Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Independent hackney carriage … · 2017. 3. 14. · Tunbridge...

- i -

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

Independent hackney carriage research

Final Report

August 2013

- ii -

- iii -

Contents

Executive summary ......................................................................................... vii

1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 1

2. Background to taxi licensing in Tunbridge Wells ........................................... 5

3. Results from rank surveys ........................................................................... 13

4. Public Consultation results .......................................................................... 29

5. Stakeholder Consultation ............................................................................. 37

6. Licensed Vehicle Trade Consultation ............................................................ 49

7. Responses to DfT Best Practice Guidance 2010 ........................................... 53

8. The Equality Act 2010 .................................................................................. 59

9. Summary and conclusions ........................................................................... 61

10. Recommendations ..................................................................................... 69

CTS Traffic & Transportation Ltd.

Unit 14 Aqueduct Mill, Aqueduct Street, Preston, PR1 7JN Tel: (01772) 251 400 Fax: (01772) 252 900

E-mail: [email protected] Web-site: www.ctstraffic.co.uk

- iv -

- v -

Data Quality Assurance:

Report by: Ian Millership Date: 31/07/13

Checked by: Joe Maclaren Date: 31/07/13

- vi -

- vii -

Executive summary CTS Traffic & Transportation were appointed by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council to undertake independent hackney carriage research on 6th March 2013. Public and

stakeholder consultation occurred between March and July, with rank surveys in May 2013. The trade were consulted at the inception meeting, during the face to face

consultation day and through a letter / questionnaire issued in June 2013. A specific face to face consultation day was held which included representation from several

disability groups / individuals, the police and a councillor, and two days of wheel chair bound mystery shopper trips were undertaken. The results were presented to the

Licensing Committee on 25th September 2013.

At the time of writing this report, hackney carriage and private hire policy is outlined in the 2012 policy document. Hackney carriage numbers have a history of being restricted

since at least 1976. There are currently 107 hackney carriage vehicles able to use ranks

or ply for hire in any part of the Borough Council licensing area. There are 21 wheel chair accessible vehicles, almost one in five of the fleet, and a higher proportion than six

other Kent authorities. A clear policy has been put in place to maintain at least this proportion. Best practice is followed with a publicly available list of contact phone

numbers for some of these vehicles. There were 134 private hire vehicles when the statistics were gathered for writing this report, providing 44% of the fleet as hackney

carriage (high). The private hire vehicles, and many hackney carriages, work for a large number of private hire companies although there is one large operator.

166 hour of rank observation were undertaken. Observable demand is estimated at

254,000 passengers per year from ranks and hailing. Demand appears to be 69% of the level observed in 2006. 84% of demand is from the two Tunbridge Wells Station ranks,

with a night rank at Church Road adding a further 7% and Paddock Wood Station rank some 4%. All rail station ranks are located on Network Rail owned land, but none

currently see any permit system in place. The final 5% of demand is shared between

Newton Road and the Millennium Clock plus an informal night rank location, the Body Shop bus stop layby. The busiest hour, 19:00 to 20:00 on Friday night, sees 50 vehicles

departing within the hour from the ‘rear’ station rank.

417 members of the public were interviewed in central Tunbridge Wells, at the station and at Paddock Wood. 44% had used a licensed vehicle in the last three months. Overall

licensed vehicle usage is 1.8 trips per month. For those in both Tunbridge Wells samples the dominant way to get a licensed vehicle is from a rank, followed by phone. It appears

that private hire vehicles are less appreciated in the area, although people appear to think they can be hailed, and do not consider you can phone for a hackney carriage.

Rank knowledge is good, with the exception of the Millennium clock, although wishes for new ranks are mainly where ranks already are, suggesting better marketing might

increase usage, although lack of vehicles at central ranks is endemic and people are not used to seeing vehicles there.

Most key stakeholders, particularly supermarkets and hotels used private hire companies. The police were content with the level of vehicle numbers but were

concerned about safety and congestion matters. The hospital felt a good service was provided but there may be further options which could be developed. No comment came

from either night venues or the rail companies, although Tunbridge Wells station is the 112th busiest station in England, Scotland and Wales.

- viii -

A good level of input was provided by a wide range of disability representatives, an unusual and healthy contribution, although some strong views were held. The main

issue was difficulty in obtaining service from the wheel chair accessible vehicles, often because many were on contracts, requiring significant booking ahead and reducing

peoples’ ability to do what they wished to. A mystery shopper exercise supported the comments made. A councillor provided input wishing to see a step change in disability

services by hackney carriages and suggested some ways this might occur. It is clear there is energy available amongst all parties to see this vision in place.

A good input was provided by the trade, both at the inception meeting, consultation day

and through responses to questionnaires sent to all drivers. Average levels of experience were 14 years in the hackney carriage responses and 11 in the private hire

responses. Average working weeks were 6 days covering 53 hours. Stated earnings

were around £52 per day, with one driver giving evidence their typical day had dropped from £125 in 2011 to this level at the present time. 65% agreed in keeping the limit,

although there was a protest vote from some drivers who wanted to own their own vehicles. Were the limit removed, 24% would leave and 11% would work longer hours.

Unusually, none of those interviewed in the street either needed or knew anyone who

needed an adapted vehicle. None could remember having given up waiting for a hackney carriage anywhere in the Borough.

The key conclusions are:

- There is no evidence of any significant unmet demand for the services of hackney carriages in the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council area

- There is scope to improve the issues around operation of the main station rank - It may prove possible to provide improved practical rank service in the central

area of Tunbridge Wells.

- There is significant Council, stakeholder and trade energy to see change occur - A key issue requiring action is how the good level of wheel chair accessible

vehicles can actually be more available to those who need their services

The technical recommendation is for Option 2 to be adopted. This seeks to retain the current 107 vehicles, address the issue of wheel chair vehicle availability, take positive

steps to develop the town centre ranks, and act to resolve the operational safety issues at the main station rank.

Other actions are listed in the detail in the recommendations chapter.

1

1. Introduction Tunbridge Wells Borough Council is responsible for the licensing of hackney carriage and private hire vehicles operating within the council

area. The licensing authority has a limit on the number of hackney carriage vehicle licences since 1976 (according to the detailed 2005 DfT

survey information). The most recent survey of demand for hackney carriages was undertaken in 2006.

Study timetable

Tunbridge Wells Borough appointed CTS Traffic and Transportation on 6th March 2013 to undertake this independent hackney carriage research in

line with our quotation dated February 2013.

The review was carried out between March and July 2013, with survey

work undertaken in May 2013. Licensed vehicle drivers were consulted by a letter sent out during June 2013, with other stakeholder consultation

between March and July. A draft final report was submitted and this was reviewed in early August 2013 to identify any factual or missing issues.

The Final Report will be presented to the Licensing Committee on 25th

September 2013.

National background and definitions

At the present time, hackney carriage and private hire licensing is carried out under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (as amended by various

further legislation including the Transport Act 1985, especially Section 16) in regard to hackney carriages and the Local Government (Miscellaneous

Provisions) Act 1976 with reference to private hire vehicles. A number of modifications have been made within more recent legislation and through

case law.

The issue of limits on hackney carriage vehicle licences (and other

potentially restrictive practices) were considered by the Office of Fair Trading (OfT) (and latterly the House of Commons Select Committee on

Transport). The Department for Transport most recently published Best Practice Guidance in April 2010 to cover a number of more recent issues

and take on board both the recommendations of the OfT and House of Commons Select Committee (HoC SC). More recently a further HoC SC

has led to the Law Commission (LC) taking on a wide ranging review of vehicle licensing law to be completed over the next few years. The

consultation document from the LC was released in mid-May 2012 and the initial consultation period is now closed.

The Law Commission published an interim statement in early April 2013,

one of whose points was that ”we no longer recommend abolishing

quantity controls” (paragraph 6), although the statement is clearly noted as not being their final set of recommendations which will be published

towards the end of 2013. This was published shortly after the Department for Transport published the government response to the LC consultation

and we understand DfT will not provide any government response to the LC interim statement.

2

At the present time, each licensing authority in England supervises the operation of two different kinds of licensed vehicle. Firstly, all vehicles

able to carry nine or more passengers are dealt with under public service vehicle licensing and licensing authorities only have jurisdiction over

those carrying eight or less passengers. These vehicles are further subdivided into:

• Hackney carriage vehicles (sometimes referred to as ‘taxis’ in

legislation), which alone are able to wait at ranks and pick up people in the street (ply for hire). To operate such a vehicle also

requires a driver to be licensed to drive within the area the vehicle is licensed to operate

• Private hire vehicles, which can only be booked through an

operating centre and who, otherwise, are not insured for their passengers (often also known as ‘taxis’ by the public). To operate

such a vehicle requires a vehicle and driver licence, and there must also be an affiliation to an operator. Such vehicles can only

transport passengers who have made bookings via this operator.

For the sake of clarity, this report will refer to ‘licensed vehicles’ when meaning hackney carriage and private hire collectively, and to the specific

type when referencing either specific type of vehicle. The term ‘taxi’ will be avoided as far as possible, although it has to be used in its colloquial

form when dealing with the public, few of whom are aware of the detailed differences.

Review aims and objectives

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council is seeking a review of their current

policy towards hackney carriage quantity control in line with current Department for Transport (DfT) Best Practice guidance as published in

April 2010. Further background information about previous policy is contained in Chapter 2 to set the context of the current situation.

The “Best Practice Guidance” paragraph 47 states: “Most licensing

authorities do not impose quantity restrictions the Department regards that as best practice. Where restrictions are imposed, the Department

would urge that the matter should be regularly reconsidered….” Recent information suggests that some 75% of licensing authorities in England

and Wales either have never limited numbers, or have removed their limit since the OfT published its results. Around 95 authorities currently retain

a limit – although a small number have over recent years returned the limit on vehicle licences (notably including Sheffield and Birmingham, but

also including Slough, Derbyshire Dales, Wirral, Watford and

Chesterfield).

3

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council requires this review to make recommendations on what policy the Council should retain or adopt,

considering the whole range of policy options open to the Council. This review report must contain reasoned, recommended policy options for the

Committee to consider. This review is important as the Council recently concluded it no longer held current unmet demand data and was

therefore open to challenge.

Our study has the following objectives:

• To assess and advise on taxi provision in Tunbridge Wells licensing area; • To assess and advise on whether or not there is currently an appropriate

balance between the numbers of private hire vehicles and Hackney

Carriages in Tunbridge Wells licensing area; • To assess and advise whether or not there is any significant unmet demand

(including both on-street and latent demand) or oversupply of Hackney Carriages within Tunbridge Wells licensing area, as set out in Section 16 of

the Transport Act 1985; • To assess whether there is an over or under supply for wheelchair users and

those with mobility impairment; • To assess the current patterns of taxi use, including tourists, seasonal

variations and any changes since the previous survey arising from the relaxation of pub and club trading hours and the impact of the recession;

• To suggest improvements to the service, re: sufficiency and location of ranks and wheelchair accessible vehicles

• If there is any significant unmet demand, to identify how many new licences are required to satisfy that demand

• To provide evidence to assist the licensing authority to ensure safe journeys

at a transparent price • To help ensure vehicles are safe, accessible and have reducing impact on

the environment • To ensure drivers are safe and know their job and

• Provide a quality service to the public.

Our research focusses on: • customer need and expectation

• the existence and significance of unmet demand • service quality

• safety • vehicle types

• vehicle designs • accessibility

Target groups include: • customers

• potential customers • individuals

• groups • organisations on whom the hackney carriage service impacts

• managers with whom the hackney carriage trade interacts.

4

Methodology In order to meet Tunbridge Wells Borough Council’s objectives, the

following methodology was adopted:

• Review of relevant policies, standards etc: to understand the authority’s aspirations for meeting travel needs and social inclusion and provide

context to determining overall demand for travel and how this should be met;

• Extensive rank observations and audits: of all the ranks in the Authority, including monitoring passengers’ waiting time, any illegal plying for hire,

use of Hackney Carriages by wheelchair users and rank audits;

• On street interviews: a survey of 417 representative people on street to

obtain information about their understanding of the sector, their last taxi journey, their overall levels of taxi use, about quality and barriers to use;

• Consultation: including consultation with all relevant stakeholders – the local

authorities, police, trade associations, all drivers, mobility impaired, specific user groups, businesses, and other major generators of taxi trips

• A two-day mystery shopper wheel chair user exercise; and

• Benchmarking against other authorities: to provide a useful comparison as

to the quantity of taxis and Private Hire Vehicles.

Report structure This Report provides the following further chapters:

• Chapter 2 – current background to taxi licensing statistics and policy

• Chapter 3 – results from the rank surveys • Chapter 4 – results from the surveys undertaken with the public

• Chapter 5 – up to date stakeholder consultation • Chapter 6 – results from consultation with the taxi licensing trade

• Chapter 7 – consideration of the responses to BPG paragraph 47 and Annex A questions

• Chapter 8 – a review of options relating to the Equality Act • Chapter 9 – summary and conclusions of this review

• Chapter 10 –recommendations for policy arising from this review.

5

2. Background to taxi licensing in Tunbridge Wells The Tunbridge Wells Borough Council area Tunbridge Wells Borough is one of twelve councils within the county of

Kent. Interim data from the 2011 census projected suggests the current 2013 population for Tunbridge Wells is 117,595. Amongst the twelve

districts, Tunbridge Wells is seventh in population terms – and around 6% less than the average district population for Kent.

The current Borough within Kent was sent up on 1 April 1974 by

amalgamation of the municipal borough of Royal Tunbridge Wells with the urban district of Southborough, the rural district of Cranbrook and most of

the rural district of Tonbridge.

The map below provided by the Borough Council, shows the extent of

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, and its licensing area.

This map shows that Tunbridge Wells Borough has its major centre of

Royal Tunbridge Wells, but is also a very extensive area, including the large settlement of Paddock Wood to the north. The Borough reaches

quite close to the boundary of Tonbridge but also extends eastwards and

southwards and including a large number of villages. Sandhurst is the furthest south part of the Borough.

6

To give further indication of the complexity of the area, there are some 20 wards ranging in population from over 8,000 (Culverden) to around 1,800

(Southborough North). Royal Tunbridge Wells was established as a Spa town by 1630 and is made up of eight of these wards. The Royal prefix

was granted in 1909 making it one of just three Royal towns in England.

Tunbridge Wells Borough is an important tourist destination. Royal Tunbridge Wells is a Spa town, and also includes the historic Pantiles

area, and the Spa Valley Railway. The area can also be used as a central base for many other Kent attractions including Leeds Castle.

The area also has a significant night time economy. This is supported and

developed by an active Pubwatch group, with regular visits by the group

co-ordinator. Royal Tunbridge Wells itself is “very vibrant and bucking the national trend with new venues opening” (Council Night Time Officer).

Thursdays and Saturdays are the busiest nights. Thursday sees younger persons whilst Saturdays tends to see couples, over 21’s and some

younger persons. Pubwatch obtain funding for the Christmas and New Year taxi marshals.

Background Council policy

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council has several background policies underpinning the various strategies for the area. The Development Plan

Core Strategy has recently been updated with the principal target being establishing some 4,200 more homes in Royal Tunbridge Wells and a

further 1,800 across the rest of the Borough within the plan period. However, the latest 2011-census based estimates suggest population

growth of 3.3% by 2016 and a total of 9.2% from 2013 to 2021, not

large but marginally higher than the expected overall English growth of 2.6% and 6.7% respectively.

The Borough has transport policies described in the latest Kent Local

Transport Plan. This document contains details of the overall background policies both for environmental as well as transport policy. The latest,

third, Local Transport Plan (LTP3), covers the fifteen year period from 2011 to 2026, and operates using a three year implementation plan, the

current of which covers 2011 to 2016.

LTP3 sets the transport context, and has its local implementation through the Tunbridge Wells Development Plan Transport Strategy, which was put

out for consultation during January 2013. Within the LTP there are mentions of use of taxis to replace post buses, with Kent seeking to

enhance the integration between taxis and other sustainable modes (LTP3

para 10.12), to explore a larger role for taxis in supporting independent living, through the Comprehensive Community Transport project. Further,

taxis are also included in the Kentjourneyshare project (LTP para 11.23) which links and encourages shared trips, including those by and using

taxi services.

7

The Transport Strategy (which is rare for Borough Councils to have) focusses the aims of LTP3 to the Borough level. Key issues are peak

traffic congestion and air quality matters (including an Air Quality Management Area(AQMA)) on the A26 through Royal Tunbridge Wells

itself. Eight transport objectives are set including supporting development, improving strategic road links, reducing congestion,

improving travel safety and encouraging sustainable travel choices for all. The implementation plan will be reviewed every six months.

The Strategy confirms that funding will be sought for transport projects

from developer contributions, the Community Infrastructure Levy and Kent Integrated Block funding. Other central government funding might

be available for local sustainable transport schemes.

The Strategy confirms that the Borough is the local planning authority

and amongst its duties are the taxi and private hire vehicle licensing function. The Borough also undertakes civil parking enforcement, which

can facilitate taxi ranks being kept free from private vehicles.

Key facts include that 75% of bus services in the Borough are subsidised in whole or part. Two thirds of journeys are under five miles and could

therefore be more likely to switch to more sustainable modes.

Policies will be developed through the “Growth without Gridlock” background, a key part of which is ensuring access to the new Tunbridge

Wells hospital at Pembury by a range of modes. A key issue is to ensure congestion does not worsen, and if possible is eased. It is understood this

arises from peak hour employment levels in Royal Tunbridge Wells as well

as high levels of school / educational demand.

Safety developments are paramount and are being taken forward within the framework of the Tunbridge Wells is Traffic Aware (TWITA) campaign.

The Strategy will be supported by a number of specific studies, including

the 2011 Urban Area Parking Strategy Study.

It is acknowledged that community transport can play an important role in the area (Strategy para 4.49), and that taxis can assist in reducing

congestion and increasing sustainable travel by reducing car ownership (Strategy para 4.65). The Strategy notes the busy station rank and the

provision of the Clock rank, but notes the latter is under-used. There is comment that this rank will be reviewed within the Five Ways Public

Realm improvement review. Station Travel Plans will be produced for

High Brooms, Paddock Wood and Tunbridge Wells and will include plans for development of their taxi services. Major capacity improvement is

being sought at North Farm, potentially through developer contributions.

8

Policy of restricting hackney carriage vehicle licences Tunbridge Wells Borough Council has a power to restrict the number of

hackney carriage vehicle licences it grants when it is satisfied there is no unmet demand for the services of hackney carriages which is deemed to

be significant. This power has been in this format since the introduction of the 1985 Transport Act, Section 16 (before which the power to limit was

unfettered).

At the present time, overall government taxi policy is under review by the Law Commission (LC) (see Chapter 1, page 1 for more detail). The current

status is that the LC interim statement proposes that councils are able to retain the option of limiting their number of hackney carriage vehicles,

although the exact proposals will not be confirmed until around November

2013, after which any change will have to be agreed by Government and then taken through any appropriate legal process. Formal Government

encouragement is towards the minimisation of restrictions, including limit policies.

The Department for Transport national licensing statistics, which collate

licensed vehicle statistics from each licensing authority every two years (updated with 2012 information from the Borough and from National

Private Hire Association sources) suggests that Tunbridge Wells Borough’s limitation policy began in 1976.

The most recent survey of demand reported towards the end of 2006.

There are some comments in that report that suggest that the Council had a period when anyone wanting a plate could obtain one, but there is no

further evidence apart from the DfT statistics showing growth in hackney

carriage vehicle numbers from 80 in 1997 to between 82 and 95 in 1999 and 100 in 2001 (although DfT numbers suggest 96 in 2004 and 2005).

There is no further confirming information we are aware of in this regard.

