  64. Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer
  65. Cllr Chris Chilton
  66. Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer
  67. Cllr Heather Wallace
  68. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  69. Cllr Heather Wallace
  70. Cllr Dean Field
  71. Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer
  72. Cllr Heather Wallace
  73. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  74. Laura Heller - Legal
  75. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  76. Laura Heller - Legal
  77. Cllr Heather Wallace
  78. Lindsay Vallis - Service Director for Communities
  79. Cllr Heather Wallace
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Heather Wallace
  2. Michelle Shelly - Head of Taxi Licensing
  3. Cllr Heather Wallace
  4. Cllr Phil Gomm
  5. Cllr Heather Wallace
  6. Cllr Dean Field
  7. Cllr Heather Wallace
  8. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  9. Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer
  10. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  11. Cllr Heather Wallace
  12. Cllr Phil Gomm
  13. Lindsay Vallis - Service Director for Communities
  14. Cllr Phil Gomm
  15. Lindsay Vallis - Service Director for Communities
  16. Cllr Phil Gomm
  17. Cllr Heather Wallace
  18. Cllr Matthew Hind
  19. Lindsay Vallis - Service Director for Communities
  20. Cllr Matthew Hind
  21. Cllr Heather Wallace
  22. Cllr Kirsten Ashman
  23. Lindsay Vallis - Service Director for Communities
  24. Cllr Heather Wallace
  25. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  26. Cllr Heather Wallace
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:00:00
Good evening councillors, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to this meeting of the Buckinghamshire
Licencing Public Protection Committee. I'm
Councillor Heather Wallace and I'm the chairman of this committee and meeting. So please
note the meeting is webcast. The agenda
papers are being published in accordance with normal practise and we'll just run through the housekeeping
points again. Please turn your
mobile phones off. Raise your hand
at the appropriate time.
return your microphones on to speak and off once you're finished and if there's
a fire alarm leave through the double doors and go to the car park. I need to
introduce everybody so go to my left. Good evening Simon Gallagher principal
Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer - 0:00:46
Lindsay Vallis - Service Director for Communities - 0:00:49
licencing officer. Lindsay Ballas service director for transport and regulatory
Laura Heller - Legal - 0:00:55
services. Good evening Laura Heller lawyer with the
and Licencing team.
Clare Gray - Democratic Services Officer - 0:01:00
Good evening, Claire Grey from Democratic Services.
I'm clerking the meeting today.
Jacqui Bromilow - Head of Regulatory Services - 0:01:07
Good evening, Jackie Bromelow, Head of Regulatory Services.
Michelle Shelly - Head of Taxi Licensing - 0:01:10
Good evening, Michelle Shelley,
the Taxi Licencing Manager.
Jo Bowles - Senior Licensing Officer - 0:01:16
Good evening, Jo Bowles, Senior Licencing Officer.
Thank you, everyone.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:01:19
Do you have any apologies for this part of the meeting?
Thank you, Chairman.

1 Apologies for Absence

We have apologies from Councillor Paul Gryphon,
Clare Gray - Democratic Services Officer - 0:01:24
Councillor Mabou -Poseyn who's been replaced by Councillor Dean Field and
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:01:34
Councillor Tuffield -Poseyn. Thank you. Lovely, thank you. Item number two is

2 Declarations of Interest

declarations of interest. Do any members wish to declare any interests on the

3 Minutes of the previous meeting

topics we'll be discussing? Thank you. Item three minutes the previous meeting. Is
I can't agree with what was said here.
No.
Okay, item number four.

4 Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy Review

Hackney Carriage and Private Higher Licencing Policy Review, which is pages 9 to 306.
Item 4 is our report to adopt the revised Hackney Carriage and Private Higher Licencing Policy, and we have Simon Gallagher to present the report.
Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer - 0:02:20
Thank you Chairman and members of the committee.
This report is the final stage of the Council's review of its Hackney Carriage and Private Hire licencing policy
following the comprehensive consultation exercise and the committee's consideration of officer recommendations at its meeting on 19 January this year.
Set out in the Executive Summary, paragraphs 1 .1 to 1 .5 of the report, this report presents the revised policy for adoption.
The revised policy incorporates the recommendations considered by members in the January meeting
and brings them together in a single consolidated document which is shown at Appendix A supported
by a Track Changes version at Appendix B which has been provided to assist transparency and
ease of reference.
In addition to implementing the recommendations previously considered by members, the revised
policy has also been updated to ensure it remains legally sound, operationally workable
and aligned with the current statutory duties, national guidance and established working practises of the team.
Importantly, public safety continues to remain the overriding consideration throughout.
The report recommends a proposed implementation date of the 1st September 2026,
allowing sufficient leading time for communication, training and operational readiness
with specific phase timelines where appropriate.
Until that date, the existing policy will continue to apply with each case considered
on its own individual merit.
Turning to the background section, page 11 onwards, the Committee will recall that the
Council adopted its current policy back in February 2021, which was implemented from
September 2021, and that national recommended statutory standards require licencing policies
to be kept under regular review at least every five years.
At the January meeting, members considered the outcomes of consultation and a detailed
set of officer recommendations.
And it was made clear at that time that, subject to the committee's views, those recommendations
would be incorporated into a revised policy for final consideration.
That's the document that's now before you.
For clarity and ease of scrutiny, the report includes a comprehensive table on pages 12
to 14, which sets out each policy area considered by the committee in January, a summary of
the recommendation, and precisely where each recommendation has been incorporated within
the revised policy with section references.
By way of reminder, these recommendations included policy changes relating to driver
medicals, minimum driving experience and age, intended use policies for Hackney carriages,
certificate of good conduct requirements, new declarations promoting awareness of zero
tolerance of abuse, vehicle age limits, emissions targets, vehicle advertising, use of executive
plates, payment methods, wheelchair accessible vehicle requirements and grandfather rights,
operator staff training, operator phone numbers and criminal records guidance.
No changes were made and were recommended to vehicle testing frequency,
requirements for fire extinguishers and first aid kits and guidance on
installation of CCTV. As suggested by members at the last meeting, the policy
relating to declarations to raise awareness of a zero tolerance
approach to abuse has been separated into two distinct declarations and
and includes a specific declaration relating to awareness of a zero -tolerance approach
towards violence against women and girls, as per the original consultation to support
the Council's 2024 motion to promote the White Ribbon campaign.
In addition to the January recommendations, the report explains a number of other updates
that have been made to ensure that the policy remains current, clear and legally robust.
Firstly, the revised policy reflects changes in statutory duties and national expectations.
This includes strengthened references to safeguarding and information sharing duties, particularly
the mandatory use of the National Register of Refusal, Revocations and Suspensions, or
the NR3S Register, under the Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles Safeguarding and Road Safety
Act 2022, which is addressed in Section 2 of the revised policy.
The policy has also been updated to clearly reflect the Council's existing statutory duties
under the Immigration Act 2016 in relation to the right to work cheques, ensuring the
policy accurately reflects legal obligations already in place.
This is covered in sections 3 .11 and 5 .10 of the revised policy.
Members will also note in paragraphs 2 .9 and 2 .10 that the revised policy includes expanded
explanations around policy discretion, the Bright Lines approach and the
council's ability to depart from policy where justified, together with clear
information on statutory rights of appeal, improving transparency for
licence holders and applicants. The revised policy additionally introduces a
new condition on engine widering which reinforces existing legal requirements
and extends those principles to licenced vehicles operating on private land such
4 courts and private hire operators premises.
This is explained in detail in Paragraphs 2 .11 of the report and reflected in Appendix
3 of the revised policy that contains the suggested licence conditions.
As set out in Paragraphs 2 .12 to 2 .17 of the report, the revised policy contains a number
of operational refinements designed to reflect current practise and improve clarity.
These include expanded information on data handling and information sharing, clearer
wording around requirements for returning vehicle plates when vehicles are sold, a new
requirement to notify the authority of vehicle theft and revised wording on window tinting,
moving away from prescriptive thresholds in favour of manufacturer standard glazing based
on local evidence and experience in this area.
