Agenda item

Purpose: To provide Members with further material following Licensing Committee meeting of 24 March 2015.

Brian Leahy introduced the report to provide Members with further material information following on from the Licensing Committee Meeting held on 24 March 2015. The context of this item was that a paper had been put forward by Mr Sheikh with a set of revised conditions for livery and advertising. Members agreed at the meeting on the 24 March 2015 to task Officers with carrying out some benchmarking on livery standards and to provide photographic material showing current styles of advertising.

In addition, a benchmarking activity was conducted and findings were listed on pages 30-31 of the agenda reports.

The meeting continued with a PowerPoint presentation of a number of photographs and images of livery and advertising on Taxis, being shared with the Committee.

Brian Leahy concluded the presentation highlighting that there were a range of different vehicles with different approaches to complying or not complying with the current standards. He also pointed out to Members that they should consider that those signs painted on cars would result in a cost to the trade and suggested that current vehicles should be allowed to maintain the existing standard with the change in livery coinciding with the next change of vehicle.

Brian Leahy proposed an alternative approach, whereby owners and or drivers’ vehicles, were permitted to advertise their own or another business on the rear door, within given size parameters, in addition to the Council’s livery, with the caveat that sexual, tobacco, alcohol promotions were not advertised.

Councillor Webb referred to page 8 of agenda pack which listed the minutes of the previous meeting where it was established that the proposal from the trade was to allow advertising of their own company within the agreed size of the signs and that he would tend to agree with that proposal.

Councillor Bryant commented that he was in favour of minimum regulation, in addition to European Union and Central Government requirements, and he wanted a debate to understand what the issues were regarding regulating livery and advertising on taxis. For example, with regards to restrictions on advertising material relating to tobacco, alcohol or of pornographic nature there were already laws in place and the Police would enforce them. He was of the view that as long as the message was decent the Committee should allow taxi drivers to put up whatever advertising they liked.

This view was echoed by Councillor Drummond.

Councillor Linden suggested that following consideration of the benchmarking information included in the report, the Committee might consider the South Bucks District Council approach.

Brian Leahy informed the Members that with this suggested approach, lap dancing or strip club establishments could be advertised as there was no law to restrict it. Councillor Bryant suggested that if the Government was not restricting this type of advertising then the local authority should follow suit.

Councillor Ellison was of the view that some of the images presented to the Committee had showed signage that was tasteful and allowing the trade more freedom would make the district’s streets more lively.

Councillor Edwards thanked Brian Leahy for the benchmarking information and the photographs. His view was that the Council should have a certain amount of control and permission should be obtained from Licensing Officers. He acknowledged that this would impact on the workload of Officers. He highlighted the risk of having cabs covered in advertising without any regulation. He suggested that cab drivers should be allowed to put adverts on their cars and should speak to Officers to approve and ensure they conformed with the rules.

Councillor Clifford noted that the suggestions were similar to the approach of Bracknell Forest Council (BFC), described as part of the benchmarking section of the report page 31.

Councillor Bryant, followed on from Councillor Clifford’s remark and wanted to ascertain the implication, if in the absence of any regulation from the local authority, the trade had to comply with the British Code of Advertising Practice, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing. He questioned why it would be necessary to specifically mention the restrictions with regards to political, ethnic, religious, sexual or controversial texts, those for massage parlours or escort agencies etc. as in the approach of BFC.

Brian Leahy clarified that BFC’s approach did not specify a particular size of advertising material and that the Code of Practice was not legislation. Sarah Clarke confirmed that the Code of Advertising Practice was not covered by legislation.

Councillor Webb expressed a view that if anything was allowed he would like to see a ‘standard’, as referred to in the initial proposal from Mr Sheikh.

Councillor Webb made a proposal for a uniform, standardised approach to advertising as in the original proposal from the trade.

Councillor Clifford asked the Committee if they would consider the views of the representatives of the trade.