In common with many other licensing authorities, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council has produced a comprehensive “Hackney Carriage and

Private Hire Licensing Policy”, dated 2012. This document was drawn together to provide one source for most information about the

expectations of the service, although it does state “The guidance does not seek to cover the whole range of possible licensing requirements. Instead

it seeks to concentrate only on those issues that have caused difficulty in the past or that seem of particular significance”.

At the time of writing of the 2012 Policy document the limit recorded was

105 plates. Two further plates have been issued to increase the provision

of wheel chair accessible vehicles, meaning there are now 107 plates.

Background statistics Information was obtained to demonstrate the current make-up of the

licensed vehicle fleet in the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council area, including current vehicle trends. The table below shows the historic level

of vehicle numbers in this area.

9

Note: DfT statistics used from 1994 to 2009 and 2011.

National Private Hire Association survey for 2010, Council statistics at start of study for 2013

The above figures show the policy of restricting hackney carriage plates has seen regular growth until 2001, after which the next increase appears

to have been in 2011 (although the 2004 and 2005 statistics suggest a decrease). They also suggest the limit was increased to 95 around 1999

but that these plates took some time to be introduced (although some evidence suggests there may have been a period of delimiting). The same

appears true of the five plates recommended at the end of 2006, which did not all arrive in the active fleet until 2011. Two further plates were

issued more recently, although at the time of the rank survey, two plates were not active. Plate numbers therefore currently run from 1 to 108 but

historically plate 13 has never been issued, giving 107 hackney carriage

licences available at the time of writing.

Private hire vehicles have increased by 61% during the 1997 to 2013 period, although they are currently marginally lower than the highest

level of 186 (125% more than in 1997). This means that the proportion of the fleet that is hackney carriage has fallen marginally from 49% in

1997 to 44% now.

During the same period, driver numbers have remained remarkably consistent. In 1997, there were a total of 350 drivers, amazingly similar

to the last statistics of 330. There are a large number of private hire operators.

Hackney carriage vehicles

Private hire vehicles

Total licensed vehicle fleet

Driver numbers Comment

hcd Phd Dual

DfT data states regulation began in 1976

1994 76 unknown n/k 0 0 350

1997 80 83 163 0 0 304

1999 82(95) 123 205 0 0 321

2001 100 108 208 0 0 287 108 ops

2004 96 105 201 0 0 287 50 ops

2005 96 105 201 0 0 287 50 ops

2007 100 140 240 0 0 215 54 ops

2009 100 122 222 0 0 314 54 ops

2010 100 140 240

2011 105 186 291 0 0 330 94 ops

2012 99 116 215

2013 107 134 241

10

Comparative information The Table below compares recent licensed vehicle numbers for other Kent

authorities, using a mixture of DfT / NPHA and information from Councils where studies have recently been undertaken. For comparison we have

added nearby Mid Sussex and another similar Spa town, Harrogate. The table is listed with the lowest provision of hackney carriages (hcv) per

thousand of population at the top of the table.

Area

Popn

(2013 000)

No of

HCV

(% WAV)

HCV

per 1000

popn

No of

PHV

(% WAV)

PHV

per 1000

popn

Total

veh

Total

veh per 1000

popn

Maidstone (L) 160 48 (100) 0.3 300 (0) 1.9 348 2.2

Dover (L) 113 69 (12) 0.6 114 (19) 1.0 183 1.6

Ashford 122 94 (22) 0.8 100 (4) 0.8 194 1.6

Thanet (L) 136 108 (24) 0.8 417 (3) 3.1 525 3.9

Tunbridge Wells (L) 118 107 (20) 0.9 134 (1) 1.1 241 2.0

Harrogate (L) 160 148 (7) 0.9 268 (6) 1.7 416 2.6

Dartford 100 95 (100) 1.0 132 (0) 1.3 227 2.3

Mid Sussex (L) 142 154 (23) 1.1 223 (3) 1.6 377 2.7

Swale 140 166 (13) 1.2 44 (20) 0.3 210 1.5

Tonbridge and Malling 124 150 (1) 1.2 203 (6) 1.6 353 2.8

Gravesham 104 161 (4) 1.6 41 (5) 0.4 202 2.0

Canterbury 154 259 (50) 1.7 199 (0) 1.3 458 3.0

Sevenoaks 117 200 (4) 1.7 85 (11) 0.7 285 2.4

Shepway 109 252 (10) 2.3 30 (0) 0.3 282 2.6

Average 124 142 (30) 1.2 150 (6) 1.2 292 2.3

England

average(13)

(43) 0.9 (4) 1.8 2.8

Note: Population values are 2013 estimates from the 2011 new census 2011 figures in

thousands. Hackney carriage vehicle (HCV) and private hire vehicle (PHV) numbers are from

NPHA 2012 survey WAV = wheelchair accessible vehicle L = limits retained on vehicle

numbers

In 2013, Tunbridge Wells retains a limit alongside Dover, Maidstone and

Thanet Councils within Kent, as well as Harrogate and Mid Sussex. Apart from Ashford (which removed its limit many years ago), these four

authorities do have the lowest proportion of hackney carriages per thousand of population – though Tunbridge Wells does have the highest

proportion amongst this group at 0.9 hackney carriage vehicles per

thousand of population in the area. Harrogate has a similar level of hackney carriage vehicles to Tunbridge Wells, although Mid Sussex has a

slightly higher level (and the highest provision of hackney carriage for areas with a limit in our comparison).

11

The level of hackney carriage per thousand of population for Tunbridge Wells Borough is below the average of 1.2 vehicles per thousand of

population, for Kent but similar to the level for Dartford. The level for Tunbridge Wells is three times the value for Maidstone, but itself 40% of

the highest value, Shepway. It is, however, the same as the English national average for hackney carriages per thousand population

(excluding London)

In terms of private hire vehicles and overall licensed vehicle fleet, Tunbridge Wells has just under the average level of provision (2.0

vehicles compared to 2.3), and lies just below middle of the twelve Kent authorities, although the national average is 1.8 private hire vehicles per

thousand population.

In terms of wheel chair accessible vehicle percentages in the hackney

carriage fleet, Tunbridge Wells is also just below the Kent average (although this is biased upwards by two authorities that are fully wheel

chair accessible – Dartford and Maidstone). Six other Kent authorities have a lesser proportion of wheel chair accessible vehicles – three of

which have 4% or less of their fleet wheel chair accessible compared to the 20% for Tunbridge Wells (1 in 5 vehicles). If the three authorities

with 50% or 100% wheel chair accessible fleets are excluded, the Kent average becomes 12%, much lower than that for Tunbridge Wells. The

stated national average also includes all fully wheel chair accessible authorities, giving a much higher figure (and incidentally not far off the

possible Equality Act informally quoted target of 35%)

In general, therefore, provision of hackney carriages and private hire

vehicles in Tunbridge Wells is about average for Kent authorities. Wheel chair accessibility of the fleet is also good in context of other authorities

that are not 50% wheel chair accessible or more.

Vehicle Accessibility As noted above, the current level of wheel chair accessible vehicles in the

hackney carriage fleet is fair to moderate, with a small percentage of

such vehicles in the private hire fleet there is an overall level of 21% in the total licensed fleet in 2013.

This could still be an issue were Section 161 of the Equality Act to be

implemented and Tunbridge Wells Borough retains its limit on hackney carriage vehicle numbers. This is considered further in Chapter 8.

Driver ratios

At the present time, there are 330 dual drivers for 241 vehicles. This

driver ratio of 1.37 suggests very little double shifting, if any.

12

Fares

The table below summarises Tunbridge Wells Borough Council hackney

carriage fares, as last set on 1 January 2011:

Using the latest Private Hire and Taxi Monthly fare averages (June 2013)

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council fares (currently £6-60 for a 2 mile tariff

1 fare) rank 13th equal of the 364 fares authorities in England, Scotland and Wales. Eight other authorities share this fare level, including Dartford

within Kent, Adur, Basingstoke and Deane, Mid Sussex, Waveney, Wealden, Weymouth and Portland and Guernsey.

In terms of national fares, the highest fare at June 2013 was £8 and the

lowest £2-80 for the 2 mile tariff 1. The national average fare is £5-54, some 16% lower than the current Tunbridge Wells fare, whilst the

average ‘South’ regional fare is £6-04, some 9% less. The Kent average fare is £6-19, or 6% less than that for Tunbridge Wells. The level of fare

set (last increased in 2011) therefore appears high.

Item Tariff 1 Tariff 2 Tariff 3 Rank

Time applies Any 23:30-06:00, public holiday or

after 18:00 Christmas Eve or

New Years Eve

Christmas Day

and New Years Day

Initial charge (1 mile or

12min 40 seconds stationary)

£4-00 £6-00 £8-00

Subsequent charge

(135.38 yards or 40 sec)

£0-20 £0-30 £0-40

Approx. for above when in motion per mile

£2-60 £3-90 £5-20

PHTM calculations for a 2 mile journey (June 2013):

TWBC £6-60 13=

National £5-54

South £6-04

Kent average £6-19

Note : An additional 80p can be charged at any time on Saturday or before 06:00 on Sundays or Mondays

13

3. Results from rank surveys The Table below shows the result of our review of the ranks available in Tunbridge Wells Borough. At the time of the last survey, there were seven

formal Council ranks, the two private ranks at Tunbridge Wells railway station, and the private rank at Paddock Wood Station. Based on the listing

in the last survey report, since 2006, the Civic Way rank has been removed and new ranks instigated at Church Road and the Millennium Clock. The

Linden Park Road rank which has been in place since 1997 was not mentioned in the 2006 report.

Suggestion there was a further rank on the other side of the railway station

at Paddock Wood were checked during our inception meeting rank tour and found to be incorrect. It is understood that High Brooms station has a

private hire company providing service to passengers at that location, but

not using hackney carriage rank provision.

At the time of this survey, there are eight formal Council appointed ranks and three ranks provided on private land (all at railway stations, owned by

Network Rail but under the aegis of the Southeastern railway operating company). Rank markings vary from very faded to lightly faded, although

all do have pole mounted signing, but none specify the number of vehicles allowed to wait.

The recently confirmed Tunbridge Wells Borough Council “Hackney carriage

and Private Hire Licensing Policy” includes Appendix R, listing the taxi bays provided in the licensing area (as provided by Kent / Tunbridge Wells

Borough Councils highway representatives). It is not clear why reference is made to ‘taxi bays’ and not ranks, but for the sake of clarity, our

discussions through the rest of the report refer to ‘ranks’ rather than ‘taxi

bays’ to be consistent with our normal understanding about places where taxis are able to wait. The Paddock Wood private rank is not listed.

It is understood that Kent County Council and Tunbridge Wells highways

authority plan to produce a consolidated traffic order for hackney carriages in due course, which may clarify both the formal terminology and the

signing used, which does vary across the locations currently provided.

Of the eight council ranks, five are in the main town centre. The most central rank is that in Mount Ephraim Road / Lime Hill Road, near the

Millennium Clock and Pret a Manger, opposite an entrance to the main shopping centre. This rank has two sections, a two-space header with a six

space feeder further back round the one-way loop. This rank was introduced on 29 October 2010 experimentally and confirmed on 17

February 2012. The only other town centre 24-hour rank is located outside

Iceland in Calverley Road, providing three spaces there.

14

The other three town centre ranks are night only. Newton Road formally operates 1800-0800 (otherwise being a loading bay), and is outside the

Wells Kitchen, but this road is otherwise off the main streets and does not necessarily appear a particularly safe place to wait. Camden Road is part of

the main central area road route, and operates 2100-0600 being a bus stop most of the rest of the time. Markings are very poor. Church Road is

also on a main route through the town centre, directly outside the Pitcher and Piano, and operating 2300 to 0400.

The remaining three ranks are in other parts of the central area of

Tunbridge Wells. Mount Pleasant is a two space rank almost directly opposite the station, but on the opposite side of the main road and at right

angles to this route. It has a ‘police’ parking space immediately behind it,

and is a potential feeder to the railway station rank. A single space 24-hour rank exists in the Pantiles, right at the head of the short road leading to

the heart of this area of Tunbridge Wells. The final rank, Linden Park Road, operates from 0800 to 1800 only and is near the small bus station at the

front of the recent Sainsbury store near to the preserved railway Tunbridge Wells West station. The Sainsbury store goods exit is near this rank, as are

the bus stops serving the store.

During our research we did not find evidence of any other ranks within the Borough Council area and understand our rank coverage is therefore

comprehensive, as required by the BPG.

Southeastern Trains have ranks at two of their three stations in the area. Two ranks service Tunbridge Wells station. The station booking office is on

the Morrison’s side of the line (to London direction), known as the ‘station

front’. This rank has five spaces at right angles to the main road alignment such that vehicles have their boots facing arriving passengers. These

spaces are definitely on Network Rail property. The Morrison’s store closed and was rebuilt between the last survey date and now. The other, larger,

rank at Tunbridge Wells Station is at the ‘station rear’. Perversely, this exit faces the main road leading past the station up to the town centre, and

tends to see most vehicles and passengers. The rank is marked by private signing and road markings are not clear, being on a cobbled surface.

Capacity is around 10 vehicles, but the adjacent road and shop parking can provide opportunity for some over-ranking. While the rank is clearly on

Network Rail land, it is directly adjacent to Kent County Council highway and Kent have stated that this rank is part of the public highway, though

not maintained by Kent itself as it rests on Network Rail owned land.

The final rank, again private, is that managed by Southeastern Trains, on

Network Rail land at Paddock Wood station, providing two spaces.

15

As stated above, other than the locations listed below, we are not aware of any other ranks within the council area. We were, however, advised at the

inception meeting that there are two locations within the main central area where hackney carriages and private hires might pick up, just along

Camden Road from the actual rank, on the other side of the road near the White Stuff, and in the daytime bus layby opposite the Millennium Clock

near the Body Shop. All ranks in the area were covered at some point.

Rank /

operating hours

Spaces

(approx)

Comments

24-hour ranks

Calverley Road, Iceland

3 Rank directly outside Iceland

Mount Ephraim

Road / Lime Hill Road

2 + 6 Header rank near Pret a Manger and

Millennium Clock, with feeder back along one way system

Mount Pleasant Avenue

2 With police space to rear, in side road opposite Tunbridge Wells Station

Pantiles 1 At far end of cul-de-sac nearest to shops

Linden Park Road 4 Near to Sainsbury’s bus stops, but at goods exits from store. Only formally operates

0800-1800

Night ranks

Camden Road 3 Formally operates 2100-0600, bus stop in

day time, white faded markings

Church Road, Pitcher and Piano

3 Formally operates 2300-0400

Newton Road 3 Formally operates 1800-0800. Loading rest of time, outside Wells Kitchen

Informal locations

Near the White Stuff

n/a Area at end of pedestrian route often believed to be used for pick-ups at night

Body Shop n/a Bus stop in daytime, opposite Millennium clock but on better through route

Private ranks

Tunbridge Wells Station Rear

10 Adjacent to Mount Pleasant Road on side of station facing route to main town centre

Tunbridge Wells Station Front

5 On Morrison’s side of railway station, at right angles to kerb (only such rank in area)

Paddock Wood 2 Just inside station access

Surveys were proposed during the tender stage of the project (as informed

by the previous survey and discussion with the licensing officer), and were modified at the inception meeting to take account of current expectation of

times of use of ranks and informal rank locations. The net impact of the

revision was to add 16 hours of observation at Paddock Wood, but also to better reflect the potential hours when locations might be served within

Tunbridge Wells by some re-allocation of expected hours.

16

The Table below shows the actual hours observed, using video methods with the recordings observed by trained staff, and analysed to provide

details of the usage and waiting times for both passengers and vehicles. Passenger waiting time was kept to that which was true unmet demand, ie

when passengers were waiting but no hackney carriage vehicle was there.

Location Day / date (all 2013) Time

observed Total hours observed

24 hour ranks


Friday, 10th May 12:00 to 20:00

8

Mount Ephraim

Road / Lime Hill Road

Saturday 11th May 09:00 to 00:00

15


Friday 10th May 11:00 to 21:00

10

Pantiles Friday 10th May 14:00 to

00:00 10

Linden Park Road Saturday 11th May 08:00 to

18:00 10

Night ranks

Camden Road Friday 10th May 15:00 to

05:00 14

Church Road

Friday 10th May 23:00 to

05:00 6


5

Newton Road Saturday 11th May 18:00 to 02:00

8

Informal rank locations

White Stuff Friday 10th May 23:00 to 05:00

6

Body Shop Friday 10th May 20:00 to

04:00 8

Private ranks

Tunbridge Wells Station (rear)


18

Saturday 11th May 05:00 to

03:00 22

Tunbridge Wells

Station (front) Friday 10th May

09:00 to

19:00 10

Paddock Wood Station


16

TOTAL HOURS 166

17

Full details of the observed volumes of passenger and vehicle traffic are included in Appendix 1. The survey comprised some 166 hours of

observation. There are no feeder ranks in the licensing area which required additional cameras or observation that was not visible from the main

camera position at any site.

The Table below summarises the time periods observed at each locations as well as providing overall operational statistics for each location during

each period of observation. A detailed description of the observations follows below.

Rank Period (2013)

Tota

l passengers

observ

ed

Tota

l loaded v

ehicle

departure

s

Passengers

per loaded

vehicle

Em

pty

vehicle d

eparture

s

% o

f vehicles leavin

g e

mpty

No. of passengers

having to

wait for vehicle to a

rrive



1 1 1.0 4 80 0

Mount Ephraim Road / feeder


11 7 1.6 3 30 2

Mount Pleasant

Avenue

Friday 10th May

11:00 to 21:00 1 1 1.0 87 99 0

Pantiles Friday 10th May

14:00 to 00:00 3 2 1.5 0 0 0

Linden Park Road Saturday 11th May 08:00 to 18:00

0 0 n/a 1 100 n/a

Night Ranks

Camden Road Friday 10th May 15:00 to 05:00

3 2 1.5 1 33 0

Church Road


86 44 2.0 16 27 0

Saturday 11th May

22:00 to 04:00 113 56 2.0 15 21 0

Newton Road Saturday 11th May

18:00 to 02:00 19 8 2.4 9 53 1

Informal Rank Locations

White Stuff Friday 10th May

23:00 to 05:00 0 0 0 0 0 0

Body Shop Friday 10th May

20:00 to 04:00 11 5 2.2 7 58 1

18

Private ranks

Tunbridge Wells

Station (rear)

Friday 10th May

09:00 to 03:00 507 363 1.4 61 14 6


621 351 1.8 76 18 0

Tunbridge Wells Station (front)


85 69 1.2 23 25 1

Paddock Wood

Station

Friday 10th May

10:00 to 02:00 27 25 1.1 17 40

Calverley Road, Iceland This rank is located directly outside Iceland, Tunbridge Wells. The rank is

well-marked and obvious. It operates 24-hours and is within other parking

on this road. The rank was observed on Friday 10th May 2013, from 12:00 through to 20:00.

During the course of our observations, just one passenger was seen to

obtain a vehicle at this location, in the hour starting 18:00. A further four hackney carriages waited briefly at this rank during the day. This rank is

effectively unused, with no regular vehicles waiting, and little passenger demand. We were advised by both trade and Iceland that their recent

instigation of free deliveries for customers had reduced the rank usage, although the store did have a direct line to a private hire company in any

event (who usually respond with hackney carriage vehicles). The main time that this option was used was when customers found the delivery service

had no available slots.

Overall service to this rank is fair albeit private hire related, but it still

offers some potential.

Millennium Clock Rank This rank is in two parts. It is located in the Lime Hill / Mount Ephraim

Road crescent near to the millennium clock in central Tunbridge Wells. The header rank is well-marked and directly outside Pret a Manger. The feeder

rank is in Lime Hill Road and provides a further six spaces amongst other parking. If vehicles are waiting in the header rank, they are clearly visible

from one exit of the main shopping centre, and from the Millenium clock area. The road is one way. We were advised that a private hire booking

office used to exist in this area, but was closed some years ago.