Members will also note at paragraph 2 .17 of the report the proposed removal of the penalty
points scheme for operators and vehicle licences while retaining it for drivers. The report
explains that this reflects proportionality, operational experience and the availability
of more effective enforcement tools such as suspension notices and the introduction of
a single point of contact approach for operators. Safeguarding remains central to the revised
policy and as highlighted in the report of paragraph 2 .1a the revised policy
policy contains strength and provisions around professional conduct, disability
assistance, safeguarding training and equality duties with clear expectations
for drivers and operators. The revised policy also makes reference to Baroness
Casey's 2025 national audit on group -based child sexual exploitation
and abuse and the government's response reflecting the importance of
continued vigilance within the licenced trade to help tackle abuse.
Further changes include additional guidance to help promote greater understanding and
compliance by licence holders and applicants.
This includes an expanded definition section and additional guidance throughout the driver,
vehicle and operator sections to assist applicants and licence holders in understanding requirements
in the licencing process.
Finally, the report Paragraph 2 .21 to 2 .22 set out the proposed implementation and transition
remain arrangements subject to adoption.
The commencement date of 1 September 2026 is recommended, supported by a programme of
communication staff training, system updates and guidance preparation.
When longer lead -in times are required, most notably in relation to the enhanced wheelchair
accessible vehicle specification, the report recommends a phased approach with further
work being brought back to the committee within the next 12 months.
And until such time as the revised policy is formally adopted and implemented, the existing
policy will continue to apply to the determination of applications and other licencing matters.
Once implemented, the revised policy will provide the new framework for decision -making going forward.
In either case, the policy is intended to guide the Council's approach and does not fetter its discretion.
Each application and matter and licencing matter will continue to be considered on its own individual merits,
having regard to the relevant legislation, statutory guidance and the particular circumstances of the case.
So Chairman, the recommendations are at the front of the report.
I'll just run through those.
So recommendations are to the Committee to adopt the revised
Acne Carriage and Private Hire Licencing Policy as attached at Appendix A to the report,
which incorporates the recommendations considered by the Committee on 19 January 2026,
and notes the additional amendments within the revised policy that have been made to
reflect changes in legislation, statutory and national guidance, and working practises
since implementation of the Council's existing Acne Carriage and Private Hire Licencing Policy.
Recommendation agrees the proposed implementation date of the 1st September 2026, subject to
any specific phased timelines set out in the revised policy, including an alternative timeline
specified for the enhanced wheelchair accessible vehicle specification.
Delegates authority to the head of regulatory services in consultation with
chairman of the licencing public protection committee to make minor or
consequential amendments e .g. formatting, cross -referencing, typographical
corrections and updating hyperlinks prior to publication, provided these do not
materially change the effect of the revised policy. To authorise the head of
of the Licencing Public Protection Committee and cabinet member for Housing and Regulatory
Services to change the implementation date of the revised policy if necessary.
Finally, if adopted, to authorise the approval of minor amendments of the revised policy
by the head of Regulatory Services in agreement with the chairman of the Licencing Public
Protection Committee and cabinet member for Housing and Regulatory Services.
Thank you, Chairman.
I'm happy to take questions.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:13:16
Thank you and before we go on to questions just to let members know that
we have to my right representatives here today from the Amersham and Chesham MS
group and the Chesham and District Transport Users group. Welcome to the
meeting. They do take part in a part of the working party set up by Simon which
is great. So we have received written reviews from the group which is
from ISABEL under Part B, Section 1 of our constitution.
And so I just want to mention their concerns
to inform the debate, and then Simon can respond.
So it's, although the group are supportive of the proposed
changes in relation to the WAV taxis in the policy, which
they believe should incentivize the take -up of WAV taxis,
they are concerned that the positive impact will not
be seen for two years and how that will impact wheelchair
users in the Amersham and Chesham in the meantime. The group have queried whether
the interim funding solution may be an option. Simon, would you give a response please?
Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer - 0:14:21
Yes, thank you Chairman. First I'd like to start by thanking the Amersham and Chesham
MS Society group, the Transport Users group and other members of the working
group for their continued engagement with offices on this important issue.
On funding, it's important to be clear that the Taxi Licencing Service operates on a cost -neutral
basis and is funded entirely through licence fees. We do not have a budget or grant scheme
that could be used to subsidise wheelchair accessible vehicles. Any direct financial
support would require a separate corporate decision as part of the Council's wider budget
process. Since 2023, officers have worked with the Working Group to use the levers available
to us. This has included direct engagement with the trade, contacting existing wheelchair
accessible vehicle operators, improving publicly available wheelchair accessible vehicle information
and using the policy review process to understand barriers and explore solutions.
The policy changes before members this evening include changes to vehicle age limits and the
removal of grandfather rights for existing wheelchair accessible vehicle hackney carriages.
These are intended to improve accessibility.
They will not however deliver an immediate solution, but they represent a positive and
practical step towards long -term improvement.
Alongside this we will continue targeted engagement with operators, explore non -financial incentives
such as dedicated WAV ranks and support the group in considering external funding routes,
recognising that these are not quick fixes.
We remain committed to working collaboratively with stakeholders,
but it's important to be realistic.
The policy changes proposed tonight are intended to support sustainable progress going forward,
and we will continue to work with the group to explore solutions.
We would welcome any further suggestions or ideas from other stakeholders
and the wider community to help address the challenges faced by wheelchair users
and access to suitable transport options.
Interested parties can make contact with the working group,
either via myself or via the taxi licencing team.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much for that.
OK, so we can now open up to questions,
and I'm going to jump up to mine first.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:16:43
2 .2.
There is states no upper vehicle age limit would apply.
Is there any danger to the public not to have an upper age limit,
whereas most taxis would have an operation of it.
Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer - 0:16:58
So you're referring to the proposal in terms of the enhanced wheelchair
accessible vehicles? Yes 2 .22. The safeguard that we're suggesting is more frequent
inspections so rather than the the usual annual inspections what we're proposing
is those vehicles would be subject to a more frequent inspection of six months
inspections. Right and that will obviously be reviewed if there's anything start showing
obviously public protection is number one. Absolutely and from the outset
there are you know each case as I said it's looked at individual merits and if
there were any concerns with specific vehicles then we deal with it
accordingly whether it's a suspension or refusal. Great lovely.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:17:54
Councillor Stutchbury. Firstly can I thank you I'm sorry I'm on your team for report also can I thank you for the
inclusion of the 2024 motion on White River as you well know I took it to
council in 2024 it was agreed unanimously by the council and I thank you for the work you've done on it
and the implementation of this into the HATPCAP and licencing policy. That was a good point you raised in the last meeting.
And I think, you know, I'd like to personally thank you and seeing for doing it.
Not very often that councils totally agree on something, but we did on that night.
And your work that you've done with the team now actually will make a difference to the safety and well -being of young women and girls in Buckinghamshire
and in nightclubs and other places, which you did.
So just for the record, I'd like to thank you.
I do have some questions around the equalities impact assessment.
It was just where it says, the variances, where it says none.
I don't understand what none is.
I had it up here earlier.
Where you show your charts, you call it impact assessment.
And they're quite easy to, unclear, that's it, that's the word, sorry, sorry.
That was the word I was looking for.
There was two unclears where it said race and ethnic is positive, unclear.
I didn't understand why it was unclear.
It's not a fault, it's just I didn't understand what unclear meant and sex positive unclear.
There might be a reason I don't understand it, that's why I'm asking.
Is it because they're gender, they're not a gender issue question there or is it because it's unclear because it wouldn't have a determination on the impact assessment?
I think it might be related to the fees paper there was the quality impact
Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer - 0:19:36
screening assessment I think it's on the second item on the agenda.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:19:45
I always go to equality, it draws me there. Yeah I think it's on the next item.
That's just the honest question. In which case thank you that's cleared that up but
again thank you for your time I think it's a great piece of work you've done.
Councillor Gough.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:20:00
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:20:02
Thank you very much, Chair, and again I'm going to follow my colleague to the right
and say what a fantastic job you've done.
These reports come out from your department and they're so in depth.
It's quite incredible the bits and pieces that you cover.
Again, I'd like to compliment you and your team for doing that.
The only thing that's not in there is the diagram of how to put an engine together already
on a taxi.
so what it does is so in depth it's quite something so again it's quite
interesting to read through the report with some of the comments made about
charges that were coming and they didn't agree with the increases you know and
then they didn't agree with the the year of the vehicle going up to 10 they got
replaced within 10 years because of you know financial restrictions everybody's
finding that but when I look over those fees that you've got for licencing to be
I find them quite cheap, you know, when you look at it for what they do and what they can achieve running their business.
