Review Of Cotswold District Council's Hackney Carriage Table Of Fares
To consider the objections received during the consultation period of the review of the Hackney Carriage (taxi) table of fares and agree the adoption of a new table of fares.
a) considers the objections received in response to the proposal consulted upon; and
b) agrees to adopt the revised hackney carriage table of fares shown in red as set out in Annex A with or without modifications.
The purpose of this report was to consider the objections received during the consultation period of the review of the Hackney Carriage (taxi) table of fares and agree the adoption of a new table of fares.
The Cabinet Member for Development and Licensing introduced the report and summarised the proposed new Hackney Carriage tariffs and the comments and feedback responses from Hackney Carriage licence owners.
Cabinet noted an alternative set of proposed tariffs had been submitted, but could not currently be considered alongside the first set.
Cabinet noted that the proposed new tariffs were maximum amounts that could be charged, and taxi drivers were able to charge less if they chose to do so (which is currently the case).
Cabinet noted that the tariffs had been set at an amount that would enable taxi driving to remain viable at a time of rising operational costs.
RESOLVED: Cabinet considered the report and the objections received in response to the proposal, and agreed to adopt the revised proposed hackney carriage table of fares shown in Annex A.
Record of Voting – for: 7, against: 0, abstention: 0, absent: 1
- Cabinet Report 5.9.22 - Taxi Fare Increase, item 31. PDF 97 KB
- Annex A - Current and proposed table of fares, item 31. PDF 422 KB
- Annex B -CDC Tariff Public Notice 1.7.22, item 31. PDF 108 KB
- Annex C - Consultation Proposal - Proposal 1 - Redacted, item 31. PDF 503 KB
- Annex D - Late submission proposal - Proposal 2 - Redacted, item 31. PDF 2 MB
- Annex E - List of drivers who signed Proposal 1 and 2, item 31. PDF 436 KB
- Annex F - Objections to Proposal 1, item 31. PDF 423 KB
- Annex G - Comparison between Proposal 1 and 2, item 31. PDF 424 KB