The rank was observed between 09:00 and 00:00 on Saturday 11th May 2013. During this period a total of just 11 passengers were observed

leaving in seven vehicles. Three other hackney carriages visited the rank

during the period we observed – mainly in the afternoon. The short times waited by vehicles for passengers generally suggested these might be pre-

bookings, although between 16:00 and 18:00 vehicles did sit at the rank and two did obtain passengers after waiting just under 15 minutes each.

19

During the morning, two passengers arrived in two separate hours and both had to wait for a hackney carriage to arrive – one waited 6 minutes

and the other 10 minutes. When averaged over all 11 passengers, the average wait here is therefore nearly 1.5 minutes. It may be, however,

that the two waiting passengers had made bookings as no other hackney carriages passed by until 16:00.

Service to this rank is poor, although it provides significant potential.


This rank is located opposite the private railway station (rear) rank and is available 24 hours per day. The two spaces have a ‘police’ space to their

rear. Vehicles are understood to occasionally use this location to act as a

feeder to the railway station, although this involves vehicles moving across both lanes of traffic as the station is on the opposite side of the road.

However, this location is definitely on council highway land.

The location was observed on Friday 10th May 2013 from 11:00 to 21:00. During the observations just one passenger was observed leaving,

although there were some 87 other vehicles passing through, mainly from 15:00 onwards. There was little passenger demand and the vehicles

waiting appear to be feeding across to the railway station (rear) rank.

No comment can be made about the service provided, as this is clearly only operating as a feeder rank, and only when maximum capacity is

needed at the station (rear) rank.

Pantiles rank

This rank is located in the Pantiles area of Tunbridge Wells, very close to the tourist information, albeit in a road at a lower level than the main

shops. The single space is at the head of the road into the Pantiles and is nearest to the shops, but partly hidden by being at the lower level. This

rank was observed from 14:00 on Friday 10th May 2013 to midnight. There were no vehicles nor passengers at this location during daytime

hours. Three passengers left the area in two hackney carriages between 20:00 and 22:00. No vehicles left empty. In both cases, the vehicle waited

a few minutes before the passenger arrived, suggesting these were almost certainly booked passengers.

Service provided to this location is therefore fair, albeit private hire

related, but has potential.

Linden Park Road rank

This rank provides some four spaces within the bus stop area for the new Sainsbury’s near to Tunbridge Wells West (preserved) railway station.

However, the main exit to the store faces at right angles to the rank and this location is effectively at the goods entrance to the store, although it is

in the same place as the public bus stops. It only formally operates 0800-1800.

20

The rank was observed on Saturday 11th May 2013 from 08:00 to 18:00, its full hours of formal operation. Just one vehicle passed through and

waited three minutes at 08:00. Otherwise, there were no passengers or vehicles. From other discussions, the principal service to Sainsbury’s is to

the front of the store, by private hire vehicles.

This location is unused and effectively redundant.

Night Ranks Camden Road rank

This rank is located in Camden Road, not far from the Iceland rank. It is a bus stop during the day time, and only formally operates from 21:00 to

06:00. Markings are faded and in white denoting the part time operation.

During the period observed on Friday 10th May from 15:00 to 02:00, the

rank saw just three passengers, who left in two vehicles – in the period before the rank was formally in use. During the formal operating hours of

the rank, no vehicles or passengers were observed. The location is effectively redundant.

Church Road, Pitcher and Piano rank

This rank, which formally operates from 23:00 to 04:00 is located directly outside the Pitcher and Piano late night venue. There are 2 spaces

available, but the local road is a major route and carries reasonable levels of traffic even at night.

This rank was observed on Friday 10th May 2013 from 23:00 to 05:00 and

again on Saturday 11th May from 22:00 through to 04:00 on the Sunday

morning.

During the observations on Friday, a total of 86 passengers used the rank, with a high average occupancy of 2 passengers per vehicle. A further 16

vehicles, or 27% left the area without passengers. No passengers ever arrived when there was no vehicle available.

The rank began to be used by passengers at midnight and was used in

every hour apart from 04:00. The busiest hour saw 37 passengers between 02:00 and 03:00. There were never less than 10 passengers per hour.

Over the four operational hours, average demand was some 22 passengers per hour.

During the observations on Saturday, a total of 113 passengers used the

rank, with a high average occupancy of 2 passengers per vehicle (same as

Friday). A further 15 vehicles, or 21% left the area without passengers. No passengers ever arrived when there was no vehicle available.

The rank began to be used by passengers at 23:00 and was used in every

hour apart from 04:00. The busiest hour saw 36 passengers between 02:00 and 03:00. There were never less than six passengers per hour.

Over the five operational hours, average demand was some 23 passengers per hour.

21

Saturday demand is some 31% higher than Friday, but this is mainly from an earlier start rather than higher average flows per hour.

Overall, service at this location is very good.

Newton Road rank

This rank is located in the centre of Tunbridge Wells but in a relatively quiet back street, outside the Wells Kitchen. It formally operates 18:00 to

08:00 and is a loading bay the remainder of the time. It is not a particularly obvious location and could be felt a dangerous place to wait

either for passengers or vehicles due to its relatively remote location (although in actuality it is only yards from the main street).

During our survey, from 18:00 to 02:00 on Saturday 11th May, 2013, the total number of passengers was 19, with a high occupancy per vehicle of

2.4. Usage occurred through the whole period observed, although there were only two hours with more than two passengers, 23:00 (6 passengers)

and 02:00 (8 passengers). At 20:00 one passenger had to wait eight minutes for a vehicle to arrive (which may have been a booking given the

low number of vehicles generally passing through).

This rank saw more use than expected, and appears to provide fair service although the level of passing vehicles is very small, and the passengers

may relate to bookings.

Informal ranks There are two locations identified by the licensing section where either

hackney carriages or private hire vehicles are understood to meet

passengers. Both were observed at the expected times of use.

Near the “White Stuff” This location is very close to the Camden Road rank, but on the opposite

side of the road and close to a main pedestrian route from the main town centre, and an exit from the shopping centre. It is thought to be used for

pick-ups late at night and was observed on Friday 10th May 2013 from 23:00 through to 05:00 on the Saturday morning. During these hours, no

pick-ups were observed by any kind of vehicle. Hence, during our survey, this location did not appear to be used at all.

Body Shop

This potential location for pick-ups is directly opposite the Millenium Clock and a bus stop layby during the daytime. As it is on a more through route

than the nearby Mount Ephraim Road formal rank, it is understood it is

used for pick-ups later in the evening. The location was observed from 20:00 on Friday 10th May 2013 through to 04:00 on the Saturday morning.

22

There was no passenger or vehicle activity until midnight. After this, a small number of vehicles waited short periods before leaving. In the two

hours starting at 02:00, 11 passengers used the location, with high vehicle occupancies of 2.2 passengers per vehicle. 7 vehicles or 58% left the

location without passengers. During the 03:00 hour a passenger had to wait four minutes for a vehicle to arrive, although when averaged over all

passengers this averages out at some 34 seconds. This suggests this location should be considered for use as a night rank. Had this been a

formal rank, we would have suggested the service was fair.

Private ranks Tunbridge Wells station

Tunbridge Wells station is operated by Southeastern train operating

company. They manage the station on behalf of Network Rail. The station has two entrance/exits. The formal main entrance/exit is located on the

side of the station near the Morrison supermarket, and with a large forecourt, five spaces of which are marked as a taxi rank. This rank is at

right angles to the general traffic, meaning vehicles have to reverse into the spaces. This rank is definitely on Network Rail land. It is known as the

station “front” rank.

There is a further entrance/exit to the station from the pedestrian footbridge over the railway line, but which is closer to the route to the

main Tunbridge Wells town centre (and where there are several shops within the station buildings). In general, more people tend to see this as

the main station rank, and it has larger capacity (about 10 spaces). It also lies parallel to Mount Pleasant Road, the main route from the station (up

the hill) the main town centre area.

Because of this layout, although the land beneath the rank is owned by

Network Rail, it does abut public highway and Kent County Council considers it is public highway, albeit maintained by Network Rail. Signing is

provided by Network Rail not the highway authority, so is non-standard. Also, the rank is cobbled which makes it hard to mark with paint.

Neither of the rail station ranks is currently subject to any payment to the

train operator or its agent, although it is understood negotiations are under way. Were any payment to be required, it would be by the company who

the rail operator uses to administer its car parks, and not the rail operator itself, a further complication. The private ownership of these rail station

locations also means the Council have to involve the rail company and its agents in any decision about the rank – even to the extent that it is almost

impossible to provide any additions to the physical nature of the rank – ie

even adding fare tables or sample fares would need agreement from several parties within the rail structure.

Tunbridge Wells station (rear) rank

This rank was observed on Friday 10th May 2013 from 09:00 to 03:00 on the Saturday morning, and then from 05:00 on Saturday 11th May through

to 03:00 on the Sunday morning.

23

Friday observations On the Friday a total of 507 passengers used the rank, with average

vehicle occupancy being 1.4 passengers. Some 61 further vehicles left without passengers (14% of vehicles serving the location). In the midnight

hour a total of six passengers arrived when no vehicles were available – but their maximum wait was just two minutes, and the average wait for

those having to wait was a minute and 50 seconds. When averaged over all passengers in the day, the average passenger delay was just over one

second.

Over the 18 active hours, there were on average 28 passengers per hour. The rank was active from when we began observations through to 03:00

when it became quiet, although at this point six vehicles left empty. There

were four hours when passenger numbers were over 50 per hour – 18:00, 19:00 (commuter time), 22:00 and midnight. 22:00 had the highest flow

at 56 persons. After 13:00 there were always more than 20 passengers per hour till the end of rank operation. From 09:00 to 13:00 flows were lower,

at 4 to 11.

Vehicle waits for passengers were, however, extended at this location. Until 13:00 typical waits were between 31 and 61 minutes. These waits reduced

to between 10 and 38 minutes between 13:00 and 19:00, with longer waits at 20:00 and 21:00 and then reduced waits till the end of service.

One of the first vehicles observed had a 98 minute wait for a fare, but generally otherwise maximum waits were between 18 and 64 minutes.

Overall service to this rank on the Friday was very good

Saturday observations On the Saturday a total of 621 passengers used the rank, with average

vehicle occupancy higher than Friday at 1.8 passengers. Some 76 further vehicles left without passengers (18% of vehicles serving the location). No

passengers ever arrived when there were no vehicles available to serve them.

Over the 21 active hours, there were on average 30 passengers per hour.

The rank was active from 06:00 through to 03:00 when it became quiet, although at this point 14 vehicles left empty. There were four hours when

passenger numbers were over 50 per hour –from 22:00 to 01:00. Midnight had the highest flow at 104 persons. General daytime flows were lower

than Friday however, with 14-31 passengers per hour from 11:00 to 19:00 after which passenger flows began to increase.

Vehicle waits for passengers were, however, extended at this location, although less than on the Friday. Average waits for a fare through the day

ranged from 11 minutes to 57. There was one vehicle that waited 91 minutes early in the day, and another waiting 88 early afternoon, but

otherwise maximum waits were generally between 17 and 64 minutes.

24

Overall service to this rank on the Saturday was excellent, particularly with how the vehicles coped with the late night peak without any

passengers waiting at all.

Tunbridge Wells station (front) rank This location was observed on Friday 10th May 2013 from 09:00 to 19:00.

During this period, some 85 passengers used hackney carriages. Average occupancy was low at 1.2 passengers per vehicle. 23 vehicles, or a quarter

of the number serving the rank, left without passengers. In the ten hours observed, there was an average of nearly 9 passengers per hour. At 10:00

one passenger had to wait two minutes for a vehicle to arrive. As with the ‘rear’ rank, passenger departures were greatest during the evening peak

(the only time numbers rose above 9). The highest volume of passengers

was 24 at 17:00.

Overall service to this location is very good

Paddock Wood Station rank There is also a rank provided by Southeastern within the curtilage of its car

park provision at Paddock Wood station. There are two spaces and a waiting shelter provided. There is not understood to be any charge for use

of this area by hackney carriages. This rank was observed on Friday 10th May 2013 from 10:00 through to 02:00 on the Saturday morning.

Observations at this location were undertaken on Friday 10th May 2013,

between 10:00 and 02:00. During this period, just 27 passengers used the rank, with occupancy just 1.1 passengers per vehicle. Some 17 vehicles, or

40% of those serving the location, left empty. One passenger arrived in the

22:00 hour and had to wait a minute for a vehicle to arrive. Another passenger was noted to wait some 14 minutes at 11:00 but this person

was identified to have made a booking rather than having just turned up (as vehicles were available when they arrived).

Passengers used the rank in 11 of the observed hours. The highest

passenger flow was five at 22:00, with most hours seeing no more than 3 passengers. Vehicles only really waited at the rank until 13:00 and then

from 15:00 onwards. Average waits by vehicles ranged from two to 44 minutes, whilst the maximum any vehicle waited was 44 minutes.

Service to this rank is very light, but is generally good

25

Comparison of overall supply and demand The Table below provides a slightly different summary of supply and

demand, comparing average vehicle arrivals per hour with average loaded departures per hour, ie seeing how supply and demand match on average.

Rank Period

No o

f hours

rank

opera

ted

Avera

ge

vehicle

arrivals p

er

hour

Avera

ge

loaded

departure

s

per hour

Overa

ll

judgm

ent of

serv

ice

pro

vided



1 1 1 Fair

Mount Ephraim

Road / feeder

Saturday 11th May

09:00 to 00:00 6 2 2 Poor

Mount Pleasant

Avenue

Friday 10th May

11:00 to 21:00 n/a Feeder only

Pantiles Friday 10th May 14:00 to 00:00

2 1 1 Fair

Linden Park Road


n/a Redundant

Night Ranks

Camden Road Friday 10th May 15:00 to 05:00

n/a Redundant

Church Road


4 15 11

Very Good Saturday 11th May

22:00 to 04:00 5 14 11

Newton Road Saturday 11th May

18:00 to 02:00 6 3 1 Fair

Informal Rank Locations

White Stuff Friday 10th May

23:00 to 05:00 n/a Not used

Body Shop Friday 10th May 20:00 to 04:00

2 6 3 Fair

Private ranks

Tunbridge Wells

Station (rear)

Friday 10th May

09:00 to 03:00 18 24 20 Very Good


21 20 17 Excellent

Tunbridge Wells Station (front)


10 9 7 Very Good

Paddock Wood

Station

Friday 10th May

10:00 to 02:00 11 4 2 Good

26

Our observations suggest there are sufficient hackney carriage vehicles at all locations to serve passengers, apart from a few occasions when unmet

demand occurs for very short periods. One all day and one night rank are entirely redundant and are unlikely to attract any passengers. One rank

provides a good night service, whilst the Station rank (rear) is the only rank seeing significant service and passenger usage. This is supplemented

by the station (front) rank during the daytime, although both ranks are on Network Rail land. There are two other 24-hour ranks that could be further

developed (Millennium Clock and Pantiles) whilst the Iceland rank is unlikely to see great use but is useful as it stands. One night rank, Newton

Road, was a surprise in its usage, and might be developable unless the demand from there could be transferred to the Body Shop location (see

below).

There is one informal location, the Body Shop which sees use. Paddock

Wood sees use, but at a very low level, and is also on private Network Rail land although it is understood there is no permit fee applied there.

Comparison of total demand with previous survey

The table below calculates a typical week from the observations undertaken in 2013. Ranks are listed in descending order of usage and

where possible compared to 2006 by factoring those results.

Rank

Passengers

per week,

2013

surv

ey

2006

surv

ey

(appro

x.

wkly e

st)

Tunbridge Wells Station (rear)(private) 3,438 (72%) 5,900 (85%)

Tunbridge Wells Station (front)(private) 561 (12%) 950 (14%)

Church Road, Pitcher and Piano (night) 342 (7%) Not obs

Paddock Wood Station (private) 178 (4%) 90 (1%)

Newton Road 95 (2%) 0

Mount Ephraim Road (Millennium clock) 66 (1%) 0

Body Shop (informal) 55 (1%) n/a

Pantiles 18 (0.4%) 0

Camden Road 18 (0.4%) 0

Calverley Road, Iceland 6 (0.1%) 0

Mount Pleasant Avenue (station feeder) 6 (0.1%) Not obs

Linden Park Road (Sainsbury’s) 0 Not obs

The White Stuff (informal) 0 n/a

Great Hall Arcade (removed since 2006) n/a 0

Civic Way (removed since 2006) n/a 0

Total 4783 (100) 6,940 (100) Note – surveys only compared where possible due to changes in ranks surveyed. Total includes all observations at relevant points as available, 2006 factored to full week from detail available (limited).

27

In 2013, we estimate 4,783 passengers using hackney carriages in Tunbridge Wells from ranks. With an average occupancy of 1.6 passengers

per vehicle this is just under 3,000 hackney carriage journeys per week. Passenger flows appear to be around 69% of what they were in 2006 from

the limited evidence from the previous study. With current hailing at no more than 2% (and only in Tunbridge Wells), we estimate the annual

passenger level for hackney carriages from ranks and hailing is just under 254,000 passengers per year.

At the present time, 84% of all rank demand occurs at the Tunbridge Wells

station ranks, with the bulk at the station ‘rear’ (ie on Mount Pleasant Road). The Church Road (night) rank provides a further 7% of passenger

demand. Paddock Wood station adds a further 4%. Marginal usage at

seven other locations make up the remaining 5% of passenger usage – with Newton Road (surprisingly) providing about 2%, the Millennium Clock

1% and the informal Body Shop location a further 1%.

Compared to 2006, Paddock Wood station appears to have marginally increased its usage, Church Road is performing well having been

introduced in the last few years, and more of the minor ranks see some usage – although this might relate to our larger sample of hours actually

capturing some use at these locations, all of which had no use observed in 2006 (166 hours compared to 105 in 2006). However, although the

dominance of the private station ranks has reduced, they do still remain very dominant.

Level of hackney carriage vehicle activity

Of the 107 hackney carriage vehicles, we were advised that two were off

the road on the date of the rank surveys. Towards the end of our observations, around 03:00 on Sunday 12th May, some 12 different plates

were still observed active (or 11% of the fleet) mainly near the station (rear) rank but also in the central area of Tunbridge Wells.

Application of the ISUD index

The industry standard index of significant unmet demand (ISUD) has been used and developed since the initial Government guidance that limits could

only apply if there was no significant unmet demand for the service of hackney carriage vehicles.

The current index has two elements which can negate the need for use of

the index by setting the value to zero. The first test relates to if there are any daytime hours (Monday to Friday 1000 to 1800) where people are

observed to queue for hackney carriages. There are 2% of all relevant

hours with queues giving a value of 2.

The other index that could be zero – proportion of passengers in hours in which waits occurred which was over 1 minute – was 4% for the whole

survey giving a value of 4.

The seasonality index is 1.0 since the surveys were undertaken in May.

28

The area does not exhibit peaked demand, so this factor is 1.0. Average passenger delay in minutes across the whole survey is 0.03

minutes.

From the public attitude work, the latent demand factor is 1.00, assuming all who did not give an answer had not ever given up waiting.

The ISUD index for the full survey is 0.24. This is significantly less than the

value of 80 which is agreed signifies the significance of unmet demand using this index. There is therefore, from the index measure, no significant

unmet demand in Tunbridge Wells licensing area at this time. Other factors need to be balanced with this measure to confirm this decision (see later

evidence and chapters).