So again, I compliment you at keeping those fees
extremely low and
with that right, so I fully support what's coming through but again,
compliments to the team. I couldn't find a fault this time, which was very good.
Thank you. Anyone else have any questions?
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:21:20
So I think we've discussed the amendment to the wording around the white ribbon campaign
Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 0:21:28
and splitting it out. I think I asked briefly at the last meeting around any monitoring
we could do around that. So for instance, bringing back metrics that allow us to see,
for instance, reports from women versus men, which would help us obviously to monitor the
of that wording change going forwards and see if the policy is now more effective.
How would we see that come back?
How would this committee know how that's being measured?
So yeah, very good question.
Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer - 0:22:00
So following the last meeting, I met last week with colleagues in the, dealing with
domestic abuse to get their views on, because what we talked about was adding additional
categories on the reporting pages that we use. They've come back with some
really helpful suggestions how we can help capture that information. So it's
work in progress but I'm hoping we can we can sort of deliver that quite soon.
And then obviously we do the six monthly reports that come back to committee. We
report that information then so obviously the next one I think is due
quite soon because we do it from October through to March time. So the next report
it won't give you an update but we won't obviously have any figures at that point
because we'll be reporting to the present time but then going forward
every six months we can report back to members on the sort of new categories of
complaints and reports that are coming through to capture that information.
Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 0:23:06
Is that data that we already have, is it just a change in the reporting or is it data that
we're going to have to now collectively, so I just think it would be helpful to have kind
of a baseline before we make the changes to know what that measurement is and then we
can see if implementing the policy and making the changes through the policy actually changes
any of that and it's effective long term.
Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer - 0:23:32
So, yeah, because it's not information that we currently capture, so it will be starting
from scratch, but it's probably a good time to do it now because we'll start the next
reporting period from next month.
So we can get that in in the next couple of weeks.
And I don't see any reason why we couldn't get that in quite quickly.
And then we'll have a sort of robust set of figures then.
Jonathan?
Cllr Chris Chilton - 0:23:56
Yes, I'm delighted to see that we're making car payments compulsory for all drivers and
cars from the 1st of September. Have you had any feedback from drivers and from companies
about that and do you see any reason why if one of my daughters gets into a taxi on the
2nd of September there will be any situation in which credit cards won't be accepted?
It clearly shouldn't happen once the policy comes in.
Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer - 0:24:24
And in terms of the report back from the trade,
we had quite a lot of support for this.
And we've got the reports from quite a lot of our,
particularly our drivers, complaining
about other drivers, bluntly, that weren't accepting
cashless payments.
So I think it's broadly welcome.
I don't think from a practical point of view why you wouldn't accept card payments,
given a lot of people don't carry cash.
So you're kind of creating an issue for yourself in the sense of from a financial point of view.
If you've not got a facility to take a mobile phone payment or a card payment,
I don't think it should be a massive issue.
But again, we've got our online reporting procedures,
so if anybody does experience any issues then.
I mean, as a regular taxi user in High Wycombe,
most of the High Wycombe cars wouldn't accept the cards today.
Cllr Chris Chilton - 0:25:17
I think it will be, my personal view
is that it will be quite a big change for the High Wycombe
based companies.
But if they haven't fed back, nor feedback,
that they'll find it difficult.
Yeah, I mean, as part of the implementation,
Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer - 0:25:38
we're going to be doing a lot of communication as well.
So we'll make the new policy requirements widely known.
So we'd like to think, start to see an improvement
in the compliance around that area.
You would think that cash payment would be a lot safer
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:25:55
for the driver, not carrying a lot of cash around with him,
which is subject to be stolen in a brutal way.
So we've got Councillor Gough.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:26:10
Thank you, Chairman, for my return. It's quite good. As Councillor Chiltern just said, there's
obviously issues in WIC and maybe people should report those issues in a little bit and then
it could be dealt with by the department. But anyhow, that's another point. What I did
forget to say is, you know, the department's always looking to improve and improve. You
do all the time, I don't know how you find it to improve. But you've got about the training
sessions that you do for different issues that the drivers come across or you want to
educate, do they have to pay for those training or is that another service that
you give as part of their sort of licence procedure and it's paid for
within the licence or is that extra? It's all sort of captured within the
Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer - 0:26:52
licence fees. Some of it the drivers will pay before the
application process and then some of it's delivered within the application
fees but it's all it's not it's from a financial point of view it's not a
burden on the council if you like it's recouped from the service user. Just on
that I mean all of our drivers and undergo safeguarding and disability
Lindsay Vallis - Service Director for Communities - 0:27:18
awareness training so that's every single one of them and they do that on
a regular cycle so I think it's every three years yeah so yeah all of them do
that and through our accredited course which is in line with the national
recommendation and obviously really important.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:27:40
Again, thank you very much for doing that for our community of Buckinghamshire because that's well respected and you know we see them coming in and out
and they're training and I find it quite quite interesting so again thank you very much.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:27:49
Thank you chair. Before I ask my question and I think the means of payment should
be cash and card because devices do go flat and people should have the option.
But my question is regarding on page 12 the age and the experience of the
Cllr Dean Field - 0:28:10
driver. Can you explain why it's been dropped from three years experience to
now only 12 months knowing that all these other things that these people got
be taught, i .e. how to deal with people in wheelchairs, etc., etc. How can this lack
of an experience be better for the people using those vehicles?
Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer - 0:28:36
Thank you, Councillor. So, one of the drivers for this review, apart
from the fact that we were coming up for that five -year cycle, was to benchmark
our policy against the debunked transports, best practise guidance for
licencing authorities and what the best practise guidance essentially says that
we like licencing authorities shouldn't set age limits on drivers and the
statutory provision requires 12 months driving experience so what was being
proposed is sort of kind of in line with the statutory guidance and the legal
position. I think in reality we've kept in or proposed an age limit of 21 years of
age to ensure that drivers have sufficient maturity. As Lindsay says the
drivers all have to go through the Safeguard training. All our drivers, new
drivers, have to undertake Council approved driving assessment. So they, as
part of that assessment, they are tested on their knowledge of policy and the
legal requirements. So there's quite a robust sort of betting process that goes
through in terms of training and we have our enhanced DVS cheques, background
cheques on their DVLA driving record, so those all kind of go into the mix.
Something that was fed back to us by the trades that they, not often, but they
felt that it could be beneficial, that was argued from an equalities point of
view that it could be you know that we're kind of disregarding on that
allowing younger drivers potentially.
So it's kind of put forward as a,
kind of like a compromise position I think,
where we felt we could put this forward as a recommendation
without compromising public safety.
And once, obviously once licenced drivers
are then subject to strict conditions, monitoring.
So we do, you know, we keep a close eye on our drivers.
Cllr Dean Field - 0:31:03
Okay, thank you very much. My question wasn't at the actual age of 21 years. I'm looking at
previous at the experience. Having, if you've been driving, you just passed your test at the
age of 21, having one person in the car, now you've got four people in the car, safeguarding,
all that time, all those things take time to learn, I can't understand the logic of
reducing it down to only 12 months. So that's my question. Thanks very much.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:31:35
You've explained. On that point though, even though it's statute for 12 months, can we
actually still keep in the three years if the committee decides to? Do we have
the capability to go against that?
Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer - 0:31:49
Yeah, I mean it's perfectly within the gift of the committee
to make an alternative decision on the policy.
Is that something that the committee would want to discuss?
Or is everyone happy with the 12 months experience?
Is it about the, or something different?
About that, your point.
Yeah.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:32:15
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:32:18
We have a situation with employment and having something which is so hard for
someone to get into employment, we have employment rights and we may find
ourselves challenged legally on making it restrictive practises in centric
profiles based driving. You pass your driving test which is a really difficult
thing to do these days, you're being assessed by the licencing department
which is really thorough job. You're not going to get your licence unless you've
all those things that's going to take you quite a little time you've got to go
for all this training then say well you can sit and wait three years before you
can set up a job or have a business or be able to be employed seems restrictive
practises to me and I think we've as we've got it recorded that we were going
to go for one year I think we may get challenged and I definitely would advise
them to challenge the policy because I don't like restrictive practises and and
think that the policies perfectly say I have every confidence that the team will
monitor this step appropriately. So if we were going to change it I would be
voting against that because I believe in freedom of choice.
