To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Bowden, Councillor Hilton and Councillor Haseler. Councillor McWilliams, Councillor Sharpe and Councillor Muir were attending the meeting as substitutes.

Councillor McWilliams had informed the clerk that he would be late to the meeting.

To receive any declarations of interest.

Councillor Brar declared that she was a licensee.

The Chairman declared that he was a Transport for London PCO driver and was a SIA Close Protection officer. He was declaring this in the interests of openness and transparency. Further information was available on Councillor Bhangra’s register of interests and had no bearing on the agenda this evening.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 April 2022.

Greg Nelson, Trading Standards & Licensing Manager, gave the Panel an update on what had been discussed at the last meeting. The council had been unable to find a person or organisation to carry out the research that had been discussed. However, colleagues were considering a Business Improvement District (BID) application, this would raise money via a local levy to fund projects within the BID’s area boundaries. A BID could only be set up after a ballot of businesses in the defined area. The idea of a BID would be included in a night time economy strategy paper due to be considered by Cabinet in August 2022, where various options would be discussed. If a BID was the preferred option, it would probably replace the potential for a late night levy, rather than having the two schemes run in parallel. If the late night levy was to be used, the amount of money raised would be:

·         Between 12am – 6am, the amount raised would be £203,000, of which £98,500 would come from Windsor businesses.

·         Between 2am – 6am, the amount raised would be £51,500, of which £29,000 would come from Windsor businesses.

·         Between 3am – 6am, the amount raised would be £27,000, of which £13,000 would come from Windsor businesses.

Councillor Davey said that a big percentage went to the police, it seemed like a big project for the council to focus on which would not gain that much revenue.

Greg Nelson confirmed that Thames Valley Police received 70% of the amount raised, he understood the comments made by Councillor Davey.

Councillor Baldwin asked if the BID would be looking to consider the same area of concern as the night time economy levy, which was Windsor. He noted that the night time economy levy needed to apply to the whole borough, where as the BID could apply to a specific area.

Greg Nelson said that it depended on what Cabinet and Full Council agreed in terms of the detail of the area and which part of the borough was covered. Any money raised could be used for projects in the local area.

Councillor Cannon clarified that the idea of the night time levy was to address problems across the borough, not just Windsor. On the money received from the BID, it was for the BID group to decide how to spend the money rather than hand it all over to the police.

Greg Nelson confirmed that the late night levy would apply across the borough. The BID would be run by an independent group, the money would be spent as chosen by that group.

Councillor Hill said that things had changed over the past couple of months, costs had gone up and he asked whether it was right that a levy was being considered on businesses in the borough under the current economic climate.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the minutes of the Licensing Panel meeting held on 19^th April 2022 were approved as a true and accurate record.

Panel to note the minutes of the subcommittees held on 6 May 2022, 9 May 2022 & 7 June 2022.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the minutes of the Licensing & Public Space Protection Order Sub Committees held on 6^th May 2022, 9^th May 2022 and 7^th June 2022 were noted by the Panel.

To receive the report.  

The Chairman explained that the report would be considered in three separate items, with the Panel discussing and voting on each part of the recommendation that had been proposed by officers in the report.

Councillor Sharpe suggested that the Panel considered the recommendations in the opposite order.

The Chairman decided to keep the order as it was presented in the report, there were a number of taxi drivers present at the meeting who were there to speak on the first recommendation in the report.

Greg Nelson outlined the report and said that the hackney carriage tariff was the means by which the fare was calculated. The tariff was set in law under the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976, the local authority set the level of the tariff. Around 81% of drivers in RBWM had requested an increase in the basic tariff, tariff 1, and in the equivalent tariff for night time and bank holidays, tariff 2. They had also asked for an increase in several other charges. The main proposal in the report was the introduction of a minimum fare of £6, up from £3, and £9 for the second tariff. The meter would start at £3.30 and at the end of the journey, once the stop button was pressed, the meter would revert to £6. Drivers had proposed that ‘minimum £6 fare’ stickers were introduced inside vehicles, it was important that this change was made clear to passengers. Greg Nelson suggested that the signage to be used was signed off by the Head of Housing, Environmental Health & Trading Standards before coming into use.

The other proposal in the report considered the introduction of a B tariff, for people carriers of five or more people. The current tariff was set by the Licensing Panel in February 2020 and had provided a 15% increase on the previous tariff. Previous increases had been agreed in 2016 and 2014. If the Licensing Panel agreed any changes to the tariffs, there was a requirement for the new tariff to be published in at least one local newspaper covering the borough and also be available at the Town Hall. There would be a 14 day period where objections to the new tariff could be made, these would need to be considered before the new tariff could be implemented.

There were two registered public speakers present at the meeting. Mr Sabir said it was important that the tariff rose to offset the issues that drivers faced today, with inflation and fuel costs rising rapidly. It was felt that this tariff rise was essential as the current tariff did not serve its purpose at all. The current minimum tariff meant that some journeys were not worth doing for drivers and this was not sustainable, especially as private operators were able to charge more. The proposal to raise the minimum tariff to £6 would go a long way to addressing the issues caused by the current situation. On the five or more passenger tariff, Mr Sabir suggested  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.

Dates of future meetings:

·       25 October 2022

·       13 February 2023

·       4 April 2023

All are currently scheduled to be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Maidenhead.

The next meeting was due to take place on Tuesday 25^th October 2022, starting at 6pm.