29

4. Public Consultation results A fifteen question survey was undertaken with 417 persons in the

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council area. Surveys were undertaken within the main central areas for Tunbridge Wells (300), at Tunbridge Wells Station

(67) and Paddock Wood station (50). Responses were mainly from those available during the day time, following standard practise for these

interviews. The Table below summarises the overall responses.

Question Response Av TW TW Stn PW Stn

Have you used a taxi in the last

three months in the Tunbridge Wells

area?

Yes 44 48 45 20

How often do you

use a taxi within this area?

Almost daily 13 14 13 0

Once a week 15 16 16 0

A few times a month 19 19 16 30

Once a month 29 28 32 40

Less than once a

month 24 23 23 30

% not responding 55 52 54 80

How do you

normally get a taxi within this area?

(percentage as a total of those who

responded)

At a taxi rank 46 46 53 29

Hail in the street 1 2 0 0

Telephone a taxi company

43 44 41 29

Use a Freephone 1 1 3 0

Use my mobile or smart phone

9 7 3 42

Other 0 0 0 0

% responding 43 41 39 66

Please indicate all

the ways you can hire the vehicle

shown in picture 1 (for info this was

hcv)

Get at a rank 73 70 85 100

Flag down 1 1 0 0

Telephone for 26 29 15 0

Please indicate all the ways you can

hire the vehicle shown in picture 2

(for info this was a phv)

Get at a rank 44 48 45 20

Flag down 56 52 55 80

Telephone for 0 0 0 0

30


Questions relating to hackney carriages only:

How often do you

use a hackney carriage within the

Tunbridge Wells area?

Almost daily 8 7 17 0

Once a week 11 11 17 0

A few times a month 22 23 16 25

Once a month 8 5 25 0

Less than once a month

51 54 25 75

% of total above is 22 25 18 8

I can’t remember when I last used a

hackney carriage (% of all interviews)

14 18 0 8

I can’t remember

seeing a hackney carriage in Tunbridge

Wells Borough (% of all interviews)

1 0 7 0

No response at all 63 57 75 84

Please tell me the ranks you are

aware of in Tunbridge Wells

Borough, and for each if you use

them

See description below

Is there any location in

Tunbridge Wells Borough where you

would like to see a rank, and if it was

there and vehicles were available,

would you use it?

See description below

Have you had any problem with the

local hackney carriage service?

(indicate as many as apply)

No problem 4 1 0 0

Total problems cited 85 71 6 8

Those having issue, % having this issue:

Design of vehicle 1 1 0 0

Driver issues 6 4 33 0

Position of ranks 1 1 0 0

Delay in getting a taxi

6 0 17 50

Cleanliness 11 10 17 13

Price 75 84 33 37

Other problems

(please state) 0 0 0 0

31


What would

encourage you to use hackney

carriages or use them more often

No response 70 66 76 86

Of those responding, % said:

Nothing 0 0 0 0

Better vehicles 6 8 0 0

More hackney

carriages I could phone for

1 0 0 14

Better drivers 11 12 6 0

More hackney carriages I could hail

or get at a rank

2 2 0 14

Better located ranks

(please state where) 2 1 6 14

Cheaper fares 76 74 88 58

Other 2 3 0 0

Do you consider

you, or anyone you know, to have a

disability that means you need an

adapted vehicle?

% who responded 39 44 36 10

No 100 100 100 100

Yes - I need a

wheelchair accessible vehicle

0 0 0 0

Yes – someone I

know needs a wheelchair accessible

vehicle

0 0 0 0

Yes– I need an adapted vehicle but

not a wheel chair accessible

0 0 0 0

Yes – someone I knows needs an

adapted vehicle but not wheel chair

accessible

0 0 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0

If you chose a

vehicle type in the question above,

why did you chose

that specific vehicle type?

No response given

Have you ever given up waiting

for a hackney carriage at a rank

in the Tunbridge Wells Borough

area?

No 100 100 100 100

32


Do you have

regular access to a

car?

Yes 51 50 59 40

Do you live in the

area? Yes 90 93 100 22

Gender (value in

bracket from

census, 2008 est of 2013)

Male 55

(49) 55 57 54

Age (value in

brackets from

census, 2008 est of 2013)

Under 30 (15-29) 21 (20)

23 21 8

31-55 (30-54) 59

(45) 57 66 62

Over 55 20

(35) 20 13 30

Some 44% of those interviewed had used a licensed vehicle in the

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council area in the last three months, quite a moderate level of recent usage. Usage at Paddock Wood was much lower –

just one in five had recently used a licensed vehicle there.

Of the respondents who told us they had used a licensed vehicle recently, most said how often they used a licensed vehicle. We have assumed the

remaining non-respondents do not use licensed vehicles and calculated the average level of licensed vehicle trips per month per person below. On

average, there are 1.8 person trips by licensed vehicle per month based on these assumptions, a fairly low level. When Paddock Wood responses are

considered, the usage of licensed vehicles is very low – just 0.2 trips per person per month.

For area average (and effectively Tunbridge Wells

Frequency % of people Assumed Trips

per month

Total

Daily 13 20 260

One per week 15 4 60

A few per month 19 2 38

One per month 29 1 29

Less than one per month 24 0.5 12

399

Factor for 55% not responding

Trips per person per month 1.8

33

For Paddock Wood:


per month

Total

Daily 0 20 0

One per week 0 4 0


One per month 40 1 40

Less than one per month 30 0.5 15

115

Factor for 80% not responding


43% of interviewees told us how they obtained licensed vehicles in the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council area. In Tunbridge Wells, both the centre

and at the station, the dominant response was from a rank. At the station, 53% said rank, whilst in the town 46% said rank. The proportion getting a

vehicle by phone was 41% at the station and 44% in town. This is a high rank usage compared to many other locations – although partly tempered

by the relatively low overall response rate. Hailing is only important for those from the town sample, moderate at around 2%.

For Paddock Wood, the dominant way to get a licensed vehicle is using a

mobile or smart phone, some 42% of respondents said this, with rank and

telephone then equally split for those remaining.

People were shown two different photographs. The first was a Tunbridge Wells hackney carriage and the second a Tunbridge Wells private hire

vehicle. This sought to understand how people considered they could get such a vehicle.

For picture 1, the correct answer should have been all methods were

possible. The high score in all locations for ‘rank’ is encouraging. Hailing is only considered correct by a few in the town centre, suggesting people

could be encouraged to hail more. No-one at Paddock Wood felt they could phone for a hackney carriage. In the other two locations, the percentages

feeling they could phone was lower – this may be related to the high number of hackney carriage vehicles not linked to phone networks.

The response to the second picture is of more concern. A high proportion, with the highest in Paddock Wood, felt they could flag the private hire

vehicle – with between 52 and 80% of responses saying this. 20-48% felt you could get the private hire vehicle at a rank, but none felt these could

be phoned for. This suggests that people better know what a hackney carriage is, but also think private hire vehicles operate very similarly to

hackney carriages. These results suggest education of the public is required, particularly in regard to the ability to flag down hackney carriages

but the illegality of doing this with a private hire vehicle.

34

A set of questions were then asked relating specifically to use of hackney carriages. The first question asked how often people used them. 7% at the

station said they could not remember seeing a hackney carriage in Tunbridge Wells – an unusual response, although no-one else gave this

response. This demonstrates that hackney carriages are a known feature of the Borough, and are distinguishable from private hire. On average 14% of

those responding said they could not remember when they last used a hackney carriage, 18% in Tunbridge Wells town centre and 8% at Paddock

Wood (and none at Tunbridge Wells station).

In the table below, the same calculation undertaken above for licensed vehicles overall is undertaken specifically for hackney carriages:

Average usage of hackney carriages, whole area


per month

Total

Daily 8 20 160

One per week 11 4 44


One per month 8 1 8

Less than one per month 51 0.5 25.5

281.5

Allowing for this being 37%


Average usage of hackney carriages, Paddock Wood


per month

Total

Daily 0 20 0

One per week 0 4 0


One per month 0 1 0

Less than one per month 75 0.5 37.5

87.5

Allowing for this being 8%


Compared to the 1.8 trips per person by licensed vehicle, hackney carriages generate 1.04 trips per person, about 58% of the total,

consistent with the result that the main method of getting a licensed vehicle is from a rank. In Paddock Wood, the low level of overall licensed

vehicle usage (0.2) drops even further to 0.07 for hackney carriages.

People were asked to name all the rank locations they were aware of in the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council area and if they used the locations they

named or not. 123 (41%) of those in Tunbridge Wells town centre were aware of ranks, with 37% aware at Tunbridge Wells station and a much

lower (but consistent) one-fifth at Paddock Wood.

35

Of the ranks named by those interviewed in central Tunbridge Wells, 67% were the Railway Station ranks. 18% said ‘town centre’ but did not say

where these ranks were. All ranks were mentioned apart from those at the Pantiles and at the Millennium clock, albeit by small numbers of people.

Those at the station mainly only mentioned the station ranks, with just Camden Road, “High Street”, “High Broom Street” and “town centre” being

mentioned by one person each. The 10 persons mentioning ranks in Paddock Wood only mention the rank there and the ranks at Tunbridge

Wells station, as might be expected.

In general, rank knowledge is therefore good, although as might be expected focussed mainly on the station ranks. There is, however some

knowledge of other ranks by those in the central area of Tunbridge Wells,

but more marketing of the central Tunbridge Wells ranks would be of benefit, particularly the main Millennium clock rank.

When asked about new locations, people in central Tunbridge Wells made

18 suggestions, although all were current rank locations generally which were lesser used – including Church Road, Calverley Road, Linden Park

Road, Mount Pleasant Avenue, Newton Road and the Pantiles. Those at Tunbridge Wells station suggested two locations, Five Ways and High

Street. In Paddock Wood, two suggested there needed to be a rank at the station, and both said they would use it. This suggests there could be

further custom to be had were some of the presently little used ranks given a more regular presence of vehicles.

Across the whole 417 respondents, 81 persons (20%) noted 85 problems.

Just 1% in Tunbridge Wells said they had no problem, with the others not

giving any response. Those using Tunbridge Wells station gave just six issues. Paddock Wood station respondents gave eight. Across the whole

area, the main item that reduced hackney carriage use was price – 75% across the full sample, with 84% of issues in central Tunbridge Wells

respondents being price. Whilst other issues were mentioned, only cleanliness scored 10%. At Tunbridge Wells station, driver issues fared

equally with price, followed by delay getting a hackney carriage and cleanliness. At Paddock Wood, half the issues were delay getting a taxi,

followed by price and cleanliness (the only three issue mentioned).

There was a similar lack of response when people were asked what would encourage them to use hackney carriages or use them more often. On

average 70% gave no response – with 86% not responding at Paddock Wood station. As is usual, the highest response in all cases is ‘cheaper

fares’. Between 58 and 74% of people responded this, with it always being

the highest issue that might increase hackney carriage usage. At Paddock Wood station the remaining issues were shared equally between more

hackney carriages to phone for, more at the rank, and better located ranks. In Tunbridge Wells central respondents the next highest issue that

might increase hackney carriage use was better drivers, followed by better vehicles (12% and 8% respectively). Those responding at the station split

their other two responses equally between better drivers and better located ranks, but fares took 88% of response.

36

Although both these sets of responses tend to suggest a fairly high appreciation of the current service, price is the main issue, which is usually

hard to do much about in the current situation. The responses also show there is a different focus in Paddock Wood arising from the lower provision

of vehicles to that location.

People were asked if they, or anyone they knew had a disability needing either a wheel chair accessible licensed vehicle, or a vehicle adapted in

some other way. Across the area, no-one needed or knew anyone that needed any adaptation – a very surprising result.

Nor did anyone give any example of having given up waiting for a hackney

carriage in the Borough – confirming that even if there is knowledge of

ranks, people have long given up expecting a vehicle might come there. This suggests the formal value of latent demand is zero, but on the

contrary suggests the issue of lack of use of ranks is much more engrained and has clearly been a long standing problem.

On average, 51% of those responding had regular access to a car –

although Paddock Wood station respondents only 40% had such access. Those interviewed near Tunbridge Wells station had the highest access – at

59%.

90% of those interviewed lived in the area (but just 22% at Paddock Wood station).

Our gender sample saw over-representation of men (55% compared to

49%). Our age sample was skewed to the middle-aged group (59%

compared to 45%) with the main reduction being those over 55 (20% instead of 35%).

Summary

In summary, the 417 public attitude surveys show there is a distinct difference between hackney carriage views in Tunbridge Wells and Paddock

Wood, although there are some common views. From this sample, there is no demand for wheel chair or other adapted vehicles. If anything could

change to improve usage, it would be reduced fares, although more availability of hackney carriages would help in Paddock Wood. People have

good knowledge of ranks but very low expectation of seeing vehicles at other than the station ranks. There is little demand for additional ranks but

perhaps demand for more service at those that do exist (as most places people said they would wish to see a rank, and would use, actually had

one!). The most obvious central rank at the Millennium Clock is the one

most people are completely ignorant of.

37

5. Stakeholder Consultation (including mystery shopper) The following key stakeholders were contacted in line with the DfT Best

Practice Guidance 2010:

• Supermarkets • Hotels

• Hospital • Local education

• Pubwatch / night clubs • Disability representatives

• Education and social services • Police

• Rail operators

• Other council contacts • County council contacts

Specific comments have been aggregated below to provide an overall

appreciation of the current situation, although in some cases comments are specific to the needs of a particular stakeholder. It should be noted that the

comments contained in this Chapter are the view of those consulted, and not that of the authors of this Report. Appendix 2 provides further details

of those consulted.

The licensed vehicle trade consultation is the subject of the following chapter.

Supermarkets Five supermarkets were contacted. All either had free-phones in store to a

private hire operator, or had an advert for an operator in a prominent position. All said that vehicles usually turned up within around 10 minutes,

although at one location (Paddock Wood) the store sometimes saw passengers waiting longer periods.

All said vehicles and drivers served their customers well, with no issues

with vehicles causing congestion as they all ‘came to order’. One quoted an

operator who provided excellent customer service with the driver coming into the store to collect the passenger, all others waited in the car park.

This store also had two regular visually impaired customers, both of whom they felt obtained excellent service.

A store with a rank outside said vehicles never waited at the rank, except

later at night when the store was closed. Their customers usually called the advertised company, who usually sent a hackney carriage from their fleet

to pick them up outside. This store had also recently provided a free home delivery service, which they acknowledged had reduced taxi trips, although

this service often had no available slots in which case passengers then did phone the company for a vehicle.

38

Another store was aware of a nearby rank, but said it was only used as a set-down point, and that all vehicles phoned for came to the front entrance

in response to customer calls. One main company serviced their free-phone but customers did make their own choices of company using mobile phones

as well.

The Paddock Wood store told us that most of its customers went outside and called their preferred private hire company by phone, rather than

using their in-store free-phone.

In general, service to supermarkets tends to be private hire, phone-related, although some companies may send hackney carriages to collect

customers if they are available on the fleet.

Hotels Four hotels were contacted. Three used one private hire company and

usually obtained a good service for their customers. At least one said they had built a long term relationship with the operator. One other hotel said

they used a range of companies, and customers usually obtained vehicles promptly.

Hospital The travel planner for the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust

responded. They told us: - After making enquiries they confirmed they were not aware of any

concerns about the number of hackney carriages available at the hospital, although admitting they are reliant on concerns being reported

so there may be issues which have not been reported to them directly

- The in-house patient transport service for patients meeting specific criteria is now out-sourced to a private contractor on a county-wide

basis - Voluntary transport is also offered by several providers for a

contribution from the patient, some of which operate on a membership fee basis

- The hospital travel plan currently does not include any initiatives involving use of licensed vehicles, although such initiatives are not

precluded in the future

Night clubs

Two local night clubs were contacted. One asked us to make contact via

their Head Office, whilst the other only provided an answer phone. It therefore did not prove possible to receive any response from them for this

consultation.

39

Police

A local police representative met us during the consultation focus day.

They told us that Thursdays and Saturdays were busiest, but that at all times there were sufficient licensed vehicles overall to meet demand,

principally because the drivers knew where the business was. The police

encourage venues to move people away from their premises as crowds can generate unrest. This is not possible at the Church Road club as there is a

rank outside and people tend to say they are waiting for a taxi – even though one might be there.

The police representative told us there is an issue at the station of too

many vehicles on the rank on Mount Pleasant Road. Double and treble parking by hackney carriages causes inconvenience and potential safety

issues. The nearby roundabout does help but they felt that better driver consciousness of the issues might help. The police would support the

development of a good feeder rank in Mount Pleasant Avenue, and may consider giving up the police space there to increase its size.

The police also said they provided good enforcement on the unused ranks

to keep them clear for hackney carriage usage. This involves a good

partnership between the civil enforcement and their officers. Private hire vehicles are checked using social media. Marshals are a great help at

Christmas, protecting both drivers and the public. The police were most frustrated by drivers complaining about issues such as racial abuse from

customers but, having started a complaint, being unwilling to see this through or provide sufficient evidence for the police to complete their

actions.

Transport representatives

A number of bus operators were contacted using the Council transport stakeholder

list. All said that the present arrangements worked well and that they had no major issues with hackney carriage (or private hire) operations. A major operator

admitted that in some cases, buses and licensed vehicles did compete, but therefore provided extra choice. Buses tended to be cheaper for those buying

multi-journey or group tickets but could not provide door to door or instant service. The national concessionary pass also favours bus use by those able to

have such a facility. The company also was glad that licensed vehicles complemented their service when it was uneconomic for bus services to be

operated. The only occasional issue with conflict was when licensed vehicles interrupted bus services by picking up or dropping off at busy bus stops (such as

near Tunbridge Wells railway station).

40

Disability Representatives

There is a formal disability group for Tunbridge Wells Borough, “The Access

Group” (TAG). This Group draws together a wide range of group representatives and individuals. To ensure the maximum possible input, a

face to face meeting was arranged with the group, although some

members were not able to attend on the day, some of whom provided written evidence.

TAG firstly provided us with a copy of their evidence provided to the Law

Commission consultation on taxi and private hire. The Soroptimists also provided a copy of their March 2006 review “Women’s view of taxis in

Tunbridge Wells”. After the meeting, TAG also provided written comment about our driver questionnaire after this had been issued to all drivers (as

one of their group also has links with current drivers), which in part reiterated some of the Law Commission submission inputs. We have

summarised details from these and the face to face inputs below, although we acknowledge that some matters may have been omitted to ensure we

focus on those pertinent to the issue of the hackney carriage demand policy (at our discretion).

The TAG submission to the Law Commission stated: - Disabled people often have great difficulty getting hire and taxi cabs

- (even when obtained) drivers will not assist disabled people.. - Especially if they require a vehicle for a fare less than £5

- (hackney carriages) only use Tunbridge Wells station rank - (even there) people can be refused journeys likely to cost less than £5

- They consider by 2017 all licensed vehicles must be totally independently accessible and accept the cost of that would be high

- They believe that individual licensed vehicle drivers, operators and the local council are failing to apply specific legal standards

Representatives attending the meeting included a wheelchair user, a

representative from the Over 50’s Group, two representatives from DPG / Headway, the Group Chairman and their former taxi driver representative.