Councillor Hashman is it on the same point? Yeah I mean my understanding of what
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:33:28
you just laid out there is that potentially it could be viewed as
Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 0:33:30
discriminatory against younger people by having three years requiring three
experience rather than one because younger people are more likely not to
have built up that time. So I understand that. I don't know what the likelihood of
any kind of legal challenge around that is. So age versus experience.
Sorry to go back to the data again. Do we know at what point
accidents and incidents begin to decrease? Is there a
think difference between someone with one year's worth of experience versus
three years worth of experience and how likely they are to be involved in an
accident. Do we have any of that data to support this? No we don't have that
Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer - 0:34:20
specific information. I'd probably actually to qualify to chair as well. The
other thing what I didn't mention is we deal with a lot of drivers that have
come from overseas so they may not have held they may have a an overseas
driving licence they may not have been driving for 10 years and then they come
here do our driving if they they may be prohibited from driving for three years
and that's one of the challenges that we have at the moment so again it's part of
that that sort of compromise arrangement and mandating a move over to a 12 month
GB licence allows us to see a build -up of history over that 12 months because
the other problem we have is overseas driving licences.
Information isn't readily available,
so we don't have a background on those drivers.
I just think, and I will look to Simon just to cheque,
that I am absolutely correct,
but this is also reflective of the change
Lindsay Vallis - Service Director for Communities - 0:35:15
in the best practise guidance for local authorities.
So our policy change is implementing changes
in the national best practise guidance
for licencing, taxi and private hire drivers and vehicles.
And obviously we've kind of struck a balance there
around the kind of local position on it,
which Simon explained.
So I think that is also something to bear in mind
in your decision -making.
Councillor Field, are you comfortable now?
Not really.
Well, it answers, I look at certain things.
Cllr Dean Field - 0:35:54
So in business, like regarding a small commercial vehicle, there's age restrictions of 25 years old.
The difference is it goes by the weight of the vehicle with tools in it.
Well, if you took away the tools and had four other humans, therefore, it still becomes a risk.
So training is paramount for anything you want to do if you want to have a high standard of anything.
So I don't agree with the ageism or, my main point is not ageism, it's the experience,
which mainly plays in my head a bit.
Thanks very much.
Okay. So Joanne Bowles, do you want to?
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:36:36
I just thought it might be useful that the average age of our drivers currently
Jo Bowles - Senior Licensing Officer - 0:36:40
when we've looked is sort of between 45 and 48 years old.
I can't remember the exact age, but it's at that point if that information is useful.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:36:55
That's great, thank you. In line was Councillor Stutchbury and then Councillor Hines,
unless it's on the same point. If it's on the same point, I'll give way.
Please, yeah. Sorry, I'll drop this after this. Full disclosure, I work for an insurance company,
Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 0:37:09
car insurance company, so I'm sure there will be lots of actuarial data around the risk of
someone having an accident if they've only got 12 months worth of experience
versus three years worth of experience particularly if they're sort of new to
the country and may have driven for a long time but are unfamiliar with UK roads
and laws. So I guess from a safety point of view and a safeguarding
point of view if there's an increased likelihood of someone having an accident
if they're less familiar with UK roads if we were to go down the route of
accepting the proposal and say, well, we still want to say that 12 months is a reasonable
amount of time.
Could we again monitor that and say, you know, how many, what increased risk has that reduction
added?
So, out of any sort of accident data or incident data that we may have, how many of them would
not have occurred if that person had three years' worth of experience?
Do you see what I mean?
So just again splitting the data that we have by how long someone has held a licence and
seeing if there is a peak around that two year mark.
Just to note that if we might want to change our minds further down the line, it might
be a perfectly reasonable decision today to say yes we think we should do 12 months, but
we reserve the right to change our minds if it turns out that lots of people who only
have two years worth of experience of having accidents or having incidents.
So yeah absolutely I mean obviously the policy keeps under review and we can come
Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer - 0:38:46
back and revisit if information comes forward to suggest that the policy isn't
right in this area. The complexity is going back to what I was just saying
around drivers that don't have a GB licence but so those drivers might have
an overseas driving licence, but it's then how we capture that.
I'm not quite sure how we would do that.
We don't necessarily need to, because what we're looking at is their experience on UK roads.
Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 0:39:18
So whether or not they've got 10, 20 years worth of experience abroad,
if we're only capturing that 12 months worth of experience in the UK, that's all we need to capture.
From an insurance point of view,
when they're looking at the risk -based decisioning
around what they're gonna charge for the premium,
they're really focused on how long have you driven
on UK roads, because it's a different risk,
regardless of how long you've been driving overall.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:39:52
So I was just thinking, the best practise guidance
Lindsay Vallis - Service Director for Communities - 0:40:03
is published by the DFT, so out to local authorities, and they have proposed a change. And we've
looked to implement that in the way that we think is appropriate for BUCKS with some sort
of safeguarding measures in there around age and experience. So I was just saying to Simon,
we can probably actually do that so we could go back to DFT and say, what did you do? Where's
they will have had that debate and looked at that data
as part of recommending that change nationally.
So I think that would probably be something
that's relatively easy for us to do.
So I think that might be a good starting point
on our own data.
I think it might be more complex.
So we do obviously capture reports of incidents
and accidents as they come into us
and where they're reported.
But whether or not we would be able to trend them
in the way we need, I think we'd need to go away
and have a think about it.
So if you could leave that with us, that's probably something we could come back
and give you a bit of an update.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:41:05
Yes, sorry to not keep on coming back and forth all the time.
Cllr Dean Field - 0:41:06
But my thinking is the way the insurance companies work in this country, why,
if you're a fresh driver, your insurance premium's up.
And that's the reason why you have no claims bonuses each year.
So to reward that.
So I share the avenue and I would like to,
I think that what you've,
what Councillor Kristyn said there,
I totally support that.
So I'm looking at that data.
So thanks very much.
Thank you.
On the same topic?
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:41:38
Or a new topic?
Yeah.
I don't want to cut anyone out by changing topics.
That's all.
Yeah.
Do you want to put your microphone on?
I think the explanation for the officers being given have been succinct.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:41:53
I think they've taken in consideration the concerns expressed. My colleague next
to me has given us a way forward for the officers to go and explore this
situation. Any policies reviewed on a need to review basis. So if the data
should come up which demonstrated there was some change. But I think as the
that would raise another load of questions on why we would be challenged, wouldn't it?
So I think careful, careful, gently, gently is the thing with these policies.
And I would vote for the policy as it stands, but not if it was changed.
My question is relating to the point earlier in the meeting, if no one's got anything else
to say on this one topic.
I'll come back on that then.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:42:50
and then you will go back and see if anyone,
if you want to start.
That's fine, you will go to the next question.
But everyone's happy with the stuff they can
and they will see if you can make it forward
and in fact, maybe you want to come back after the cheque.
Yeah?
Okay, first.
So, the text person on the list,
what was the question you were looking for?
Thank you, thank you, I'll go again.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:43:17
I listened to what you read out about disability and the group coming.
I absolutely accept what you said about how we can't address that.
We have no funds to address it.
There just seems a inconsistency in people's rights to gain access equally.
And it appears that we don't have those finances or powers to change that.
This is something I think we need to actually flag up in another forum because that's creating
an inequality.
My late wife would have needed to use it.
She had my atomic dystrophy.
She would have needed to have freedom to be able to go somewhere and make choices to do
something.
waiting two years if you've got a debilitating illness,
or which gives you a specific length of time to live,
is probably far too long,
because you don't know.
So even though we cannot change the decision,
could I please ask that we go away
and look at that aspect of it,
and if there's any good advice we can come back to,
or whether it's something we need to take to council
as a motion to ask Council to ask government to intervene.
Because we can't in all conscience sit here
knowing that there's a disability inequality there
and we can do nothing about it.
So the legislation must be wrong
or there must be a funding pot somewhere to do it.
I'd like to suggest gently that maybe this is something
we ask Council to draw the motion from
as if it was agreed jointly to ask for this to be looked at
rather than a party political motion,
a joint motion to ask this to be looked at
and ask the government if there's some way in law
this could be addressed.
And even in finance or where it is
and it's bloratory question.
That would need officers to help write that question
to make sure it was in keeping with what the question
should be in law.
But I sit here as a widow of someone who had a disability
and I don't feel comfortable with that situation.
Although I recognise Simon, you cannot address it today.