Councillor Webb pointed out that a lot of the members of the trade had attended the previous meeting when this subject was discussed and there had been no negative comments.

Councillor Bryant concluded that he intended to vote against the proposal for uniformity;  questioning if it was the job of the Committee to make taxis identical and that if people wanted to have their entire car covered with the Union Jack, they should allow them decide for themselves.

In accordance with paragraph 7.12.14 of the Council’s Constitution, the Chairman proposed suspension of standing orders to allow Members of the trade to participate in the discussion and respond to questions Committee Members might have. This was seconded and the Committee voted in favour of this proposal.

Mr. Jeffery Williams addressed the Committee and asked Members to consider that advertising messages that indicated that one taxi firm was cheaper than another such as ‘we are cheaper than other taxies ask the driver’ was not fair and caused problems in the ranks.

Members of the Committee reintroduced Standing Orders.

Mr Leahy remarked that he had asked trading standards about the appropriateness of messages mentioned and they had responded that it was lawful as long it was a statement that could be proven.

The Chairman suggested that leaving an unregulated situation would mean that the local authority would be open to all possibilities and it would be better to consider certain regulations as a minimum, with additional requirements being permitted on Officer’s approval.

Councillor Bryant enquired what the grounds would be to reject an application such as suggested by Mr Williams. Brian Leahy confirmed that it would be problematic to decline such an application.

Councillor Bryant proposed the Committee should consider a similar approach to the one used by BFC, with the exception of imposing a fee. This proposal was not seconded.

Councillor Bryant proposed that there should be no regulation, other than a requirement for the two front door stickers to identify the taxis and to ensure any livery and advertising was legal. This was seconded by Councillor Drummond. At the vote this proposal was rejected by the Committee.

Councillor Bryant proposed that the approach being used by BFC (shown in the Agenda pack, page 31) be adopted with an additional requirement that the level of fees should be determined by Officers. This was seconded by Councillor Linden.

At the vote this proposal was carried.

Sarah Clarke requested clarification, as to whether the decision would be applied with immediate effect or alternatively over what timescale the trade would need to comply with the new requirements.

Brian Leahy suggested sending a newsletter to inform all licence holders about the new requirements and to ask them for a retrospective application.

It was highlighted that the conditions used in BFC stated that not more than one company should be advertised and that conditions would be applied at the discretion of the Licensing Officers (e.g. credit cards, no smoking signs would be considered reasonable).

Councillor Argyle remarked that if a vehicle had CCTV it was a legal requirement for a sign to be visible to inform customers that CCTV was on board.

Brian Leahy proposed to send a letter detailing the decision to all operators / proprietors to inform them that conditions applied forthwith. Over the following three months operators / proprietors with advertising above the standard would be asked to apply for permission.

Sarah Clarke suggested that three months should be allowed with no enforcement, to give the opportunity for the trade to make an application.

Brian Leahy clarified that the Council’s door signage and top hat would be required and any other advertising would be open subject to approval from Licensing Officers.

Councillor Bryant further added that any advertising should not obscure or crowd the Council’s signage / top hat.

RESOLVED that livery and advertising on West Berkshire taxis should follow the Bracknell Forest Council example with the following requirements:

·           All advertising must comply with the British Code of Advertising Practice, Sales, Promotion and Direct Marketing and was the responsibility of the agency or individual seeking the Council’s approval to ensure that they do so.

·           Advertising containing political, ethnic, religious, sexual or controversial texts, those for massage parlours or escort agencies, nude or semi-nude figures, those seeking to involve the driver as an agent of the advertisers, those likely to offend public taste or those that sought to advertise more than one company would not be approved.

·           The level of fees for new applications and for the annual renewals to be established by officers.

·           The new approach would not be enforced for three months from the date of this Committee meeting to allow the operators to apply for permissions.

The Chairman adjourned the meeting for 5 minutes.

(Councillor Gopal left the meeting).