The following points were made:

- Taxis do meet needs that other transport does not meet (for example the new hospital has very little public transport service)

- Sheltered accommodation in the area has high licensed vehicle needs - One person used a large company but their having a distant base

made it harder to obtain a regular driver, which they preferred as it ensured consistency in treatment

- One preferred to get licensed vehicles to pick them up from the rank near Sainsbury’s as the route from the front of the store was

uncomfortable with so many speed humps and added significantly to the fare

- One person felt uncomfortable as most drivers tended to use their mobile or data head while driving

- There was a general feeling that those with disabilities were charged more than able bodied persons

41

- Many saw a high start fare when they got into the vehicle as the driver had started the meter when they arrived not when the person had

boarded the vehicle - There were further concerns that meters were not stopped until the

ramps had been put away, rather than when the person got out - There is a difficulty in obtaining disabled friendly vehicles of any kind

from 12:00 to 17:00 as most wheel chair vehicles are on contracts of various kinds at that time

- It was pointed out that a freedom of information request had shown the Tunbridge Wells licensing web site claiming all hackney carriages

would be fully wheel chair accessible by 2012 - There was a concern that many vehicles were worn out yet owned by

wealthy businessmen and rented to drivers who had to work long

hours to meet their repayment costs to the vehicle owners - People felt safety concerns with drivers working such long hours

- They felt the Millennium Clock rank was not obvious enough, it perhaps needed a shelter and better signing

- It was also suggested that traffic wardens sometimes moved hackney carriages on from waiting at that location

- There were issues with some electric chairs becoming too heavy for current vehicles

- They felt there were about 15-17 wheel chair accessible vehicles in the current hackney carriage fleet

- There was a widely held misapprehension that the plates were owned by the Council (this is only the case in Scotland)

- One consultee was aware of a wheel chair accessible vehicle rarely seen at any rank

- Representatives said key journeys made were to the hospital and to

and from the cinema

The Soroptomist report (albeit from 2006) mainly encouraged provision of a good central rank – effectively at the location of the Millennium Clock

rank – but which was also well-signed and populated by vehicles. Both this report and others told us there had been a private hire office in this

location which was very well used, although others said most trips from that location were uneconomic, hence the reason it had stopped being

served. A key reason that active central ranks were needed was because of the hilly nature of the town. There was strong frustration expressed

that people had to go to the station to get a hackney carriage, and that when they arrived there they found it hard to get to the vehicles because

so many were there.

Overall, the disability representatives felt there was a good market for

disability friendly hackney carriage journeys but that the current fleet was not providing for many of these needs, and when the fleet did provide

service, it did so at inflated cost. Many felt aggrieved that they were unable to live relatively normal lives and had to live by booking ahead

and when appropriate vehicles were available.

42

The letter sent following access to the driver questionnaire reiterated the point made to the Law Commission that TAG believed hackney carriages

now had to be independently accessible to all. A piece of legislation, the Equality Standards in Local Government 2000 (ESLG) is quoted. We

sought expert advice from NALEO representatives (National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers) who pointed out that this legislation

is actually only a method of assessing local government performance. It is accepted that the UN Convention on the rights of Disabled People

(UNCRDP) was ratified by the UK Government in 2009, but NALEO confirmed that, apart from two statutory instruments (1616 and 1617,

2006) relating to assistance dogs, the UK Government has not implemented any further requirement.

Further, NALEO made it clear that, under Regulation 3 of the Disability Discrimination (Transport Vehicles) Regulations (SI 3190 (2005)) the

requirements under Section 21 ZA(1) are specifically dis-applied in respect of taxis and private hire vehicles. No local Council can be

expected to re-apply such requirements. The relevant sections 32-39 of the DDA 1995 relating to licensed vehicles have never been made

effective by a commencement order laid before parliament.

Notwithstanding this discussion detail of which was clarified by a national taxi licensing officer expert (from NALEO), it is clear that there are a lot of

issues to be worked through with the provision of licensed vehicle services for those with disabilities in the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council area,

which cannot be belittled. Further discussion of how best to achieve quick wins and long term gains are discussed in the conclusion and

recommendation chapters. This would seek to use energies that might be

expended in high level debate at a practical level.

Rail Operators National statistics are publicly available showing the total number of entries

and exits at each rail station in the United Kingdom. These numbers are calculated using ticket barrier and ticket issue information from ticket

sales.

The Table below shows information for Tunbridge Wells Borough stations

from 1997/1998 to date. There are four stations within the boundaries of the Council area – Tunbridge Wells and High Brooms on the London –

Hastings route, Paddock Wood on the Ashford route, and Ashurst on the line to Uckfield. The first three stations are managed by Southeastern

Trains whilst the latter station is managed by Southern trains.

There have been recent capacity improvements that now allow 12-car trains to run as far as Tunbridge Wells, although there is also concern that

the provision of services to Cannon Street might be affected by the Thameslink developments in due course. Ashurst services have also been

developed, with new trains in the recent past, although some journeys to London involve change of trains which sometimes causes people from

Tunbridge Wells Borough to use stations outside the area.

43

Rail year (ends March in last year noted)

Entries / exits Growth / decline

Tunbridge Wells

1997 / 1998 2,584,362 n/a

1998 / 1999 2,769,773 +7

1999 / 2000 2,967,118 +7

2000 / 2001 2,839,149 -4

2001 / 2002 2,946,476 +4

2002 / 2003 3,027,547 +3

2004 / 2005 3,149,435 +4

2005 / 2006 3,264,797 +4

2006 / 2007 3,450,304 +6

2007 /2008 3,809,211 +10

2008 / 2009 3,795,156 -1

2009 / 2010 3,414,482 -10

2010 / 2011 3,511,142 +3

2011 / 2012 3,531,580 +1 (+37 overall)

Paddock Wood

1997 / 1998 909,906 n/a

1998 / 1999 958,158 +5

1999 / 2000 1,058,437 +10

2000 / 2001 1,066,115 +1

2001 / 2002 1,056,848 -1

2002 / 2003 1,067,385 +1

2004 / 2005 1,071,522 +.5

2005 / 2006 1,091,477 +2

2006 / 2007 1,138,011 +4

2007 /2008 1,195,185 +5

2008 / 2009 1,170,908 -2

2009 / 2010 1,081,480 -8

2010 / 2011 1,104,070 +2

2011 / 2012 1,131,024 +2 (+24 overall)

High Brooms

1997 / 1998 606,302 n/a

1998 / 1999 644,396 +6

1999 / 2000 697,986 +8

2000 / 2001 693,577 -1

2001 / 2002 656,832 -5

2002 / 2003 655,128 -1

2004 / 2005 722,125 +10

2005 / 2006 766,629 +6

2006 / 2007 816,855 +7

2007 /2008 849,211 +4

2008 / 2009 846,934 -1

2009 / 2010 946,426 +12

2010 / 2011 1,046,764 +11

2011 / 2012 1,106,704 +6 (+83 overall)

44

Ashurst

1997 / 1998 4,517 n/a

1998 / 1999 5,439 +20

1999 / 2000 5,685 +5

2000 / 2001 4,634 -18

2001 / 2002 4,567 -1

2002 / 2003 5,058 +11

2004 / 2005 6,572 +30

2005 / 2006 10,831 +65

2006 / 2007 14,732 +36

2007 /2008 17,360 +18

2008 / 2009 20,172 +16

2009 / 2010 16,694 -17

2010 / 2011 22,326 +34

2011 / 2012 24,166 +8 (+435 overall)

Tunbridge Wells has the highest patronage of the four stations – with over

3.5 million entries and exits in the last available year (2011/12). Since 1997/8 this value has grown by 37%, although there was a slump from

2008 to 2010, and only small growth in the last two years. At present, Tunbridge Wells has the 112th largest entries / exits in the national rail

league table. In other words, there are some 1.75 million people leaving this location every year requiring onward travel – a very good market for

hackney carriages.

Paddock Wood sees just over 1.1 million (and is up 24% overall), High Brooms sees a similar level to Paddock Wood but has grown 83% since the

start of the data set. This suggest both should give rise to at least some kind of licensed vehicle service.

Ashurst is much smaller, with just 24,000 entries and exits, but has seen

over fourfold growth with the train improvements.

The train taxi guide was interrogated to identify licensed vehicle links from

each station. The record is correct for each station. Tunbridge Wells is defined as a major station with active rank. Three private hire companies

are also given (at least one is a company with hackney carriages and claims to have several wheel chair accessible vehicles). Both Paddock

Wood and High Brooms are advised as having ranks or offices but need pre-booking. Three operators are suggested for Paddock Wood (one

company being the same as that at Tunbridge Wells), whilst for High Brooms only the operator with the office is quoted, otherwise use of other

stations is recommended. Ashurst is correctly identified as having no rank or office and one operator is given for pre-booking, or use of two other

stations (one of which is Tunbridge Wells).

45

It is therefore possible to continue journeys from all four Tunbridge Wells Borough stations by some form of licensed vehicle, but for those with

wheel chair needs only Tunbridge Wells is suggested (although strangely the same operator does not claim wheel chair vehicles at Paddock Wood as

they do at Tunbridge Wells).

Other representatives - Councillor Discussion was also held on the consultation day with a local Councillor,

David Scott. David has an interest in a number of persons who need assistance with transport. He told us:

- Many have given up phoning for vehicles - There is a lot of uncertainty about return journeys

- He is aware the hackney carriage trade claim little demand for

disability focussed services - He is aware it proved possible to engineer a step change in attitude to

disabled persons in shops - There are excess vehicles at the station and more room is needed,

although any feeder would need to ensure fair operation - Increased co-operation is needed with the rail operator

- There was concern that hackney carriage service was needed at High Brooms station

- There is need to invest in better vehicles and training / attitudes towards those with disabilities

- A Tunbridge Wells based ‘app’ might be a help - Or a radio network for those with disability accessible vehicles might

be a lower technology assistance - There was concern about length of hours currently worked and the

safety implications of this

- He felt self-policing with intermittent formal scrutiny might work best to raise standards of operation.

Mystery Shopper (wheel chair) survey

Our research included a person in a wheel chair attempting to make two days’ (consecutive) travel in the area, using hackney carriage services. A

set of twelve journeys were agreed to test how the service performed.

Ten journeys were actually made over the two days as follows: (day 1)

- Tunbridge Wells station (rear) to Pantiles - Pantiles to Royal Victoria Centre

- Royal Victoria Centre to Hospital (Pembury) - Hospital to Museum

- Museum to Tunbridge Wells Station

(day 2) - Paddock Wood Station to Hospital (Pembury)

- Hospital to Tunbridge Wells Station - Tunbridge Wells Station (front) to Sainsbury’s

- Sainsbury’s to Odeon Cinema - Odeon Cinema to Tunbridge Wells Station

46

Where possible, rank provision was used where obvious, otherwise a copy of the publicly available list of wheel chair accessible vehicles (providing six

phone numbers for twelve of the 21 wheel chair accessible hackney carriage vehicles) was used to obtain a wheel chair accessible vehicle. This

list confirms the legal position that passengers should not expect to be charged any supplement for using the wheel chair accessible facility and

should be charged the same as any able bodied person using that vehicle.

Notes were made about the service provided using specific categories to ensure comparability of the experience for each journey. It was identified

that one of the six phone numbers listed was not available on the two survey days due to personal reasons by the person advising the mystery

shopper of this later on the first day.

Experiences on the first day meant the shopper booked their first two

journeys of the second day before leaving home.

An issue had been mentioned of concern from some disabled persons that those driving them excessively used phones or communicated with others

(such as their office) during journeys, but this did not occur at all on the ten journeys made.

None of the ten journeys were able to be made immediately, the fastest

response time occurred only after four negative calls had been made, with the fifth vehicle then turning up very quickly (at the Pantiles, and

incidentally the vehicle that had dropped the shopper there earlier). In the event, one phone number (who admitted they did not undertake contract

work) proved the best provider (ending up undertaking six of the ten

journeys), another phone number provided two journeys and two other phone numbers one each (including the phone number being shown to

have the most vehicles, who appeared to most regularly say no vehicles were available).

The shopper never found a wheel chair accessible vehicle at either side of

Tunbridge Wells station (although journeys from there were limited to just two in the end). On first arrival, eight vehicles were there but none were

wheel chair accessible. The first driver approached just offered ‘one will be along soon’. Another driver within this line of waiting vehicles eventually

offered help by contacting a colleague and then flagging down a passing wheel chair accessible vehicle who returned to collect the shopper after

completing the passenger set down. The third journey had to be booked an hour and a half ahead, and was then 15 minutes late (giving traffic as the

reason). The next journey took three calls to book, with an hour expected

wait that turned out to be just half an hour. The final journey of the first day gave a ten minute wait from the first call – although this journey was

later in the day. Two other journeys planned for the first day had to be curtailed due to the time it took to get through the first five journeys.

47

On the second day, the first two journeys were booked from home. The first vehicle arrived 15 minutes late, whilst the second and third both

arrived at their stated time. The fourth journey gave a half hour wait, which was honoured. Interestingly, the second, third and fourth journeys

were with the same person as no other vehicles from the list were available. The final journey had to be booked for 17:00 at 14:15 and

followed a traumatic call to another operator who made it clear no vehicles would be available till at least 17:30. The actual operator promised the

17:00 arrival did manage to come early at 16:30, but this negated any opportunity to undertake any more journeys that day.

Of the ten journeys successfully completed, one (in an E7) was undertaken

with the chair secured sideways and not facing forwards. Another journey

was correctly located but poorly secured, and one other journey saw the securing straps very difficult to release at the end. All but two drivers were

polite and helpful. The two driver issues were related to the person that did not turn the chair and to an otherwise helpful driver who seemed very

under pressure during the journey, reducing their ability to respond appropriately to the shopper.

The shopper also made the following comments:

- The station (rear) location is very poor for wheel chairs due to the angle of the pavement

- One phone contact was very helpful and provided a card after the second use, and made it clear they did not take on contracts and were

happy to take short journeys - All but one contact clearly had the meter running before the person

entered the vehicle and did not stop the meter until they had loaded

ramps, etc back into the vehicle (not when the person got out) - Were frustrated that the contact number with more than one vehicle

appeared to have the least availability to provide service – and had a very difficult discussion with that operator in which the controller

admitted Friday was their busiest day and said all their wheel chair vehicles were operating on contracts ‘till at least 17:30’

In conclusion, wheel chair hackney carriage trips were possible, although

it did not prove possible on either day to make any journeys without significant waits or numbers of attempted bookings. On both days, it was

not possible to undertake as much as planned, mainly due to a lack of availability of vehicles for hire in afternoons.

49

6. Licensed Vehicle Trade Consultation

Trade consultation

Several trade representatives attended a meeting following the inception

meeting for the project. One large company (who do operate hackney carriages) were met during the face to face consultation day. Other

company representatives took time to complete the driver questionnaire as

owners.

The trade representatives at the inception meeting, trade section, made the following points:

- Even Christmas demand is well-met by the current hackney carriage fleet, particularly with help from marshals

- Lack of knowledge of other ranks by passengers focusses demand at the station

- Church Road rank needs more vehicle spaces and consideration about how the main road flow can be kept running when the rank is

operating (there have been incidents with hgv’s hitting hcv’s) - A new night rank could use the Body Shop bus-stop layby

- Night venues may be willing to sign ranks from within their premises as long as this was in tandem with Council signing

- It was felt that 40 vehicles serviced daytime demand with the other 67

mainly servicing night demand - However, many drivers work 18 hour days to make a living

The trade representatives were given opportunity to modify the public

attitude and driver questionnaires, and to agree both were suitable.

A separate meeting was held with two representatives of one of the large local private hire companies (who operated many hackney carriages as

part of their fleet). They commented that the Millennium Clock rank was near the location of a former private hire office (Starline) which their

company had taken over many years ago. This office had provided a very large number of journeys for central Tunbridge Wells passengers, but had

operated uneconomically. Prices were increased to sustainable levels and in the end, for various reasons (including possibly a planning issue), this

office was closed and many of the uneconomic journeys dissuaded.

In general the historical provision of vehicles in Tunbridge Wells has been

offices at stations rather than much direct hackney carriage work. They suggested the current demand was 20% hackney carriage and 80% private

hire. About 10% of the hackney carriage fleet operate for their company.

They feel there are insufficient wheel chair vehicles in the licensing area - part of the evidence for this is that Kent County Council education and

social services have to use a number of non-Tunbridge Wells vehicles to serve contracts they have. A related issue is the grandfather rights given to

saloon vehicles which restrain the amount of vehicles changing within the current fleet. They also are concerned that the fleet appears externally

good but that internal standards are hidden but are generally very poor.

50

At the present time, the company would like to operate a larger number of wheel chair accessible vehicles to help meet demand. They had recently

managed to obtain two extra plates to add such vehicles to the fleet.

A written submission was provided by this company following our discussion face to face which in summary states their views as:

- The company agree in principle with retention of a limit on hackney carriage vehicle numbers, subject to independent review by a suitably

skilled consultant of the nature and level of numbers of vehicles required

- They believe there remains significant unmet demand for wheel chair accessible vehicles in the licensing area

- They also agree the wide range of disabilities are best served by

retaining a mixed fleet - They consider the current over-supply, lack of space and safety

concerns on the Mount Pleasant Road side of Tunbridge Wells railway station must be resolved

- More encouragement is needed for hackney carriages to service other ranks in the other parts of the Tunbridge Wells urban area

- Action must be taken to allow sufficient wheel chair accessible vehicles to be available within the hackney carriage fleet

- They suggest a potential solution might be to reserve the Mount Pleasant Road station rank for wheel chair accessible vehicles only,

with vehicles facing with the direction of traffic. This would give those needing such vehicles guarantee of one being available at one

location, and ease of access into such vehicles, although they admit there could be implementation difficulties

A letter was issued to all licensed drivers by the Council inviting them to complete a questionnaire about their current service to the public, and

their views on the policy of limiting hackney carriage numbers. This letter was issued to 320 trade members. All responses were returned to CTS

using a freepost address provided by CTS.

Some 37 responses were received. 54% were from hackney carriage drivers, 35% from private hire, and 3% from those who drove both sorts of

vehicle at different times whilst 8% did not say their current vehicle type driven (one was an owner of a set of vehicles). 62% owned their own

vehicles, with just 14% saying someone else also drove their vehicle. 27% did not own their own vehicle. Overall, 49% operated for private hire

company radio networks. Ten respondents named four different companies, not all named companies. Of those stating they only drove

hackney carriage, 30% said they also operated on a radio circuit.

51

Those responding had, on average, been involved with the licensed vehicle trade as drivers for 14 years (hackney carriage ) and 11 years (private

hire). They tended to work 6 days per week for an average of 53 hours per week. The range of days worked was between 2 and 7 – with 8

respondents saying they worked seven days (22%). The range of hours was from 35 to 72 (hackney carriage) and 10 to 100 (private hire, although

the person working 100 hours said this was how long they considered they were ‘on call’). 51% of respondents said they worked longer on some days

than others although only Saturday featured prominently in the wide range of additional days mentioned.

Average quoted earnings were about £52 per day for those responding,

with a range quoted between nothing and £120 for the day the

questionnaire was answered (some were on holiday yet still answered this question). One driver provided a sample of days’ takings for 2011 and

2012, which suggested an average of around £125 in 2011 reducing to around £60 in 2012 (similar to the level above).

Those operating hackney carriages told us the ranks they used. Of the 17

responses, all mentioned Tunbridge Wells railway station. Four additional said the Pitcher and Piano (Church Street), and two additionally said they

served the Millennium Clock rank.

In terms of policy, 65% felt that the current policy of limiting hackney carriages remained appropriate for Tunbridge Wells. None abstained from

this question, with the remaining 35% disagreeing.

However, 38% of those saying retaining the limit was not the correct

option failed to answer many other questions – which is unusual. From other discussions this may be a protest vote from hackney carriage drivers

who want their own vehicle and only pay high rents because they cannot otherwise get a hackney carriage – although they could choose to work on

the private hire side (although presumably they prefer the independence of being a hackney carriage). A further 23% were private hire drivers and the

remaining 38% were hackney carriage drivers who answered further questions.

In terms of reactions to change of the policy, 24% said their response

would be to leave the trade and 11% would work longer hours. 22% said, however, they would have no reaction (many of these were private hire

respondents), and 41% did not respond at all to this question.