So I propose that if I'm able to, as a member,
that we do a joint motion from the committee
to ask for this to be done.
If that can be done within the Constitution,
rather than make it a party political thing,
it done more hope of progression in the same way
we progressed the white ribbon issue.
it's about equality and rights for people to have the right in law.
Maybe I've gone on to you, but I found it quite difficult to listen to.
Thank you, Councillor Stuckey. It's something you can go away considering, get back to everyone.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:46:10
I think Councillor Gough has got something on this topic.
Yeah, I'd like to come back with Councillor Stutchbury,
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:46:18
because I understand where he's coming from, whether we take it to Council or not.
But as we all know, we've only just done a budget,
and there's no access in the budget to ask for.
So we don't want to exceed people's expectations
that we can achieve it in that way.
But certainly look at the bigger picture as we go forward,
unless the people that have come here this evening
have got a suggestion I'd like to throw in the pot.
You never know.
They might know something we don't know.
But that would be the discussions in the working group
that they have with Simon.
Lindsay?
Simon and Joe have done lots of work with the group and I know that and I'm
Lindsay Vallis - Service Director for Communities - 0:46:56
looking forward to coming saying hello and talking to them after the meeting
today. You know we we have committed to continue to work with the group and we
will do that. You know we obviously do have other other levers in the transport
space. They're not again immediate they're not necessarily the answer but
We are working on that and trying to move some other potential options forward.
One of those at the moment is something we're looking at on the public transport side,
which is potentially the use of a small, really small demand -responsive transport scheme
in the particular area that might meet some of the need that currently isn't being met
as an interim solution while the policy change comes forward.
And I know Simon will have talked to you previously about the last meeting.
I think we talked about sort of the average age of our current Hackney carriage fleet
and how long this might take to implement.
So I think the average period was four years.
But obviously we'll have vehicle owners who replace their owners,
that need to replace their vehicles sooner than that.
So you might see a trend towards the wheelchair accessible vehicles coming in.
We know we've got disparity, don't we, in the different areas.
So we know in the Aylesbury Vale area that all of the Hackney carriages are currently wheelchair
accessible vehicles. So it's actually about the spread of the vehicles and where those vehicles
go. And we'll continue to work with the trade and with the group and using our other levers to try
and look at interim solutions we can move forward to try and help while the policy comes into
effect. So you know you have that commitment from us as officers and I
think we've been really clear about that. So you know it's not an
immediate answer but we're working hard on it. Thank you.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:48:56
We've got Councillor Hinde on this topic and then Councillor Gough also on this topic.
We understand completely the issue of funding and limitations there are. Have
Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:49:04
looked at the concept of variable licencing so that people with a WAV would be paid less,
significantly less than those without. If it's in there already I couldn't see it, but
is that a possibility as a way of encouraging people to move to WAVs and also discouraging
people from keeping cars that are not WAV, you know, so a higher rate for people who haven't shifted
and a lower rate, significantly lower rate for people who have.
Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer - 0:49:50
Yeah, it's an interesting point and I know quite a number of other authorities have tried that.
I think the information I've seen, it's only anecdotally, and there was a report this week,
North Yorkshire Council had a report to their members for their policy and they've tried that.
I suppose it's worth noting this is a sort of national issue,
but the sort of lack of wheelchair accessible vehicles in the licenced fleet.
I think in terms of the discretion on the fees it could possibly help,
but I think because the amounts are quite relatively low,
I think the age limits, it's definitely, I think,
is more of an incentive to get an extra three
years on your licence, a potentially unlimited licence.
I think it would certainly be more of an incentive.
Other things we're exploring is dedicated taxi ranks
for wheelchair accessible vehicles at key locations.
So we've sort of reached out to other agencies,
the transport operators, the railways, for example,
health care providers to see if there's any options there
to make facilities available.
Because for our taxi drivers, obviously at the end of the day,
they want to park at prime locations.
And if we can help support that in a little bit thinking
outside of the box.
and we've done a lot of that with the group, explore other options and we'll continue to do that.
But we're certainly open to any suggestions, you know, anything that can help with this.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:51:38
Sorry, just a legal point. Okay, Councillor Hinde, you've asked your question, you're happy.
Councillor Gough.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:51:48
Thank you for allowing me to come back and listen to this.
It's great that you've been working with that group and you've said listening to suggestions or ideas.
I have a suggestion.
So if you don't mind me throwing this on the table, is that like within the community boards over the last one of our priorities,
we've been looking at no disrespect for aged people in villages and etc.
and improving track community transport was one of the biggest biggest issues
so I think it's a conversation that we should have anyway so we got a bit of a
problem but then say if we like a lot of those vehicles we want to introduce like
mini busses would have wheelchair accessible vehicles we could talk about
that because we're coming into our next year of funding for a community board so
it could be put in there as a bit of a priority under a certain heading. So a suggestion Simon
I'll be more than happy to discuss with you.
Although obviously we know community board funding is very, very, very small compared
to previous years.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:52:49
I'm very small but we make big things happen.
It's not going to give a minibus to an end.
Sorry?
It's not going to provide a minibus.
Well in actual fact I've just been able to almost buy one with the help of parish councils.
Well that's what I mean, I mean without other institutions helping.
Absolutely, Chair, and that's why Simon's looking, so we had so much for the
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:53:11
Community Board and I wooed the parish councils to give a bit and now we've got
sponsors coming in so there are ways but licencing could be, there's
issues that there's a good conversation and then we could help link up with
those that require it. I think that's a conversation then after this meeting. Okay so Councillor Chilton.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:53:33
Yeah, I thought Councillor Hines' suggestion was an excellent one.
Cllr Chris Chilton - 0:53:36
And building on that, we're surrounded by other local authorities that have their own regulations for wheelchair accessible vehicles.
Is there anything we can learn from our neighbouring counties as well as you talked about, it was a good example from Yorkshire.
And are the regulations different in Berkshire, in Bedfordshire, in Middlesex than they are here?
Is there anything that we could see from there that we could easily copy?
Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer - 0:54:07
I think the one thing that did jump out and you know we looked at that we did the benchmarking exercise is the
Bar two of the neighbouring authorities have mandated
wheelchair accessible vehicles in their
Hackney fleet
So I think that's that's the big sort of takeaway from from that
But as I said a moment ago, there was a recognition that this is a national problem,
this national issue that needs addressing.
And so which two local authorities are there that have mandated them?
Haven't mandated.
Oh, haven't.
Yeah.
Sorry, two haven't.
Two haven't, yeah, from memory.
I think we've got 12 or so neighbouring authorities and it's two of them that we...
Cllr Chris Chilton - 0:54:50
So is there anything that we can learn from those other local authorities to make them more widely available?
That's obviously from a policy point of view.
Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer - 0:54:57
I know anecdotally, speaking to colleagues from other authorities and through various working groups and stuff we're involved with,
that it is a hot topic.
It's something that authorities are looking at.
But I think nobody's identified the sort of silver bullet,
if you like, a magic wand that's going to address it.
And I think, again, we talk about it in the group
that we need a kind of bit of blue sky thinking
and a multiple sort of prong approach to it.
Because obviously, at the end of the day,
we can change the policy and mandate that all our Hackney carriages are wheelchair accessible,
but at the end of the day people are still going to go out and make that choice that they want to
be a Hackney driver and buy a wheelchair accessible vehicle and that you know we can't control that.
It's fundamental that they are private businesses aren't they? Yes absolutely. It's not something
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:55:59
that we fund or own. Yeah if Councillor Gough could turn his microphone off please. It's not on?
Oh sorry.
I'll keep turning it myself.
Thank you Councillor Stutchbury.
And then we've got to move on.
I think we've had a level of conversation about it.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:56:18
I'll draw you back to what I tried to express.
If you've got a debilitating illness and it's going to take and it's two years to wait.
You may not be here.
You may not be able to take advantage of it.
and all the ways and government word that we addressed tonight won't solve that issue.
Which I think you've probably heard in the group, and it's not your fault Simon, and not the officers fault.
I draw it back to the fact we have very little powers as council and Phil made the excellent point,
we have very little money and the new community boards have no money
and it's every person's pulling it away. I still bring it back to this is a
question that we need to pose either to our MPs and ask them to bring this up
in our comments if there's something that can be done to rectify it on the back of a
bill or we write a motion to council and do it that way because yeah I think we
I'm proposing then, I'm proposing I cannot leave the subject alone unless I've got a
solution.
