Agenda and draft minutes

The Chair opened the meeting and explained that the Council’s Director of Governance had provided legal advice that it was appropriate for the Committee meeting to go ahead that day to determine the application by Uber for a private hire operator’s licence. She explained that the Director of Governance’s had been made with reference to the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity, published by central government, and the associated guidance provided by the Local Government Association (which notes that “you are allowed to … continue to discharge normal council business (including budget consultations or determining planning applications, even if they are controversial)”.

The Chair added that in the Director of Governance’s legal opinion there was no reason for the meeting not to continue as scheduled. The Director of Governance had noted that the key focus of the pre-election period restrictions is publicity issued by the Council, rather than the business of the Council itself. Whilst matters directly impinging on local or national policy should be avoided (to ensure the decisions do not impact on the outcome of the election), the ordinary ‘day-to-day’ decisions of the Council should continue, even if those decisions may be controversial.

The Chair reminded anyone watching that when making their decision on the Uber application, the Committee needed to consider national legislation and the Council’s taxi licensing policy. She explained that the decision to be made lawfully could not be political or include considerations of matters such as market competition or support for local businesses or trade unions. She added that the decision could only be made within the regulatory framework on whether Uber was “fit and proper” to hold an operator’s licence.   

A Member noted that his opinion differed to that of the Monitoring Officer. The Senior Lawyer advised that premises licenses operated under a different framework by Sub-Committee and the taxi application was governed under separate legislation for committee meetings. She added that the Committee could only go into private session for a number of reasons. She noted the reasons and noted that she could not see why the committee could go into private session.

The Chair then read out the procedure for the determination of the application for a Private Hire Operators Licence.

At this point in the meeting, Members and co-opted members are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary interest, or other registerable interest, they might have in respect of business on this agenda, if they have not already done so in advance on the Register of Interests. The disclosure must include the nature of the interest.

An interest must also be disclosed in the meeting when it becomes apparent to the member during the meeting.

[Please see attached sheet for further guidance for Members].

Members were invited to declare any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests, any prejudicial interests, or any disclosable pecuniary interests that they might have in respect of business on the agenda. Cllr Nicholls noted that he knew Matthew Freckelton (Uber Head of Cities, UK) and had not spoken with him regarding the Uber application. There were no further declarations of interest.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2024.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2024 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

A Member asked for an update on hackney carriages vehicle licence waiting list. The Taxi Licensing Manager explained that there were six vehicles in operation, two vehicles had confirmed delivery and three applicants were sourcing vehicles. He added that there would be an update report at a future meeting and that the taxi licensing consultation ended on 14 July 2024.

At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered to speak can do so. Members of the public may speak on agenda items or on matters within the remit of the committee.

Please note that our registration deadlines are set as 2 working days before the meeting, in order to facilitate the management of public participation at our meetings.  The deadline for registering at this meeting is 5:00pm on Friday 7 June 2024. 

To register to speak please visit www.york.gov.uk/AttendCouncilMeetings to fill in an online registration form.  If you have any questions about the registration form or the meeting, please contact Democratic Services.  Contact details can be found at the foot of this agenda.

Webcasting of Public Meetings

Please note that, subject to available resources, this meeting will be webcast including any registered public speakers who have given their permission. The meeting can be viewed live and on demand at www.york.gov.uk/webcasts.

During coronavirus, we made some changes to how we ran council meetings, including facilitating remote participation by public speakers. See our updates (www.york.gov.uk/COVIDDemocracy) for more information on meetings and decisions.

It was reported had been eight registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

Flick Williams spoke under the general remit of the committee on progress towards getting additional wheelchair accessible vehicles on the road. She noted that in June 2022 there was a report to committee including information on wheelchair accessible taxis and that she had spoken at previous meetings on the matter. She was disappointed to see that it had not been included on the agenda and noted that there should be another unmet demand survey this year. She added that approving the Uber application would make the situation worse for disabled people and she explained how inequity for disabled people had worsened. He noted her inequality concerns with disabled people being refused taxis. She urged refusal of the Uber application.