52

Many comments were made. Many felt there were not enough ranks, others felt the station rank needed more space. Several mentioned the

issue of rural plates coming to work in Tunbridge Wells when the policy changed – but the number quoted varied from unknown to 15-18 vehicles.

Some comments included feelings that they had no control over decisions and that deregulation had already been chosen. One driver provided

detailed evidence of his reduced work load. There was some comment about hackney carriages taking booked private hire work, and other

comment about private hire and out of town private hire taking hackney carriage work. Many felt there were far too many vehicles now for the level

of demand.

53

7. Responses to DfT Best Practice Guidance 2010 Annex A of the Best Practice Guidance (BPG) provides a list of useful

questions to help assess the issue of quantity controls of hackney carriage licences.

This chapter takes the form of a response to each question based on the

evidence identified earlier in this report. BPG questions are shown in bold italic with responses following in normal type.

Have you considered the Government’s view that quantity control

should be removed unless a specific case that such controls benefit the consumer can be made?

Yes, this report is the independent input to this consideration on behalf of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council.

Questions relating to the policy of controlling numbers:

Have you recently reviewed the need for your policy of quantity controls?

Yes, this report forms a current review of the need for the policy of quantity control of hackney carriages at this point in time in the Tunbridge

Wells Borough Council area.

What form did the review of your policy of quantity controls take? This current review follows the DfT Best Practise Guidance April 2010 in

undertaking a full review of the current situation in regard to the policy towards hackney carriage vehicle limits. It includes:

• A review of the background policies of the Council

• A rank survey program to identify current demand and supply • Public consultation with people in the streets of Tunbridge Wells and

Paddock Wood, the two largest urban areas and the only ones with rank provision

• Stakeholder consultation with all groups recommended by the DfT Best Practice Guidance as far as people were available

• A face to face consultation day with several key stakeholders • a questionnaire posted to all licensed drivers in the area by the

Council (to cover data protection issues) • Consideration of the relevant section of the Equality Act

54

Who was involved in the review? This review was undertaken by an independent consultant and included

direct discussion with the following respondents:

• Local supermarkets • Hotels in the area

• The local hospital • The police

• Transport stakeholder • Network Rail

• A local Disability group and their individual representatives • County council representatives

• Council transport policy and parking representatives

What decision was reached about retaining or removing quantity

controls?

The decision regarding quantity controls is the subject of the final chapter, but is also a matter for decision by the committee appointed to make such

decisions on behalf of the Council.

Are you satisfied that your policy justifies restricting entry to the trade?

Please see the summary and conclusions section for guidance on conclusions from our review – ultimately this decision is for the local

council to make.

Are you satisfied that quantity controls do not:

• Reduce the availability of taxis • Increase waiting times for consumers

• Reduce choice and safety for consumers At the present time, there are more than enough hackney carriage vehicles

available to service ranks across the Borough. No Tunbridge Wells Borough respondents said they have ever given up waiting for a hackney carriage at

a rank. Despite most hackney carriages serving just the ranks at Tunbridge Wells railway station, the split between hackney carriage and private hire

within those responding still favours choice of hackney carriages.

55

What special circumstances justify retention of quantity controls? This issue is ultimately for the Councillors to conclude. At the present time

there is insufficient demand for all the hackney carriages that exist and there is evidence that removal of the restriction could result in a significant

reduction in the level of rank-based vehicles available with nearly a quarter of those responding to the trade questionnaire saying they would leave the

trade.

How does your policy benefit consumers, particularly in remote rural areas?

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council has significant proportions of rural area, but none have sufficient trade to encourage ranks, and all tend to be

served by private hire operations. Evidence suggests the Paddock Wood

rank may well see more use now than in 2006, but certainly not any less.

How does your policy benefit the trade? Retention of a limit would retain some added value of having a hackney

carriage vehicle licence which would allow some investment in the trade that would not be as likely with the introduction of further vehicles,

although it would be strongly advisable that any removal of the limit must require new vehicles to be wheel chair accessible and even more so to be

of a high overall standard (as current policy would require any new vehicles to be fully wheel chair accessible).

If you have a local accessibility policy, how does this fit with

restricting taxi licences? We are not aware of any local accessibility policy, and current evidence

suggests the demand for wheel chair accessible vehicles is very low in the

area, with many disabled providing their own vehicles. There is more likelihood that further wheel chair accessible vehicles might be added were

the limit to be retained and drivers encourage to invest in such vehicles, than either by a policy of new hackney carriages having to be wheel chair

accessible, or by removal of the limit. Neither of these latter options could guarantee any extra wheel chair accessible vehicles at all, whilst the option

of encouragement via the retention of the limit might produce some increase. There is, however, a significant issue with those in the area who

need wheel chair accessible vehicles which needs to be solved in an innovative and creative manner to ensure equality of access to transport

for all living or visiting the area.

Questions relating to setting the number of taxi licences:

When did you last assess unmet demand? This study was preceded by an earlier one in 2006. There is some

suggestion there may have been a period without regulation prior to this.

56

How is your taxi limit assessed? In all previous studies the limit has been assessed using industry standard

techniques.

Have you considered latent demand, ie potential customers who would use taxis if more were available, but currently do not?

Yes, latent demand was considered by several methods, with the key method being through interviews with members of the public. There is no

latent demand from formal methods. However, lack of service of the town centre ranks which was evident in 2006 is endemic, and it is clear that

expectation of service to these locations is very low.

Are you satisfied that your limit is set at the correct level?

This is a matter for decision by the Council committee based on evidence following in our summary. Even if many vehicles moved from the railway

station rank to the town centre ranks, there would still be many more vehicles than justified by even increased demand levels. However, within

this level of vehicles there needs to be an increase in the proportion that are wheel chair accessible, or that provide for a wider range of disability

than currently provided for.

How does the need for adequate taxi ranks affect your policy of quantity controls?

At the present time, there is insufficient rank space at Tunbridge Wells station, but part of the issue is the reality that this is the main location

served by the bulk of hackney carriages operating in the Borough.

There are several other ranks located in the town centre and other parts of

the urban Royal Tunbridge Wells but they are little used and passengers have very low expectation of vehicles servicing them.

Questions relating to consultation and other public transport service provision:

When consulting, have you included all those working in the market, consumer and passenger (including disabled groups),

groups which represent those passengers with special needs, local interest groups, eg hospitals or visitor attractions, the police, a

wide range of transport stakeholders, eg rail/bus/coach providers and traffic managers?

See above, yes, all appropriate consultees have been taken into account.

Do you receive representations about taxi availability?

No

57

What is the level of service currently available to consumers including other public transport modes?

At the present time, bus services in the area are generally very good, although there are issues related to the area having a high proportion of

rural population, and a new hospital outside the main urban area. Rail services to London are very frequent with four stations in the whole

Borough area.

59

8. The Equality Act 2010 Whilst several sections of the Equality Act (EA) affect licensed vehicle

operations, the key provision relevant to this report is the requirement under section 161 that any authority with a limit on the number of hackney

carriage vehicle licences should issue licences to wheel chair accessible vehicles (WAV) until an agreed percentage of the fleet were such WAV

style. The last guidance in regard to timescales for introduction of this regulation saw consultation occurring around this point in time – although

nothing has yet been issued by the Department for Transport. Tunbridge Wells Borough Council currently has a limit and this section of the Act

would apply if ever enacted.

The Equality Act is national legislation which cannot be amended by the

council or its officers. Current thought suggests that the required proportion of WAV style vehicles expected for the Council area might be of

the order of 35%. The Table below sets out the possible options for the Council based on the current level of 21 WAV and a proportion of 35%.

Option Total

number of

vehicles

Number of

wheel chair accessible

vehicles (WAV)

Percentage of

fleet that are WAV

Current 107 21 20%

EA requirement 107 37 35%

Meet EA by removing

limit but no WAV stipulation

107

upwards

Uncertain –

might reduce

Uncertain

Meet EA by removing limit but with all new

vehicles having to be WAV

107 upwards

21 upwards with each new

vehicles adding to number

At least 20%- an extra 0.9% for

each new vehicle added

Meet EA by retaining

limit and 16 current vehicles converting

107 37 35%

Meet EA by granting plate to any WAV,

with none of present

converting under limited scenario.

132 (+23%)

46 35%

60

Potential responses to the Equality Act

The EA requirement is a compound requirement which means that the

percentage of vehicles must be of the current total after any new plates are added. This compound growth means that, if no current vehicles convert,

and the limit is retained, 25 extra WAV style hackney carriages would be

needed, taking the limit to some 132 hackney carriage vehicles.

Were the trade to agree to convert sufficient vehicles to WAV style to ensure that the EA requirements were met this would require 16 vehicles

to convert, but would retain the current number of vehicles at 107.

At the present time, with no significant unmet demand and little apparent willingness to serve other than the Tunbridge Wells station ranks (which

are on private land), issuing up to 25 more licences would potentially lead to significant issues with congestion around the railway station area, and

increase in safety issues.

However, it is also true that retaining the limit by applying the quality standard that all new hackney carriages had to be wheel chair accessible

would not guarantee any further vehicles would be added but would meet

the stipulation of the EA. Present history suggests that this policy would simply lead to one current party continuing to add wheel chair accessible

vehicles when they wished by either ‘exceptional’ request to committee or by threatening legal action. This is effectively the current situation.

Of the choices available under the Act, the conversion of current vehicles is

preferable as it prevents investment in such vehicles being diluted by the volume added to the overall fleet. However, no options within the Act bring

resolution to the issues around disability access to vehicles that have been mentioned by the public and other stakeholders and any decision in regard

to this Act must be taken in full context of the real issues involved. Unless care is taken there is a real possibility that both the number of hackney

carriages and the number of current wheel chair accessible vehicles might both fall.

There is a significant need for the Council, trade and disability representatives to work together to ensure that the various expectations

and limitations of service to the disabled are fully understood and dealt with appropriately. This is likely to need some way by which more wheel

chair accessible vehicles can be encouraged to join the fleet, and to encourage those that are already there to maximise their availability and

use by those needing their facilities. Further discussion of this occurs in the conclusions and recommendations sections of this Report.

61

9. Summary and conclusions

Policy Background

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council has the eighth largest population level

amongst the 12 authorities within Kent. Present population is 117,595 although this is spread over an area including three smaller towns and a

further 17 villages. The main urban concentration is Royal Tunbridge Wells.

Royal Tunbridge Wells has a vibrant night life, busiest on Thursday and

Saturday nights, and believed to be ‘bucking the national trend’. The Borough is also an important tourist destination and an excellent base for

travelling to other sites in Kent.

The recent Development Plan Core Strategy sees some 4,200 more homes being added in the urban area and 1,800 in the rural area during the

lifetime of this strategy. The latest population projections, based on the 2011 census suggest growth of 3.3% in population by 2016 (just ahead of

English growth of 2.6%) and 9.2% by 2021 (6.7% for all England). This growth is modest.

The third Local Transport Plan runs from 2011 to 2026 with the current

implementation plan running to 2016. Policy towards taxis seeks to replace

post buses with taxi services and to enhance their integration with other sustainable modes. A key input is exploring a larger role for taxis in

supporting independent living through the Comprehensive Community Transport project together with encouragement of increased levels of

shared trips. Key actions seek to reduce congestion, improve access to Pembury hospital and improve safety. Taxis are seen as important in being

a way that people can be encouraged to reduce their car ownership levels.

Specific schemes that might assist taxis include development of station travel plans at the three largest stations (Tunbridge Wells, Paddock Wood

and High Brooms), the Five Ways Public Realm improvement review and the Tunbridge Wells is Traffic Aware (TWITA) safety campaign. The

Borough Council transport officers are keen to include the results of this research into their local implementation and specifically into the Tunbridge

Wells Development Plan Transport Strategy document.

Tunbridge Wells has used its power to restrict the number of hackney

carriages since at least 1976. More recently, background policy has been overhauled and summarised in the 2012 “Hackney Carriage and Private

Hire Licensing Policy” document. At the time of writing this report, there are 107 hackney carriage plates available, with two plates added recently

to increase the level of wheel chair accessible vehicles to 21.

These hackney carriage vehicles are presently supplemented by 134 private hire vehicles meaning the hackney carriages are 44% of the

licensed vehicle fleet. The private hire vehicles work for a relatively large number of operators, although there is one large operator in existence

(who also operates in other neighbouring districts).

62

There are presently 0.9 hackney carriages per thousand population in the licensing area, the highest provision level amongst Kent authorities who

restrict their hackney carriage fleets, and the same as the national average. Hackney carriage provision is 40% of the level in Shepway, which

has the highest proportion of hackney carriages in the Kent authorities.

In terms of wheel chair accessible fleets, two Kent authorities have fully wheel chair accessible fleets – Dartford and Maidstone. Six other Kent

authorities currently have lower proportion of wheel chair accessible hackney carriages than Tunbridge Wells, which has 20% of the fleet wheel

chair accessible. A wide range of vehicle styles are counted as wheel chair accessible, increasing the choice to customers. Further, a list is publicly

available giving contact numbers for just over half of the wheel chair

accessible vehicles, something not undertaken by many authorities.

Fares were last increased in 2011, and are higher than both the local and national averages. June 2013 comparative information suggests the area is

13th equal of the 364 fare authorities in England, Scotland and Wales. Fares are the same on this comparison base as Dartford and seven other

authorities.

Rank Survey results 166 hours of observation were undertaken at hackney carriage ranks in the area. 2013 observable hackney carriage demand, including 2% hailing

identified from the public attitude surveys, is around 254,000 passengers per year. This appears to be around 69% of the level of demand observed

in the 2006 survey.

84% of rank demand occurs at the two Tunbridge Wells station ranks, which are on Network Rail owned land. The bulk of this demand emanates

from the ‘rear’ rank on Mount Pleasant Road. Church Road night rank provides a further 7% of passenger demand with Paddock Wood (private)

rank adding a further 4%. The remaining 5% of passenger demand is shared between two other ranks (Newton Road and the Millennium Clock)

and one potential new rank location (the Body Shop bus stop).

Compared to 2006, Paddock Wood usage appears to have increased,

Church Road is performing well after being introduced since the last survey, and it appears more of the minor ranks are seeing some usage,

although still not significantly reducing the dominance of the station rank.

Considering the busiest hour at any rank, 19:00 to 20:00 on Friday night at Tunbridge Wells station, just short of 50 vehicles were observed to

depart. Even if it is assumed all vehicles take an hour to return, this demand would be met by under half the current fleet.

63

Public Consultation

417 persons were interviewed within the main central areas for Tunbridge Wells

(300), at Tunbridge Wells station (67) and at Paddock Wood station (50). 44% of those interviewed had used a licensed vehicle in the last three months. Across the

area, there are 1.8 licensed vehicle trips per month. For both Tunbridge Wells

central respondents and those at the railway station the dominant answer (46% and 53% respectively) said they got a taxi from a rank. The corresponding phone

proportion was 44% and 41% respectively.

When shown pictures of typical local hackney carriage and private hire vehicles results suggest confusion between hackney carriage and private hire vehicles –

with a high proportion feeling they could flag a private hire vehicle down. People perceived hackney carriages more correctly, but did the majority did not consider

they could be phoned for – possibly since many remain independent. The result of the question about usage of hackney carriages backed up the view that hackney

carriages are a well-known feature, but private hire vehicles are less appreciated.

Across the whole area, the level of hackney carriage usage was just over 1 trip per month, not as great a reduction as often occurs. The reduction in Paddock Wood is

more typical, with usage dropping from 0.2 for licensed vehicles to just 0.07 for

hackney carriages.

Rank knowledge appeared good with the notable ignorance of the Millennium Clock rank. Suggestions for new ranks mainly covered places where ranks already

exist but are not used. This suggests marketing of selected town centre ranks could increase their usage.

People generally had no issues with the hackney carriage service but also little

that would increase their usage. On both counts, the largest response related to lower fares being wanted. However, delay in getting a vehicle was the highest

concern at Paddock Wood.

Unusually, no-one either needed or knew anyone who needed a wheel chair or other adapted vehicle. Nor did anyone quote ever having given up waiting for a

hackney carriage anywhere in the area.

Most respondents had regular access to a car, with those interviewed near the

station having the highest response level (59%). 90% of our sample lived in the Borough Council area. Our sample tended to over-represent men and under-

represent those over 55, although we do not consider this bias to be significant.

Paddock Wood views were different to those in Tunbridge Wells, reflecting the more rural nature of that location and the lower level of hackney carriage activity

there compared to central Tunbridge Wells.

Stakeholder Consultation

Supermarkets service tends to be by arranged private hire services. Hotels

also tended to call private hire companies to obtain service for customers.

64

The hospital travel planner believed licensed vehicles serviced the hospital well, although there were several specific options available outside the usual

licensed vehicle options from the voluntary sector or for patient transport. The Trust would consider adding licensed vehicle related initiatives into its

travel plan.

The police felt there were sufficient licensed vehicles to meet demand and that they observed drivers knowing where business was. Their main concern

was congestion and accident potential at the Tunbridge Wells (rear) rank, made worse by the high levels of traffic very close to the rank. They would

encourage a feeder rank provision and some improvement in driver attitudes to use of this space.

The police have active enforcement of the unused ranks as well as checks on private hire using social media. They strongly support the Christmas

marshals. They would like more support from drivers in seeing complaints taken through to a conclusion.

Transport representatives valued the complementary nature of the licensed

vehicle service and generally had no issues with current service provided apart from the occasional obstruction of buses picking up.

A good level of input was provided by a range of disability representatives,

principally face to face on the consultation day. This is unusual and healthy. A number of detailed issues were raised, but the biggest concern related to the

difficulty in obtaining service from any of the wheel chair accessible vehicles, often because most were on contract services. There was also a wish to see a

wider range of ranks serviced by hackney carriages on a regular basis,

particularly because of the hilly nature of Tunbridge Wells – and particularly the link between the main used rank at the station and the main shopping

area.

Unfortunately, some wrong information had been provided to the umbrella group (regarding when all vehicles were proposed to be wheel chair

accessible – which has never been formal policy as far as we can identify) and there were other strongly held viewpoints which were based on ‘facts’ which

were sadly incorrect. For example, it was felt there were 15-17 wheel chair vehicles but there are 21 (although it is accepted only 12 allow contact

numbers to be published).

While no input was received from the operator of rail services, national statistics show over 1.75 million people leaving Tunbridge Wells station in the

last year for which statistics were available – a level that has grown 37%

since 1997/1998 at the station which is the 112th busiest in England, Scotland and Wales. The equivalent figures for Paddock Wood and High Brooms are

about 30% of that for Tunbridge Wells with 24% and 83% growth respectively. Ashurst has seen fourfold growth, but still only produces 24,000

total entries and exits per year.

65

Only Tunbridge Wells is defined as having an active rank, with Paddock Wood and High Brooms advertising ranks or offices but the guide encourages pre-

booking. Just one operator is provided for those wishing to use Ashurst.

A councillor provided input, feeling that the step change that was achieved in disabled access to shops in Tunbridge Wells needed to occur with the hackney

carriage service in the area and made some positive suggestions how this might occur. He accepted action needed to be taken to improve the station

congestion issue. Training was also required as well as some action to reduce the unsafe hours he felt drivers were having to work.

A mystery wheel chair shopper exercise was undertaken. Over ten journeys

the main concern was the ability to get access to vehicles in a timely manner.

Over-charging was widespread as were long waits for service, and some very poor response to calls by one company-based set of vehicles. Two examples

of significant safety issues were identified. Whilst wheel chair hackney carriage trips proved possible, and some excellent service was provided

within the difficulties, on neither day was it possible to make journeys without significant time waiting, nor was it possible to undertake as many journeys as

preferred, even with pre-booking on the second day.