There's no solution to come out of this.
So I'm proposing that we leave it with the chair of the officers to go away and look
at this to see if there's any schemes through the constitution that we can do this.
Because we've been identified a problem by the people who work with us.
Life limiting issues and to walk away from it doing nothing tonight is almost as bad
accepting that you've got a disability so you have to live with it and I
personally seen it through the naked eye of my life and I don't think any of us
do accept that so I'm trying to come out with it may run into the rails it may
get nowhere but it's it's a search for a solution and that's where we should be
because nothing other tonight it's going to solve that issue it's next doing
issue outside this council. Thank you. I think in the report Simon did mention
Cllr Heather Wallace - 0:58:29
that they were looking at funding from different sources to help but this is
not something that we're actually talking about in this meeting so I know
what you're saying and the officers are going, Simon you are going to take this
away and look at this and come back to Councillor Stucher and the rest of us
yes and I think we've got to move on it's not being disrespectful at all but it's outside of this and it is being taken away by the officer.
I'm pleading that I ask you to go away and look at it. That's what I've just said we will be doing.
I'm agreeing we're going to look at this if there's any means we can do it with the constitution of the council.
That's exactly what I've just said we will be doing Councillor Stutchfield. We'll now move on. Thank you.
We'll now move on. Councillor Field.
Cllr Dean Field - 0:59:12
Just so I understand we're voting on the financial year that we're looking at and
not in two years time so I think, Graham, give yourself, I understand
Robbins what he's saying like anything which goes through the council it takes
a while so but what I'm seeing in front of me is for the next financial year
that we're asking to look at this policy and not for the policy in two and three
Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer - 0:59:45
four years time. Is that correct? What we're looking at is a policy to replace
the current policy. Under the terms of the policy, the policy is reviewed every
five years but it can be reviewed more frequently if it's deemed
necessary if the policy matters need change. But the
recommendation is to adopt the revised policy to implement it from this
Cllr Heather Wallace - 1:00:13
September. Thank you. Right so if anyone else has got any questions, no? Right so
we'll move on to the recommendations. I'll read them verbatim. So and then we
will do a vote. So recommendations that the Licencing Public Protection Committee
one, adopts the revised Hackney carriage and private hire licencing
Policy, the revised policy, as attached in Appendix A, which incorporates the recommendations
considered by the Committee on the 19th of January, 2026.
Two, notes that the additional amendments within the revised policy that have been made
to reflect changes in legislation, statutory, national guidance, are working practises since
the implementation of the Council's existing Hackney Carriage and private higher licencing
policy, the existing policy.
Number three, agrees the proposed implementation dates of the 1st of September 2026, subject
to any specific phased timelines set out in the revised policy, including alternative
timelines specified for the enhanced wheelchair accessible vehicle specification.
Number four, delegates authority to the head of regulatory services in consultation with
the chairman of the licencing public protection committee to make minor or consequential amendments
For example, formatting cross -reference typographical corrections, updating hyperlinks.
Prior to publication, provided these do not materially change the effect of the revised
policy.
Number five, to authorise the head of regulatory services in consultation with the chairman
of the licencing, public protection committee, and cabinet member for housing and regulatory
Services to change the implementation date of the revised policy if necessary.
And lastly number six, if adopted to authorise the approval of the minor
amendments of the revised policy by the head of Regulatory Services in agreement
with the Chairman of Licencing Public Protection Committee and Cabinet Member
for Housing and Regulatory Services. Proposer and seconder?
Proposer Paul, Councillor Kelly, sorry did you get that Claire?
Councillor Kelly is proposing and Councillor Gough seconded.
It's a question with a, is it appropriate,
in the conversation, that under the section that to do with the APNIC have
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:02:40
disabilities, we amend it slightly to say that we urgently seek external solution
to this situation. I'm not saying that we can do it fiscally and I know the
officers will look at everything but we're agreeing this policy tonight and
if we put the word we agree in there that we recognise the urgent need to
resolve this situation that is a positive will to address it isn't
committing the council to doing anything other than what the officers have I know
would be trying to do anyway, but we're including that words in it as an
amendment so that it is not lost in the conversation because otherwise we're
just as I stated skirting over it without properly recording that. I thought
we had a reasonable debate here tonight about it and I think anyone in here is
disagreeing. I think that shows our seriousness about it when we agree the
policy. I just ask kindly for legal officer work. I get your point but I think this is legal.
Laura Heller - Legal - 1:03:48
Yeah thank you Councillor Stutchbury. I would say that any amendment we would
have to agree some some wording some proper wording into the policy and also
whereabouts in the policy it would be appropriate for it to go. I think what
the officers have said obviously it's a matter for the committee but the
The officers have said that they will continue
to try and strive for suitable resolution
where they can, and various different changes
have obviously been brought in
in line with statutory guidance.
Would you spare five minutes?
Why don't we write some words then,
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:04:27
because Chrissie's got some ideas on some words
that we might actually do for it.
If we're not gonna do that, five minutes,
just to do a possibility that that's be unfortunate, wouldn't it?
Is that acceptable in the amount of debate?
Because then we can feel we have attempted to address this issue
and my conscience would be clear.
Laura Heller - Legal - 1:04:55
All I would say, Councillor Stutchbury, is anything that goes in the policy
would need to be something that is kind of directly measurable or you know and
and I'm not sure that that would be best placed for it being in the policy I
think it's something that can continue to be brought up and looked into but
perhaps not for an amendment in the policy. Okay thank you. I'm just going to have to have a
conversation.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 1:05:41
.
Right, thank you for that.
Okay, so what we're going to do is we're going to continue
with the voting, and under number six, we could,
it does say that if adopted to authorise the approval
of minor amendments of a revised policy.
So, sorry, Lindsay's going to explain,
but that's how we're going to take this forward.
So the suggested approach, if you look at recommendation six
at the top of your report, so if you approve that recommendation,
and obviously the ones above it, it says if the policy is adopted
to authorise the approval of minor amendments
of the revised policy by the head of regulatory services
Lindsay Vallis - Service Director for Communities - 1:08:46
in agreement with the chairman of the committee
and the cabinet member for housing and regulatory services.
So if you are minded to approve the policy as it is in front of you this evening,
what we have within those recommendations is the ability to take the views of the committee away tonight,
and for officers to consider potentially wording that could more firmly demonstrate that intent that you've talked about,
and to potentially bring that forward as a minor amendment to the policy,
which we would be able to do if you approve Recommendation 6.
And then we could provide an update on that to the committee at the next meeting.
I think that's a logical way, but I thank you kindly for stopping thinking and getting a solution.
I think that's – I'm very grateful.
if that's what's going to happen and I trust that we can bring it back I'm very
happy to with policy in its entirety because I now have the assurance that
that's what's going to happen and it will be reflected in the minutes so and
and that's a step forward rather than a static position that you as officers
found yourselves in. Thank you. All right thank you very much we are solution
Cllr Heather Wallace - 1:10:08
based people aren't we? Okay so let's go for voting on all six items we haven't
proposed in a second noted.
So we're going to have a raise of hands for four.
Lovely, thank you.

5 Taxi Licensing Fees Review (2026/27)

Right, so item number five is the licencing fees review.
And we have Michelle Shelley, who's
going to give the report, thank you.
Oh, just before you start, does anybody need a comfort break?
Okay. You need one.
Quick, quick.
Because we can't talk while you're out because you have
to be here for voting.
Thank you.

5 Taxi Licensing Fees Review (2026/27)

Cllr Heather Wallace - 1:11:47
Okay. So item number five, taxi licence.
financing fees review and report by Michelle Shelley.
Thank you, chair.
Good evening, everybody.
Again, just to thank you all for the opportunity to present this report today.
Before we do get started, I have one slight amendment to make to the report, if possible,
if you would like to note this.
Michelle Shelly - Head of Taxi Licensing - 1:12:15
Section 4 .4 in the report, which is detailed at page 312, there is a portion of this paragraph,
which is unfortunately repeated twice.
So about halfway down that paragraph, the line starting with the word fuel along that line,
where it starts December 2025 to the end of the paragraph is actually an unintentional
repetition. There's nothing different, it's just a complete repeat.
So members will have read the report, so I will summarise the key points and will be happy to
answer any questions at the end. The purpose of this report is to seek agreement to the
recommendation, which I will read verbatim.