The remaining seven registrations to speak were on agenda item 4 Application for a Private Hire Operator's licence - Mr Neil McGonigle on behalf of Uber Britannia Limited ('Uber').

Suba Miah urged the committee to consider the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. He noted that it was almost seven years since the previous Uber application was refused. He added that that every day he saw out of town Uber vehicles the rules and he believed that this was due to surge pricing. He noted York taxi drivers fare charges. He noted that the out of town Uber drivers had not completed the York safety test and he noted his concerns about their insurance. He asked the committee to ensure a fair playing field to allow all already licensed in York, including hackney carriages, to apply for an Uber licence.

Daniel Smith explained that Uber broke section 6 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 adding that Labour had promised to change that law. He noted that Uber were not fit and proper to have a York licence. He gave examples of the practices of Uber drivers which included picking up illegal passengers at ranks. He stated there was a lack of the monitoring of it and that York operators did monitor this. He expressed concern that how safe the cars used by Uber were and that the Uber office would be empty and not manned. He added that public safety was a huge risk with Uber drivers.

Arfan Asif explained that Uber operated in York and not under York rules. He added that all Uber drivers will be able to apply for a York licence and could work for York operators. He asked a number of questions about Uber and urged the committee to refuse the licence to reaffirm it’s commitment to just and fair and making it safe for visitors.

Muhammad Sulaman noted that Uber did not have a licence and operated in York. He explained that he had passed his taxi knowledge test and added that when he outside drivers were seen this made York taxi drivers feel low. He noted that he was unsure why Uber drivers work  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

This report seeks Members’ determination of an application for a private hire operator’s licence by Mr Neil McGonigle on behalf of Uber Britannia Limited (‘Uber’). The applicant wishes to operate private hire vehicles from Tower Court, Oakdale Road, Clifton Moor, York, YO30 4XL.

Members considered a report that sought their determination of an application for a private hire operator’s licence by Mr Neil McGonigle on behalf of Uber Britannia Limited (‘Uber’), operating from Tower Court, Oakdale Road, Clifton Moor, York, YO30 4XL.

In coming to their decision, Members took into consideration all the information and submissions that were presented, and determined their relevance to the issues raised including:

1.           The application form and the papers before it.

2.           The Public Protection Manager’s report and comments at the meeting.

The Public Protection Manager outlined the report. He explained that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act provides that the council should, upon receipt of an application, grant a private hire operator’s licence…. unless it considers the applicant was not a ‘fit and proper person’ to hold such a licence or is disqualified by reason of their immigration status. He noted that the applicant was not barred by reason of their immigration status and that the committee was determining whether the applicant is fit and proper to hold a licence. He then provide background information on the application.

The Public Protection Manager detailed a number of aspects of taxi licensing case law in the context of the application. He explained that it had long been established that private hire operators could only dispatch vehicles and drivers that were re licenced by the same local authority as the operator. This is known as the ‘triple licensing rule’ and by similar phrases. He cited the case of Shanks v North Tyneside Council, 2001 in which it was established that the operator can use the vehicles within his organisation for journeys both inside and outside of the local authority in which he was licensed and, indeed,  can use such vehicles and drivers which ultimately have no connection with the area in which they are licensed’. He added that under those under these provisions, Uber had been lawfully enabling passengers to take journeys in York using vehicles and drivers from other licensing authorities in York. He highlighted that granting the application would not prevent them using ‘out of town drivers’ in York and that refusing the application would not prevent them carrying on and using out of town drivers in York and that the application was enable Uber to recruit York licensed drivers on to their platform, which they currently could not do.

The Public Protection Manager detailed the location of the premises at Clifton Moor (the operating address) noting that it had  planning permission. He noted that customers and drivers would interact with Uber via the app and not by visiting the premises. He added that Uber provided a 24/7 emergency line for council officers in the event of any concerns and he detailed the hours of operation to be 24 hours every day of the week. He detailed the annexes and advised Members that they should grant the licence unless they considered that the applicant was not fit and proper to have one. He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.