Trade Consultation Good input was provided by the trade. Points made included: - Need for better signing and marketing of central ranks

- This might be helped by signing from inside night venues - Church Road needs to have more spaces

- The Body Shop bus layby might be a good night rank - Day service used 40 vehicles whilst the remaining vehicles serviced night

demand - Many drivers work 18 hour days to make a living

- A company strongly felt there needed to be more wheel chair accessible vehicles, partly to meet local contract needs from Kent County Council

- Concern about the issues at the Tunbridge Wells railway station (rear) rank

A 12% response was received to the postal questionnaire. 54% came from hackney carriage drivers. 62% owned their own vehicles. 30% of hackney

carriage respondents said they worked on a radio circuit. Hackney carriage respondents had on average 14 years’ experience and private hire 11 years.

Average working weeks were 6 days long and covering 53 hours, although

some hackney carriages stated 72 hour weeks. This resulted in about £52 per day. One driver told us their 2011 typical day had been £125 but that

this was now down to around £60, consistent with the other response on amounts received. Most used the railway station ranks, but some told us

they used Church Street and a handful the Millennium Clock.

66

65% said it was correct to retain the limit, although there appeared to be a protest vote against the limit from some who wanted to own their own

vehicle rather than rent (these persons tended not to answer any other questions). Of those responding with an action were the limit to be

removed, 24% said they would leave the trade and 11% would work longer hours.

Many other comments were made in addition to the questions on the form.

Equality Act

The Equality Act is already on the statute books. There is a requirement that any authority with a limit on its number of hackney carriages should ensure

no new entrant is refused entry if they are offering a wheel chair accessible vehicle if a given proportion of vehicles has not been achieved. At the

present time, the level of WAV required in a fixed fleet has not been determined, and there is still no confirmed date for the consultation required

to allow this to move forward.

The recent Law Commission Review may reduce any desire by Government to spend time resolving this Act. There is no way set out in legislation that

any Council can require a particular level of WAV within the private hire

fleet. We do not believe there are any other statutory requirements on national or local government beyond the Equality Act which require present

action.

At the present time, there is no way that any authority without a limit on hackney carriage vehicle numbers can encourage an increase in the number

of WAV style hackney carriages, apart perhaps from the introduction of a mandatory order requiring all vehicles to be wheel chair accessible (which

would most likely be opposed by those seeking the spirit of the EA since current thinking is a mixed fleet is generally better for those with a range of

disabilities).

If a limit on vehicle licence numbers is retained and section 161 is enacted, and the proportion is 35%, Tunbridge Wells would either need to encourage

16 of the present fleet to convert, or issue wheel chair accessible licences to

25 extra vehicles (increasing the overall fleet by 23%). Further discussion of this is found below.

Best Practice Guidance

A review of the questions posed in the BPG was undertaken and is

presented in an earlier Chapter. This review has been consistent with the requirements of the BPG.

Conclusion

At the present time, there is no evidence of significant unmet demand for the services of hackney carriages in the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

area. On this basis, a limit on the number of hackney carriage vehicles can be retained. There is no given number of plates that need to be issued.

67

Taking on board comments from those with disabilities, and from the trade, there is clearly an issue between those wishing to make use of wheel chair

accessible vehicles and those investing in vehicles able to provide this service, both at ranks and in private hire fleets. This is discussed further in

the recommendations below.

There are also significant issues which need addressing in terms of safety at the main rank at Tunbridge Wells railway station, better encouragement

to use the town centre ranks and improvement in driver / operator contact with the public.

In terms of the safety issues, the police were concerned about the level of

double or even treble parking at times, and the conflict that was caused

with other vehicles both when hackney carriages joined and left this rank, and with them facing against the flow of traffic. Others told us about recent

accidents involving hackney carriages, and our mystery shopper (and others) pointed out that the current direction means some wheel chair

accessible vehicles need to load passengers in the road.

Unfortunately, there is no direct action which can be taken to limit the numbers of hours that licensed vehicle drivers work, as their role is

specifically opted out of the working time derivative, for some good and legitimate reasons. However, there are measures that can be applied to

help them reduce the hours they need to work, such as by providing training, by encouraging more people to use their services through better

advertising, and through retention of the limit on vehicle numbers at this time.

69

10. Recommendations

Limits on the number of hackney carriage vehicles

At the present time in the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council area there

is no evidence of any significant unmet demand for the services of

hackney carriage vehicles.

It is, however, accepted that there is need for service to be provided to the town centre ranks, but this would also require marketing and

constant availability of vehicles for people to be able to have restored confidence of making such use. There is little evidence of latent

demand for passengers wanting to use these ranks since it is so long since (if) they were ever significantly used by people waiting for a

hackney carriage.

It is also accepted that there is a significant issue for the relatively small number of people in the area who need adapted vehicles in

terms of getting timely access to such vehicles, and getting the level of service they deserve from such vehicles when they are available.

Other issues to be borne in mind in any decision made are that there are safety issues at the Mount Pleasant Road Tunbridge Wells railway

station private rank, safety concerns from the long periods drivers are currently having to work, and some concern about the internal

condition of some vehicles being used for long hours.

Based on the evidence, the Licensing Committee has a number of options:

- Option 1 – retain the limit on the number of hackney carriage vehicles

and take no further actions until the law is amended or when the next survey is required in no more than three years time (ie late Spring

2016). - Option 2 – retain the limit but take actions to resolve other issues,

particularly the wheel chair accessible vehicle availability issue, the

identified safety concerns and the need for town centre rank service - Option 3 – remove the limit on the number of hackney carriage

vehicles but retaining the need for new vehicles to be wheel chair accessible

- Option 4 – remove the limit but take further actions to minimise the impact in terms of the likely number of new vehicles that may wish to

provide hackney carriage service

Discussion of each option occurs below followed by our technical recommendation and associated action plan. The action plan also

includes several items which need action irrelevant of which option is chosen.

70

Option 1 – retain limit (no further action) This option is the minimum required by the Committee. With the

backing that there is no significant unmet demand for hackney carriages, this option could be defended in court. Present demand for

hackney carriages even at the busiest hour accounts for no more than half the present fleet, so even expansion of usage of the town centre

ranks would still have vehicles available to serve them.

It is highly likely, however, that at least one party would continue to seek to add wheel chair accessible vehicles using their arguments that

there is to for more, whilst others who wanted to provide such vehicles might not be able to afford the cost of an extraordinary condition

application. These extra vehicles would then most likely be used on

contracts and would not resolve the current availability issue.

There would also be significant issues were the Equality Act Section 161 to be applied to Tunbridge Wells, although this would effectively

remove the extraordinary condition application option, and there is still no confidence that this Section will be applied (and if it is, it will take

some while to become active).

It is also clear that this option does not do anything to help the identified issue with wheel chair accessible vehicle availability, nor

does it provide opportunity for service to town centre ranks, and it simply stops the safety issues getting worse (unless the economy

turns back down again).

Option 2 – retain limit but also take actions to resolve other

issues As noted above, simple retention of the limit (which is legally possible

and supportable), does not address the issue of wheel chair vehicle availability nor does it more than hold on the safety issue of long

working hours. Further, there are no positive steps provided to help develop town centre ranks, nor to resolve the operational safety issues

at the station (rear) rank.

The issue of the lack of availability of wheel chair accessible vehicles does not appear to be simply the numerical shortage of them. There

are presently 21 such vehicles – one in five of the entire fleet. An immediate issue is that most people wanting wheel chair services tend

to phone – and only 12 provide phone numbers. In theory this suggests the remaining nine would be sitting at the rail station rank

but this does not appear to be the case – our mystery shopper did not

see a wheel chair vehicle at any station rank during his travels on several days.

71

When people do phone, five of the six numbers are individuals, some of who may be on holiday, sick or otherwise engaged. In our mystery

shopper’s experience, this put one particularly good provider under severe pressure later on the second day, which was not realistic. Just

one phone number is to a company providing an all time controller, but the service provided by the controller on this line did not match

expectation to our mystery shopper (and others suggest this is not an isolated incident). Innovation is needed to maximise the number of

vehicles willing to be contacted – which could use a centralised number, or perhaps two numbers, which might not divulge the

individual numbers being used.

The calculations undertaken for the Equality Act section 161 do

suggest that the option of converting vehicles within the current fleet might be a better option. This increases the level of wheel chair

accessible vehicles without increasing the overall number of vehicles, and achieves the stated aims of this Act in a better manner when there

is no need for more overall vehicles. However, this would need consideration about the current grandfather rights for saloon vehicles

as this acts counter to the encouragement for vehicles to transfer.

All these options would need a significant shift change in attitudes and agreement from all parties. It is clear that the disability lobby have a

lot of energy to try to get improvements made, but some of this currently gets diverted to a feeling that only legal challenges or other

high level action can work. Sadly, this energy has also been misused by misinformation and misunderstanding. This could be obviated by a

working group including trade representatives, particularly wheel chair

accessible vehicle drivers, owners and controllers, disability representatives, particularly users, the Senior Licensing Officer (who

knows what is legally possible) and perhaps a Councillor who could in a working day identify the issues and produce practical actions by

which the present fleet of wheel chair vehicles could be more accessible.

Option 3 – remove limit

The committee could choose to remove the limit on hackney carriage vehicles altogether. At present, policy is that all new plates must be

wheel chair accessible, so on the face of it this would help the issue of lack of availability of such vehicles.

This option does also meet stated current government policy, although

it does not take into account the Law Commission interim advice that

it sees merit in the retention of the ability to have limits. In the present situation, were Tunbridge Wells to remove the limit and the

current Law Commission recommendations to occur, a limit could be reinstated but the plates issued would then become the possession of

the Council (as in Scotland at present), which should remove any plate values which occur at present.

72

However, this option does not fully tackle the issue of availability of wheel chair accessible vehicles and there is no guarantee that more

such vehicles would be added to the fleet, and even if they were, no certainty that the identified issues of availability would be resolved.

This is particularly true since one party wishing to introduce more wheel chair accessible vehicles has also stated more are needed for

contract work, so many new vehicles would simply service contracts. This option would also make the issues at the railway station worse

since more vehicles would wish to service this location – it is not possible to stipulate where vehicles should rank. Whilst some members

of the trade may well leave, others have said they would work longer hours which would worsen the safety impacts of such working.

The option may even reduce the number of wheel chair vehicles available as drivers might choose to relinquish the plates which were

more expensive to maintain and retain the older, grandfather rights vehicles.

Option 4 – remove limit but take actions to reduce likely impact

This option is the same as option 3, but would seek to further increase quality standards to try to prevent the worsening of the situation at

the railway station which would potentially occur with option 4. This would potentially include age limits on new vehicles or a requirement

for further training, or some other quality criteria.

Our technical recommendation at this time for Tunbridge Wells would be Option 2, which maximises the benefit from retaining the limit

(which engenders stability) whilst seeking specific actions to resolve

the key issue of wheel chair accessible vehicle availability in a practical manner.

Other Elements of an Action Plan

Apart from the need to increase availability of wheel chair accessible vehicles, the following issues were identified that need action:

- Safety concerns about Mount Pleasant Road (Tunbridge Wells railway

station (rear) rank – suggestions include need to provide a feeder rank and cut over-ranking (Mount Pleasant Avenue is a possibility), whilst

encouraging better driver behaviour by training and enforcement, and possibly changing rank direction to reduce the cross-vehicle

movements, there is also need to consider the issue of the awkward loading of wheel chairs at this rank

- Safety concerns about handling of those in wheel chairs and passengers in general

- A need to ensure due focus on developing the licensed vehicle service - Need to develop town centre ranks – we would recommend that the

focus be developing a good 24-hour rank in the Five Ways area, that the Five Ways, Calverley Road, Church Road, Pantiles and Linden Park

Road ranks should be clearly marked and well-signed (including from within night venues where possible).

73

Actions to meet the above issues are outline below according to who might be responsible for each element.

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (licensing)

The licensing section need to continue their liaison with the transport section of both the Borough and County Council to see town centre ranks

develop, travel plans applied at the stations (in conjunction with the train operating companies and their agents), better marketing and signing of

ranks (it is understood a high quality map was in preparation and was delayed while this review occurred).

The licensing section need to move forward plans to provide general and

specific disability handling training to all hackney carriage drivers. Disability

awareness training should also be expected of all persons who deal with the public – such as company radio controllers.

The licensing section has a clear policy to ensure there is no reduction in

wheel chair accessible vehicles. Further, this policy states “if a saloon vehicle is taken off the road, it will be required to be replaced as a minimum

with a similar saloon vehicle, if however the proprietor wishes to replace with a wheel chair accessible vehicle they are able to do so”. We

recommend the licensing section / committee seek to identify a reasonable and legitimate incentive that would encourage proprietors to make such a

replacement. The target level of proportion of wheel chair vehicles could be set at that required for the current understanding of the Equality Act, until

application of this, or the Law Commission review amend this level.

Other sections of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

All sections of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council with any influence on licensed vehicle matters must ensure that any matters they deal with are

passed through the Tunbridge Wells Senior Licensing Officer.

The Council must ensure that the Senior Licensing Officer has sufficient powers and resource to continue and develop their strategic role in vehicle

licensing, ensuring they can focus on continual improvement of the service provided.

The current liaison between the transport and licensing sections of the

Council is national best practice. All parties in the Council must ensure this continues. Examples of where this should continue are:

- With development of the railway station Travel Plans - With the proposed Five Ways development area, which should ensure

provision of a viable and practical 24-hour rank in this location

- Consideration of better signing for the ranks that are to be developed - Thorough revision of the arrangements at Tunbridge Wells railway station to

improve safety of the rear (Mount Pleasant Road) rank - The transport section need to include the facts and results from this review

into the developing Transport Strategy to ensure that hackney carriage and private hire services maximise their contribution to the sustainable transport

of the Borough.

74

Kent County Council Members of the transport element of Kent County Council must continue to

work with their Borough counterparts and the Senior Licensing Officer in all areas where transport policy can help develop the contribution of the

licensed vehicle trade to sustainable transport.

Hackney carriage trade representatives and all drivers must work with all parties to identify how they can better meet the needs of the public both in

serving more town centre ranks and in providing the small but very important service to those needing adapted or wheel chair accessible

vehicles. The current healthy dialogue with the licensing section must continue, but any matters which might lead to litigation need to be brought

out into the open and discussed before unnecessary costs are introduced.

Private hire trade members and representatives need to continue to work

with the licensing section and other key players to ensure they provide the best possible service to the public in the Tunbridge Wells licensing area.

Disability representatives need to ensure they continue frank and open

discussion with all those responsible for matters related to licensed vehicles – with a focus on clarifying matters they think are incorrect in an informal

setting. There is a key opportunity at this time for a working group between all relevant parties that could achieve quick wins and significant

improvement in the services provided to those with disabilities in Tunbridge Wells.

75

Appendix 1 – Rank Observation Details

77

Tunbridge Wells, Calverley Road, Iceland rank, Friday 10th May 2013, 12:00 – 20:00

Hour

No o

f vehicle a

rrivals

Tota

l passenger d

epartu

res

Tota

l loaded v

ehicle d

epartu

res

Em

pty

vehicle d

epartu

res

Tota

l Vehicle d

epartu

res

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g tim

es

(hh:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g tim

es

(for a

fare

, hh:m

m:s

s)

Maxim

um

vehicle w

aitin

g tim

e fo

r

a fa

re (h

h:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g tim

e

in a

n h

our (m

ins)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g tim

e,

those w

aitin

g o

nly (m

ins)

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g 1

-5

mins

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g 6

-10

mins

Num

ber w

aitin

g 1

1 m

ins o

r more

Maxim

um

passenger w

ait tim

e

(mins)

12 2 0 0 2 2 00:04:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

No passenger waits

13 0 0 0 0 0 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

14 0 0 0 0 0 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

15 1 0 0 1 1 00:01:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

16 0 0 0 0 0 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

17 1 0 0 0 0 00:10:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

18 1 1 1 1 2 00:09:00 00:09:00 00:09:00

19 0 0 0 0 0 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

TOTALS 5 1 1 4 5

78

Tunbridge Wells, Mount Ephraim Road rank (and feeder), Saturday 11th May 2013, 09:00 – 00:00

Hour

No o

f vehicle a

rrivals

Tota

l passenger

departu

res

Tota

l loaded v

ehicle

departu

res

Em

pty

vehicle d

epartu

res

Tota

l Vehicle d

epartu

res

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g

times (m

ins)

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g

times (fo

r a fa

re, m

ins)

Maxim

um

vehicle w

aitin

g

time fo

r a fa

re (m

ins)

Avera

ge p

assenger

waitin

g tim

e in

an h

our

(mins)

Avera

ge p

assenger

waitin

g tim

e, th

ose

waitin

g o

nly (m

ins)

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g

1-5

mins

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g

6-1

0 m

ins

Num

ber w

aitin

g 1

1 m

ins

or m

ore

Maxim

um

passenger w

ait

time (m

ins)

09 No activity No activity

10

11 1 1 1 0 1 00:01:00 00:01:00 00:01:00 00:06:00 00:06:00 0 1 0 00:06:00

12 0 0 0 0 0 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 No passenger waits

13 1 1 1 0 1 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:10:00 00:10:00 0 1 0 00:10:00

14 0 0 0 0 0 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

No passenger waits

15 0 0 0 0 0 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

16 1 0 0 0 0 00:17:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

17 1 1 1 1 2 00:14:00 00:14:00 00:14:00

18 2 3 2 0 2 00:13:00 00:13:00 00:26:00

19 0 0 0 0 0 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

20 1 3 1 0 1 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

21 0 0 0 0 0 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

22 2 2 1 1 2 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

23 1 0 0 1 1 00:01:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

TOTALS 10 11 7 3 10 n/a n/a n/a 00:01:2700:08:00 0 2 0 00:10:00

79

Tunbridge Wells, Mount Pleasant Avenue rank, Friday 10th May 2013, 11:00 – 21:00

Hour

No o

f vehicle a

rrivals

Tota

l passenger d

epartu

res

Tota

l loaded v

ehicle d

epartu

res

Em

pty

vehicle d

epartu

res

Tota

l Vehicle d

epartu

res

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g tim

es

(hh:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g tim

es

(for a

fare

, hh:m

m:s

s)

Maxim

um

vehicle w

aitin

g tim

e fo

r

a fa

re (h

h:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g tim

e

in a

n h

our (m

ins)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g tim

e,

those w

aitin

g o

nly (m

ins)

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g 1

-5

mins

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g 6

-10

mins

Num

ber w

aitin

g 1

1 m

ins o

r more

Maxim

um

passenger w

ait tim

e

(mins)

11 0 0 0 0 0 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

No passenger waits

12 1 0 0 1 1 00:05:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

13 0 0 0 0 0 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

14 1 0 0 1 1 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

15 5 0 0 4 4 00:05:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

16 2 0 0 3 3 00:03:30 00:00:00 00:00:00

17 11 0 0 6 6 00:09:27 00:00:00 00:00:00

18 14 1 1 18 19 00:03:25 00:02:00 00:02:00

19 31 0 0 25 25 00:03:56 00:00:00 00:00:00

20 23 0 0 29 29 00:06:10 00:00:00 00:00:00

TOTALS 88 1 1 87 88 n/a n/a n/a

80

Tunbridge Wells, Pantiles rank, Friday 10th May 2013, 14:00 – 00:00

Hour

No o

f vehicle

arriv

als

Tota

l passenger

departu

res

Tota

l loaded

vehicle

departu

res

Em

pty

vehicle

departu

res

Tota

l Vehicle

departu

res

Avera

ge v

ehicle

waitin

g tim

es

(hh:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge v

ehicle

waitin

g tim

es

(for a

fare

,

hh:m

m:s

s)

Maxim

um

vehicle w

aitin

g

time fo

r a fa

re

(hh:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge

passenger

waitin

g tim

e in

an h

our (m

ins)