That the proposed fees and charges set out at appendix A
are approved and take effect from the 1st of April, 2026.
Members that were present during the last committee meeting
on the 19th of January will recall that the last report
that detailed the end of year financial position
for the taxi licencing service and the proposal
to increase the fees and charges.
At this meeting, excuse me, at this meeting,
the committee approved the proposed fees and charges
for statutory advertisement in line with legislative requirements.
This advertisement period has now concluded and the responses received have been collated
for members consideration this evening.
These are included as Appendix D, which is pages 329 to 333 of your report.
As members will be aware, taxi and private hire licencing must be delivered on a cost
neutral basis, meaning the service must recover only the costs as described in law without
generating a profit or being subsidised by the wider council taxpayer. In short, the
service must pay for itself. Any surplus or deficit must be carried forward and considered
in subsequent fee reviews. Therefore, a 3 .5 % increase to fees and charges is recommended
to ensure the service remains financially sustainable, compliant with legislation, and
able to continue to deliver its statutory duties effectively.
In section 2 of the report, pages 308 to 309 detail the legislative framework and methodology
for service cost recovery.
Sections 53 and 70 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 sets out
What costs may be recovered through driver vehicle and operator licence fees?
This includes administrative and processing costs, vehicle inspection costs, provision
of Hackney carriage stands, compliance and enforcement relating to licenced drivers,
vehicles and operators.
Members should note that enforcement work relating to unlicensed drivers or vehicles
cannot be included in licence fees and must be funded by general council resources or
court awarded costs. This, however, forms a very small proportion of our total enforcement
activity. Relevant case law, including Raman v Wakefield
2019, confirms that compliance and enforcement against licenced drivers and operators is
recovery within the fee structure. The local government association's 2023 guidance on
locally set licencing fees have been used as a reference point, though only cost compatible
with the specific statutory framework for taxi and private hire licencing have been
included.
At page 310, sections 2 .12 and 2 .17 of the report provides a summary repeat of the narrative
provided in the January report regarding the expected service costs for the coming year,
including salaries, supplies, service costs and interdepartmental charges such as IT provision
and other internal charges.
It also explains that anticipated income for the next period has been considered and factored
into the forecast for the next financial year.
As previously mentioned, following the committee meeting on 19 January 2026, where the proposed
3 .5 % increase was approved for statutory advertisement, a formal advertisement was published in the
local newspaper and a notice was displayed at the council office for the statutory period
as required.
Email notifications were sent to all licence holder over 6 ,000 in total,
which consisted of drivers, vehicle proprietors and private hire vehicle operators.
Emails were sent to the representatives from the Trade and Private Hire Working Group and councillors for their review.
The proposed fee information was also made available on a dedicated council webpage,
providing a clear route for comments and responses.
The period to respond closed on Sunday the 22nd of February 2026 and 31 responses were received.
These responses can be reviewed in detail in Appendix D which is pages 329 to 332 of your report.
Out of these 31 responses, one was a blank response and one was submitted after the deadline.
However, the theme of this specific response was reflected in other responses.
The remaining 29 were valid responses, two of which submitted identical comments.
All responses came from individuals connected to the licence trade.
In summary, all respondents opposed the increase, raising eight common themes among them.
Cost of living and affordability is by far the widest shared response.
Drivers cited rising costs of operating and the financial burden on licence holders.
a key concern shared across the sector.
However, members are reminded that the service must remain cost neutral, and the recommended
increase reflects the minimum uplift required to recover costs and maintain effective operation
to deliver its statutory duty to protect the public.
Fuel and insurance pressures, while drivers referenced rising fuel and insurance costs,
statistics published by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero show that after
the 2022 recent fuel price spike, petrol and diesel prices have actually continued to fall.
Motor insurance premiums have shown sustained downward trends through 2025 as published
by the Association of British Insurers in their article dated the 12th of November,
2025. Comparisons with other councils was raised. Some respondents highlighted fee levels
in other areas being lower than Buckinghamshire, while outside comparisons are helpful, they
They are rarely like for like due to differences
in fee structures and testing requirements
and decision making cycles in relation
to when fees are reviewed from council to council,
which distorts like for like comparisons.
Importantly, Buckinghamshire's taxi licencing service
delivers and maintains fast processing times,
ensuring drivers can stay on the road
and earning without unnecessary delay.
We have consistently met our 10 day service level agreement
since May 2023 and over the last 12 month period,
we have routinely issued valid applications
for driver and vehicle licences within five days or less.
This rapid turnaround is highly valued by the licence trade
providing those licenced by Buckinghamshire Council
an assurance of reliability
and demonstrates the quality service licence holders received
when licenced with us.
Drivers requested more detail on how the fees
have been calculated.
Fee calculations are reviewed annually
with oversight from finance business partner colleagues
to ensure compliance with legislation,
accuracy of assumed costs and correct categorization
of staff operational and support overheads.
Members will recall from the January fees
and charges report that a fee breakdown table
was included and published on the council's website.
Links to this document were included
in all of our correspondence and web pages
regarding the fee proposal and the available time to view at any time.
Respondents also raise concerns regarding external market pressures,
such as app -based operators and increases in cross -border working.
As members know, these matters are governed nationally and outside the Council's control.
However, joint enforcement operations and intelligence sharing continues between us
and officers from neighbouring authorities to ensure all licence holders working outside their
authority, comply with their retrospective policies and conditions, and form a joint
approach to tackling non -compliance. The use of ride -hailing apps by operators is entirely
lawful, and many operators make use of these new technologies to offer passengers greater
choice and upfront pricing, which remains popular across the sector. However, the Council
cannot encourage or discourage their use.
Vehicle age limits was also another area that was common.
Three respondents highlighted financial pressures arising from the current 10 -year vehicle age limit.
Members may recall that only this evening this has been also reviewed separately during the Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Licencing Policy,
which includes proposals to increase the age limit from 10 to 12 years and more flexible provisions for ULEVs and WAVs,
which will help mitigate if agreed.
Fares.
Some respondents raised concerns about fares
not rising proportionately.
Members will note that the council regulate
Hackney carriage fares only,
and set only the maximum fare to be charged.
These fares were last reviewed in August, 2024
in partnership with the Hackney carriage trade.
Private hire fares remain a commercial matter for operators.
This being that they can set their own fares.
equally the wages paid to the driver by the operator is outside of the council's control.
One respondent also queried the introduction of a fee for an operator home address change in relation to operator fees.
We have realigned the need for certain services required by operators to adhere to the requirements of their conditions
against the administrative processing times identified through the fee review
and ensure that costs are properly recovered from activity that generates them
and ensures that all activity taken by officers is reimbursed to the service.
A qualities impact and a qualities assessment accompanies this review at also appendix E.
It recognises potential impacts on groups with protected characteristics, particularly race and
ethnicity, given the demographic makeup of the licenced trade. Under the public sector equality
duty members must have due regard to these considerations while also recognising that
the overriding objective of the licencing regime remains public safety supported by
relevant case law. So in summary members while the consultation responses reflect understandable
concerns from the trade the council must operate the taxi and private hire licencing service
on a strict cost recovery basis. The proposed 3 .5 % increase represents the minimum uplift
needed to keep the service financially sustainable and legally compliant.
It is important to note that the opportunity to give feedback on the fee proposals was
sent to over 6 ,000 licence holders and the resulting response rate of 31 is considered
a significantly low percentage of licence holders overall.
We have carefully considered all feedback supported by data benchmarking and the statutory
framework.
Many of the issues raised fall outside of the council's control but where they do not
we have addressed them within the limits of our legislation.
Importantly, Buckinghamshire continues to deliver a high -performing licencing service,
routinely issuing driver and vehicle licences within five days or fewer,
an essential benefit that helps drivers' remaining work with minimal disruption.
Overall, the recommended fees are reasonable proportionate and necessary to remain
an effective, reliable service that protects the public and supports the licenced trade.
So the next steps, the committee's options are to either approve the fees as recommended
or to amend the proposal.
Fees must be brought into effect on or before the 22nd of April 2026 with or without amendment.
The aim of the service is that these changes would take effect across the whole council
area from the 1st of April to align with our financial cycle.
Fees will of course continue to be reviewed annually and further reports will be provided
to this committee following the review.