Avera

ge

passenger

waitin

g tim

e,

those w

aitin

g

Num

ber o

f

people w

aitin

g

1-5

mins

Num

ber o

f

people w

aitin

g

6-1

0 m

ins

Num

ber w

aitin

g

11 m

ins o

r

more

Maxim

um

passenger w

ait

time (m

ins)

14

No activity

No passenger waits

15

16 17

18 19

20 1 1 1 0 1 00:02:00 00:02:00 00:02:00

21 1 2 1 0 1 00:02:00 00:02:00 00:02:00

22 No activity 23

00

TOTALS 2 3 2 0 2

81

Tunbridge Wells, Linden Park Road rank, Saturday 11th May 2013, 08:00 – 18:00

Hour

No o

f vehicle a

rrivals

Tota

l passenger d

epartu

res

Tota

l loaded v

ehicle

departu

res

Em

pty

vehicle d

epartu

res

Tota

l Vehicle d

epartu

res

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g tim

es

(hh:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g tim

es

(for a

fare

, hh:m

m:s

s)

Maxim

um

vehicle w

aitin

g tim

e

for a

fare

(hh:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g

time in

an h

our (m

ins)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g

time, th

ose w

aitin

g o

nly

(mins)

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g 1

-5

mins

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g 6

-

10 m

ins

Num

ber w

aitin

g 1

1 m

ins o

r

more

Maxim

um

passenger w

ait tim

e

(mins)

08 1 0 0 1 1 00:03:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

No passenger waits

09

No activity

10

11 12

13

14 15

16 17

TOTALS 1 0 0 1 1 n/a n/a n/a

82

Tunbridge Wells, Camden Road rank, Friday 10th May 2013, 15:00 – 05:00

Hour

No o

f vehicle a

rrivals

Tota

l passenger d

epartu

res

Tota

l loaded v

ehicle

departu

res

Em

pty

vehicle d

epartu

res

Tota

l Vehicle d

epartu

res

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g tim

es

(hh:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g tim

es

(for a

fare

, hh:m

m:s

s)

Maxim

um

vehicle w

aitin

g tim

e

for a

fare

(hh:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g

time in

an h

our (m

ins)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g

time, th

ose w

aitin

g o

nly

(mins)

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g 1

-5

mins

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g 6

-

10 m

ins

Num

ber w

aitin

g 1

1 m

ins o

r

more

Maxim

um

passenger w

ait tim

e

(mins)

15 2 3 2 0 2 00:00:30 00:00:30 00:01:00

No passenger waits

16 0 0 0 0 0 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

17 1 0 0 1 1 00:03:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

18

No activity

19

20

21 22

23 00

01 02

03 04

TOTALS 3 3 2 1 3

83

Tunbridge Wells, Church Road rank, Friday 10th May 2013, 23:00 – 05:00

Hour

No o

f vehicle a

rrivals

Tota

l passenger d

epartu

res

Tota

l loaded v

ehicle

departu

res

Em

pty

vehicle d

epartu

res

Tota

l Vehicle d

epartu

res

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g tim

es

(hh:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g tim

es

(for a

fare

, hh:m

m:s

s)

Maxim

um

vehicle w

aitin

g tim

e

for a

fare

(hh:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g

time in

an h

our (m

ins)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g

time, th

ose w

aitin

g o

nly

(mins)

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g 1

-5

mins

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g 6

-

10 m

ins

Num

ber w

aitin

g 1

1 m

ins o

r

more

Maxim

um

passenger w

ait tim

e

(mins)

23 6 0 0 6 6 00:01:20 00:00:00 00:00:00

No passenger waits

00 10 10 5 3 8 00:05:12 00:07:20 00:27:00

01 13 22 12 1 13 00:07:23 00:07:23 00:19:00

02 25 37 20 5 25 00:03:19 00:02:45 00:12:00

03 6 17 7 1 8 00:03:10 00:02:48 00:06:00

04 No activity

TOTALS 60 86 44 16 60 n/a n/a n/a

84

Tunbridge Wells, Church Road rank, Saturday 11th May 2013, 22:00 – 05:00

Hour

No o

f vehicle a

rrivals

Tota

l passenger d

epartu

res

Tota

l loaded v

ehicle d

epartu

res

Em

pty

vehicle d

epartu

res

Tota

l Vehicle d

epartu

res

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g tim

es

(hh:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g tim

es (fo

r a

fare

, hh:m

m:s

s)

Maxim

um

vehicle w

aitin

g tim

e fo

r a

fare

(hh:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g tim

e in

an h

our (m

ins)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g tim

e,

those w

aitin

g o

nly (m

ins)

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g 1

-5 m

ins

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g 6

-10

mins

Num

ber w

aitin

g 1

1 m

ins o

r more

Maxim

um

passenger w

ait tim

e

(mins)

22 1 0 1 1 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

No passenger waits

23 10 6 4 4 8 00:07:24 00:09:40 00:22:00

00 13 22 9 4 13 00:07:32 00:10:33 00:16:00

01 18 34 18 2 20 00:03:13 00:03:33 00:15:00

02 22 36 18 2 20 00:04:21 00:04:24 00:14:00

03 7 15 7 2 9 00:01:25 00:01:24 00:03:00

04 No activity

TOTALS 71 113 56 15 71 n/a n/a n/a

85

Tunbridge Wells, Newton Road rank, Saturday 11th May 2013, 18:00 – 02:00

Hour

No o

f vehicle a

rrivals

Tota

l passenger d

epartu

res

Tota

l loaded v

ehicle d

epartu

res

Em

pty

vehicle d

epartu

res

Tota

l Vehicle d

epartu

res

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g tim

es (h

h:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g tim

es (fo

r a fa

re,

hh:m

m:s

s)

Maxim

um

vehicle w

aitin

g tim

e fo

r a fa

re

(hh:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g tim

e in

an h

our

(mins)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g tim

e, th

ose

waitin

g o

nly (m

ins)

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g 1

-5 m

ins

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g 6

-10 m

ins

Num

ber w

aitin

g 1

1 m

ins o

r more

Maxim

um

passenger w

ait tim

e (m

ins)


19 1 0 0 1 1 00:01:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

20 2 1 1 1 2 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:08:00 00:08:00 0 1 0 00:08:00

21 0 0 0 0 0 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

No passenger waits

22 2 1 1 1 2 00:01:00 00:01:00 00:01:00

23 4 6 2 2 4 00:00:45 00:00:30 00:01:00

00 2 0 0 2 2 00:01:30 00:00:00 00:00:00

01 3 1 1 2 3 00:03:20 00:07:00 00:07:00

02 2 8 2 0 2 00:01:00 00:01:00 00:01:00

TOTALS 17 19 8 9 17 n/a n/a n/a 00:00:25 00:08:00 0 1 0 00:08:00

Note – 02:00 hour only ran to 02:06 to complete observations

86

Tunbridge Wells, Body shop, informal location, Friday 10th May 2013, 20:00 – 04:00

Hour

No o

f vehicle a

rrivals

Tota

l passenger d

epartu

res

Tota

l loaded v

ehicle

departu

res

Em

pty

vehicle d

epartu

res

Tota

l Vehicle d

epartu

res

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g tim

es

(hh:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g tim

es

(for a

fare

, hh:m

m:s

s)

Maxim

um

vehicle w

aitin

g tim

e

for a

fare

(hh:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g

time in

an h

our (m

ins)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g

time, th

ose w

aitin

g o

nly

(mins)

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g 1

-5

mins

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g 6

-

10 m

ins

Num

ber w

aitin

g 1

1 m

ins o

r

more

Maxim

um

passenger w

ait tim

e

(mins)

20

No activity

No passenger waits

21 22

23 00 1 0 0 0 0 00:03:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

01 2 0 0 2 2 00:12:30 00:15:00 00:15:00

02 2 4 2 1 3 00:13:00 00:24:00 00:24:00

03 7 7 3 4 7 00:06:17 00:03:00 00:05:00 00:00:34 00:04:00 1 0 0 00:04:00

TOTALS 12 11 5 7 12 n/a n/a n/a 1 0 0 00:04:00

87

Tunbridge Wells, Station (rear) (private) rank, Friday 10th May 2013, 09:00 – 03:00

Hour

No o

f vehicle a

rrivals

Tota

l passenger d

epartu

res

Tota

l loaded v

ehicle

departu

res

Em

pty

vehicle d

epartu

res

Tota

l Vehicle d

epartu

res

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g

times (h

h:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g

times (fo

r a fa

re,

hh:m

m:s

s)

Maxim

um

vehicle w

aitin

g

time fo

r a fa

re (h

h:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g

time in

an h

our (m

ins)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g

time, th

ose w

aitin

g o

nly

(mins)

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g

1-5

mins

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g

6-1

0 m

ins

Num

ber w

aitin

g 1

1 m

ins o

r

more

Maxim

um

passenger w

ait

time (m

ins)

09 16 4 4 0 4 01:02:56 01:01:24 01:38:00

No passenger waits

10 8 10 8 3 11 00:38:00 00:54:30 00:57:00

11 14 11 10 4 14 00:30:25 00:31:00 01:04:00

12 15 8 7 9 16 00:31:20 00:46:00 01:04:00

13 12 20 14 1 15 00:10:10 00:10:38 00:18:00

14 22 20 15 3 18 00:31:54 00:34:06 00:55:00

15 13 23 13 2 15 00:36:04 00:38:35 00:56:00

16 19 25 22 1 23 00:15:31 00:15:56 00:28:00

17 30 29 23 0 23 00:17:46 00:17:46 00:33:00

18 46 50 37 2 39 00:18:46 00:19:34 00:32:00

19 40 53 47 3 50 00:14:25 00:14:53 00:23:00

20 44 31 27 7 34 00:31:06 00:36:13 01:06:00

21 12 20 14 2 16 00:33:25 00:38:40 00:50:00

22 42 56 35 6 41 00:16:42 00:18:38 00:30:00

23 26 39 26 8 34 00:14:30 00:14:39 00:30:00

00 40 54 32 1 33 00:19:12 00:19:24 01:03:00 00:00:12 00:01:50 6 0 0 00:02:00

01 9 22 14 0 14 00:38:26 00:38:26 00:51:00

No passenger waits 02 12 32 15 3 18 00:20:50 00:24:00 00:35:00

03 4 0 0 6 6 00:02:45 00:00:00 00:00:00

TOTALS 424 507 363 61 424 n/a n/a n/a 6 0 0 00:02:00

88

Tunbridge Wells, Station (rear) rank, Saturday 11th May 2013, 05:00 – 03:00

Hour

No o

f vehicle

arriv

als

Tota

l passenger

departu

res

Tota

l loaded

vehicle

departu

res

Em

pty

vehicle

departu

res

Tota

l Vehicle

departu

res

Avera

ge v

ehicle

waitin

g tim

es

(hh:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge v

ehicle

waitin

g tim

es (fo

r

a fa

re,

hh:m

m:s

s)

Maxim

um

vehicle

waitin

g tim

e fo

r a

fare

(hh:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge

passenger

waitin

g tim

e in

an h

our (m

ins)

Avera

ge

passenger

waitin

g tim

e,

those w

aitin

g

Num

ber o

f

people w

aitin

g 1

-

5 m

ins

Num

ber o

f

people w

aitin

g 6

-

10 m

ins

Num

ber w

aitin

g

11 m

ins o

r more

Maxim

um

passenger w

ait

time (m

ins)

05 No activity

No passenger waits

06 3 1 1 0 1 00:20:40 00:20:40 00:33:00

07 4 6 6 0 6 00:11:45 00:11:45 00:17:00

08 8 5 5 0 5 00:15:37 00:15:37 00:30:00

09 11 15 9 1 10 00:43:10 00:45:30 01:31:00

10 5 3 2 1 3 00:41:00 00:41:00 00:57:00

11 11 14 12 1 13 00:11:27 00:11:40 00:17:00

12 18 16 11 2 13 00:31:16 00:32:28 01:17:00

13 11 14 8 1 9 00:50:00 00:54:30 01:04:00

14 15 31 19 2 21 00:16:56 00:17:50 00:31:00

15 24 16 12 5 17 00:46:10 00:56:46 01:22:00

16 9 19 11 2 13 00:30:33 00:31:52 00:53:00

17 21 19 13 3 16 00:37:54 00:44:15 01:02:00

18 23 26 17 5 22 00:38:44 00:43:18 00:57:00

19 27 24 17 7 24 00:33:57 00:41:12 00:55:00

20 28 39 24 6 30 00:32:40 00:37:02 00:51:00

21 24 33 20 3 23 00:31:35 00:34:09 00:43:00

22 35 54 29 8 37 00:18:53 00:21:51 00:37:00

23 52 90 46 6 52 00:13:25 00:14:28 00:27:00

00 46 104 45 4 49 00:12:10 00:12:23 00:25:00

01 43 62 30 5 35 00:27:27 00:27:56 00:48:00

02 9 30 14 14 28 00:15:46 00:00:00 00:00:00

03 No activity

TOTALS 427 621 351 76 427 n/a n/a n/a

89

Tunbridge Wells, Station (front)(private) rank, Friday 10th May 2013, 09:00 – 19:00

Hour

No o

f vehicle a

rrivals

Tota

l passenger d

epartu

res

Tota

l loaded v

ehicle d

epartu

res

Em

pty

vehicle d

epartu

res

Tota

l Vehicle d

epartu

res

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g tim

es

(hh:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g tim

es (fo

r a

fare

, hh:m

m:s

s)

Maxim

um

vehicle w

aitin

g tim

e fo

r a

fare

(hh:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g tim

e in

an h

our (m

ins)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g tim

e,

those w

aitin

g o

nly (m

ins)

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g 1

-5 m

ins

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g 6

-10 m

ins

Num

ber w

aitin

g 1

1 m

ins o

r more

Maxim

um

passenger w

ait tim

e

(mins)


10 1 5 4 0 4 00:16:00 00:16:00 00:16:00 00:00:20 00:02:00 1 0 0 00:02:00

11 7 5 3 1 4 00:38:51 00:32:00 01:06:00

No passenger waits

12 3 2 2 4 6 00:20:20 00:10:00 00:10:00

13 7 5 5 2 7 00:08:34 00:09:00 00:19:00

14 12 8 7 0 7 00:18:20 00:18:20 00:34:00

15 7 7 6 1 7 00:46:00 00:52:50 01:01:00

16 10 9 8 1 9 00:21:30 00:25:10 00:34:00

17 13 14 9 6 15 00:16:41 00:18:24 00:34:00

18 24 24 21 1 22 00:09:07 00:09:00 00:16:00

19 0 0 0 6 6 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

TOTALS 92 85 69 23 92 n/a n/a n/a 1 0 0 00:02:00

Note: observations ended at just after 19:00 when six vehicles remained at rank.

90

Tunbridge Wells, Paddock Wood Station (private) rank, Friday 10th May 2013, 10:00 – 02:00

Hour

No o

f vehicle a

rrivals

Tota

l passenger d

epartu

res

Tota

l loaded v

ehicle

departu

res

Em

pty

vehicle d

epartu

res

Tota

l Vehicle d

epartu

res

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g tim

es

(hh:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge v

ehicle w

aitin

g tim

es

(for a

fare

, hh:m

m:s

s)

Maxim

um

vehicle w

aitin

g tim

e

for a

fare

(hh:m

m:s

s)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g

time in

an h

our (m

ins)

Avera

ge p

assenger w

aitin

g

time, th

ose w

aitin

g o

nly

(mins)

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g 1

-5

mins

Num

ber o

f people w

aitin

g 6

-

10 m

ins

Num

ber w

aitin

g 1

1 m

ins o

r

more

Maxim

um

passenger w

ait tim

e

(mins)


11 2 1 1 0 1 00:10:00 00:10:00 00:20:00 00:14:00 00:14:00 0 0 1 00:14:00

12 2 2 1 2 3 00:02:30 00:00:00 00:00:00

No passenger waits

13 0 0 0 0 0 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

14 0 0 0 0 0 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

15 2 0 0 0 0 00:39:30 00:44:00 00:44:00

16 2 1 1 2 3 00:02:30 00:02:00 00:02:00

17 1 2 2 0 2 00:12:00 00:12:00 00:12:00

18 4 3 3 1 4 00:13:45 00:18:00 00:36:00

19 4 1 1 2 3 00:26:15 00:37:30 00:44:00

20 8 3 3 2 5 00:15:37 00:19:00 00:32:00

21 5 3 3 3 6 00:29:00 00:42:00 00:43:00

22 4 5 4 3 7 00:11:15 00:07:00 00:14:00 00:00:12 00:01:00 1 0 0 00:01:00


00 3 4 4 0 4 00:14:00 00:14:00 00:27:00

01 No activity

02 TOTALS 42 27 25 17 42 n/a n/a n/a 0:00:02 0:01:00 1 0 0 00:01:00

Note – person waiting 14 minutes identified as booked trip for wheel chair bound passenger. Last vehicle left at 00:23 after which no further activity

93

Appendix 2 Stakeholder Feedback Diary

Chapter Stakeholder Group / Person Date Views

returned?

5 Supermarkets

Iceland, Tunbridge Wells 27/6/13 Y

Sainsbury’s, Linden Park Road,

Tunbridge Wells 27/6/13 Y

Tesco, Woodgate Corner 27/6/13 Y

Asda, Longfield Road 27/6/13 Y

Waitrose, Church Road, Paddock

Wood 27/6/13 Y

5 Hotels

Russell Hotel, London Road 27/6/13 Y

Hotel du vin and Bistro, Crescent Rd 27/6/13 Y

The Royal Wells Hotel, Mount

Ephraim Road 27/6/13 Y

Mercure Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge

Road, Pembury 27/6/13 Y

5 Hospital

Alan Hewett, Travel Planner 10/7/13 Y

5 Disability representatives

Michael Coggles, TAG Chairman 2/5/13 Y

Andrew England, TAG / DPG 2/5/13 Y

Eve Butcher, wheelchair user 2/5/13 Y

Denise Watts, Over 50’s Group 2/5/13 Y

Chris Perry / Catherine Bannister

DPG / Headway 2/5/13 Y

David Bartholmew, DLG (apologies) 2/5/13 N

Lynne Martindale, KAB, guide dog

user (apologies) 2/5/13 N

Dennis Haskett, visually impaired

pensioner (apologies) 2/5/13 N

June Bridgeman, Soroptimists

(apologies, but response by email) 2/5/13 Y

5 Transport Stakeholders

Pat Stringer, Brighton and Hove Bus

and Coach Company 13/4/13 Y

Norman, Nu-Venture 10/4/13 Y

Nick Hill, Metrobus 10/4/13 Y

Matthew Arnold, Arriva 10/4/13 Y

Stagecoach East Sussex 4/13 N

Autocar Bus and Coac 4/13 N

New Enterprise 4/13 N

94

Centaur Overland Travel 4/13 N

Southdown 4/13 N

Go Coach 4/13 N

5 Rail Operators

Network Rail 28/6/13 Y

Southeastern 5/13 N

Southern 5/13 N

5 Police

Sgt Ross Shearing, Kent Police 2/5/13 Y

Other Council Representatives

Cllr David Scott 2/5/13 Y

Nick Baldwin, Senior Engineer,

TWBC Traffic Services 28/3/13 Y

Hilary Smith, TWBC Transport

Planning 28/3/13 Y

6 Hackney carriage and private hire trade

Toni Conlon 28/3/13 Y

Clayton Lee Berry 28/3/13 Y

Paul Maynard 28/3/13 Y

Ron Parker, Stewart Smith, David

Wilson 2/5/13 Y

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Independent hackney carriage … · 2017. 3. 14. · Tunbridge...

Documents

Transcript of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Independent hackney carriage … · 2017. 3. 14. · Tunbridge...