So the recommendation, which I will repeat,
that the proposed fees and charges set out at Appendix A
are approved and take effect from the 1st of April, 2026.
Thank you, Chair.
I'm happy to take any questions.
Thank you very much, Ellie.
Is anyone got any questions?
Councillor Gough, Enfield, and Mr. Shabrie.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 1:25:17
You know, as always, the reports you do are always in depth
and very caring towards that community
that run that business.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:25:24
So I can't find anything wrong
with what you're proposing there on those sort of increases.
It's quite concerning that, you know,
people say there's a lot of concern going on there,
but not a lot of people responded to the questions
you were asking out in the public domain.
So it can't be that big a concern as it goes.
As we move on, I'd like to propose
that we accept your recommendations that you put forward.
Okay, thank you.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 1:25:54
Councillor Fields.
Hello there.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Dean Field - 1:26:06
I've just looked on page 311, and you put, you refer to costs
of the fuel have dropped, which I totally agree.
But that's not looking at the climate we're in today,
where the price of oil has gone through the roof.
We don't know what's ahead of us,
and hopefully this troubles we have in the Far East,
sorry, Middle East is sorted quickly.
But yeah, a far away report,
there is an argument on hardship,
but I understand there was a request of 5 %
from the budget and you are requesting 3 .5%,
which I congratulate you for bringing that down.
So thanks again for that great report.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Stutchfield.
Stutchbury, sorry.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 1:26:54
Re -name to you.
No, they're a completely different family.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:26:59
Stutchfield, if you want their address,
I can introduce you.
Oh really?
You're the one here.
The Stutchbres have been,
they're a different family altogether,
the Stutchfields.
They do live in Buckingham, they did a year ago.
But there's no relation, I don't think.
But Stokes -Brizzard, they were the middle class.
Anyway, I'll ask my question, it's just kind enough to ask me.
It was on the equalities thing, when I asked it wrongly earlier.
Where it said, what's the word, it's dropped off my page now we're trying to...
It was on the equalities section. That's it. Thank you so much. Where is it unclear? What's
unclear mean? I know you can't see through something, but does that mean it's not determined
or how does that mean? There's several unclares on that. And it just attracted my attention
because it's one was race and positivity unclear. I didn't understand what it meant. That's
what I was trying to get to and if I don't understand it I need to ask. Yeah apologies
Simon Gallacher - Principal Licensing Officer - 1:28:16
that's down to me. So the initial screening, the Qualities Act screening
was done at the time of the original proposal and the outcome wasn't
determined so the reason it's unclear was because it wasn't a final decision
so obviously fees could go up or down so it might may have been positive or
negative on those two sort of demographics. Obviously if the
recommendation is to increase fees then arguably that unclear becomes negative
on those two groups. Thank you for the explanation it will stop me wondering
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:28:52
what it is. You know I am very supportive of the policy and as a colleague said I
would vote for it so that's fine. Thank you Councillor Kelly. No you're fine
Cllr Heather Wallace - 1:29:00
Councillor Gough. I'm joined coming back Chairman, thank you very much and Michelle I'd like to ask
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:29:08
you something because Councillor Field picked up on it I'm quite intrigued. The situation we have
at the moment with the what's going on in the Gulf and fuel going through the roof we're all
taking that that sort of punishment. How do we help the taxi drivers with those increased costs
or do they have to take the can in as well?
Because I'm struggling because if there's a set fee,
the petrol or diesel could go above that set fee.
So how do we counteract that?
I think Lindsay's coming back.
Yeah, so I don't think we can really.
You're looking at a licence fee for a driver
Lindsay Vallis - Service Director for Communities - 1:29:50
that would cover them for a three year period,
a vehicle for a year, an operator for five years.
So if you actually look at the fees
and then think if you're running your business
or all of your overheads, the fee in itself
is probably not the thing that you're going to be
most concerned about, but the fuel cost absolutely
might impact your business.
But as part of a business owner,
that's something that you have to understand,
model, think about, and accommodate.
I think you know you'll understand that at the time that Shelley wrote this report the situation was exactly as the report sets out
Obviously you know none of us can see what the future holds or what's going to happen over the next few months
So I think you know across the council in a variety of different places
We've got a watching brief on that because it isn't just in this area that we would see that impact
And we would see it as individuals as business owners and as an organisation
So I don't think I can give you a direct answer other than that.
Allow me to come back, correct me if I'm wrong.
So private hire, they can increase their fees as they want to,
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:31:00
but those that we set their fee fee to charge people...
The Hapney Carriages, you're right.
Yeah, we set the maximum fee they can charge.
For sure.
So on that maximum fee, that could be used up, just within fuel now.
Whereas private hire can go blab and put it up.
That's what I'm trying to read.
I mean, we remain, and you'll have heard the officers talk
about it tonight, but we have our working group
with representatives within the trade,
Lindsay Vallis - Service Director for Communities - 1:31:30
and the team meet regularly with them.
So it's one of those things that we would be talking about
and keeping a watching brief on as that moves forward.
I mean, Hackney carriage fares were last reviewed,
I think you said 2024.
So that's something if we needed to and the trade brought that forward, we could look at Hackney Carriage Fair review if that was appropriate.
But you know, I think it's very early days for us to be saying what we're going to need to do.
It's just sad we're in an undesired area where fjord is through the roof and everybody's suffering.
But OK.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:32:02
OK, thank you. Councillor Hines.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 1:32:09
Yeah, great report and all the rest of it. I do think though that when you're getting
Cllr Matthew Hind - 1:32:15
less than a 1 % response rate on a survey, it ain't worth doing because the people who
are likely to respond are ones who have got a vested interest and either look at a different
way of doing the survey or just not doing it at all. Save the cost.
Legally, we have to advertise the fees, so it's part of the legislation which is quite
Lindsay Vallis - Service Director for Communities - 1:32:36
old Shelley might be able to come back and give the actuals on it but legally
we have a requirement where we put we we charge a fee over a certain amount again
I will need the officers to confirm that to put it out on an advertisement and to
make make people aware of that I think yeah yeah to make them aware fine yeah
that survey to try and get their opinions we just we just notify them and
allow them to feed in yeah if they choose to
Cllr Matthew Hind - 1:33:04
Anyone else? Councillor Ashman. Sorry just following up from the question from my
Cllr Heather Wallace - 1:33:06
colleague. If on the Equality Impact Assessment if those unclears then move
Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 1:33:11
to negative is there any legal implication I mean I'm assuming we're
protected but if the changes that we therefore approve disproportionately
affect a certain protected group?
So I think on your equalities impact assessment,
and it will say that, I have to find the page number,
Lindsay Vallis - Service Director for Communities - 1:33:34
but your primary responsibility as a licencing committee
is to, in licencing, taxing private hire vehicles,
is to protect public safety.
You know, that's what the policy objective is.
and I think it's for the committee to determine
whether or not a reduction in fee,
so you could say actually we're disproportionately
impacting this particular sector of the licenced trade,
but actually the only way you would potentially address
that is maybe look at a different fee,
that's what's within your remit,
a different fee or approving the fees in front of you.
Licencing committees have got to balance
that protecting the public safety along with fee setting.
And one shouldn't compromise the public safety aspect
because of the monetary value.
And there's some guidance or case law that supports that,
which Simon would be able to reference
probably better than me.
So it's a consideration,
but the public safety element
has to be the overriding objective.
So I think the most important thing
is the acknowledgement that there's the potential to impact and that we
understand that as part of the decision -making.
Yeah because we've got to be cost neutral when it comes down to all the money.
Councillor Stutchbury.
Cllr Heather Wallace - 1:35:05
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:35:09
I've got some points to make but I realise it's been a long evening and I'd like to propose that we accept the recommendations
and move to the, or seconded, Councillor Gormley,
as he pointed out to me,
as opposed to move to the vote then, in which case.
Is everybody else happy to move to the vote?
I'm trying to be helpful.
I've got some points to make,
but I don't think they were going to benefit anyway.
Thank you.
Right, okay, so I'll read out the recommendation
that the proposed fees and charges set out in Appendix A
Cllr Heather Wallace - 1:35:32
are approved and take effect
from the 1st of April, 2026.
Proposer, seconder, take your pick.
Okay, so show of hands, those four.
Right, thank you, that's it.
And so the next meeting is the 21st of April, and that's the meeting closed.
Thank you very much.
As the webcast can finish.
Thank you.