Meeting Details

On the proposition of Councillor Hedgley, seconded by Councillor Jepson, it was

RESOLVED

 
That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 April 2025 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received report ES/2465 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health, which sought approval to appoint additional testing facilities for licensed private hire and hackney carriage vehicles in the North of the East Suffolk district.

Councillor Candy explained that East Suffolk Council was responsible for licensing private hire and hackney carriage vehicles, which must undergo stricter mechanical tests than a standard MOT due to higher usage and public safety expectations. While agency garages were already appointed in the south of the district, the north only had one testing site at the ESSL depot. To improve access for drivers and operators, over 50 garages in the north were contacted to seek interest in becoming a test centre, with five responding. After site visits, four garages were found to be suitable.  It was hoped that these additional facilities would offer drivers more choice, encourage price competition (which was capped at £70), and reduce reliance on a single site. ESSL would assess the cost of supporting the new sites, with these costs being passed on through licensing fees to drivers and owners.

Councillor Robinson supported the addition of extra testing stations and inquired about their locations. The Senior Licensing Officer stated that specific details couldn't be shared yet due to commercial sensitivity, but the report confirmed there would be three stations in Lowestoft and one in Bungay.

Councillor Jepson requested clarification on the costs in paragraph 4.1. It was explained that details couldn't be shared in an open meeting, but the costs would align with those in the South of the district, where four garages operate. These costs would be included in the Vehicle Licence Fee, amounting to about £30 per vehicle annually.  The Licensing Manager confirmed that the introduction of additional testing stations would give operators more choice and flexibility.

Councillor Hedgley asked if the changes were simply a tidying-up exercise and whether there had been complaints. The Senior Licensing Officer confirmed it was part of creating a fair, district-wide approach under East Suffolk Council, as the North was disadvantaged with only one testing station. Complaints had been received from operators in the North, as there was only one testing station in place.  The final cost could vary, with £70 being the maximum.

Councillor Fisher requested more details on the costing model. The Licensing Manager explained that licensing must be self-funded, so ESSL costs would be included in the licence fee, making it cost-neutral for the Council. While acknowledging the added cost for licensees, they hoped it would be acceptable due to the increased choice. Currently, some operators faced a two-week wait to get a vehicle on the road.

On the proposition of Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Jepson it was

RESOLVED

That Committee:

Approves the appointment of additional testing garages to undertake East Suffolk Council’s mechanical test for potential and existing licensed private hire and hackney carriage vehicles

The Chair acknowledged all of the progress made with this piece of work.

Councillor Smith-Lyte joined the meeting.

The Committee received report ES/2457 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health, which provided an update to the Licensing Committee on the Recommendations and Government Response to the National Audit on group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse.

Councillor Candy introduced the report telling the Committee that following convictions related to child exploitation and failures by local authorities and police, Baroness Casey conducted a national audit, published in June 2025. Chapter 7 of this audit, focusing on taxi licensing, was included in Appendix A of the report. Key points of good practice from the audit and East Suffolk Council's current status included:

1. Taxi CCTV Cameras:
   Baroness Casey recommended the mandatory use of taxi cameras capable of capturing both the driver and all passengers from the chest upwards. However, a 2021 consultation in East Suffolk showed that the majority of stakeholders opposed making CCTV mandatory, believing it was unnecessary.
2. Definition of a Fit and Proper Person:
   Baroness Casey recommended clearly defining what constitutes a "fit and proper person." East Suffolk Council already complies with this through paragraph 4.3 of its Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy.
3. Training and Safeguarding Standards:
   Baroness Casey recommended mandatory knowledge training with a refresher every three years and a 100% pass mark for safeguarding tests. East Suffolk Council meets the training requirement through a two-day college course and a 3-year refresher. However, the current pass mark is 80%, and safeguarding is included as part of the overall course without a separate test. The tutor is open to introducing a 100% pass mark for safeguarding, but any changes would ideally need agreement with other Suffolk licensing authorities, as the course is delivered jointly.
4. Legal Action Against Serious Offences:
   Baroness Casey recommended using civil thresholds to revoke or suspend licenses of those accused of serious sexual offences. East Suffolk Council already follows this approach. The Head of Legal Services has delegated authority to the Licensing Manager to suspend or revoke licenses, in consultation with the Chair of the Licensing Committee, if a driver is no longer deemed a fit and proper person.
5. Immediate Suspension for Public Safety:
   In line with Baroness Casey’s recommendations, East Suffolk Council can and does suspend or revoke taxi licenses immediately in cases of serious misconduct, if deemed necessary for public safety. This action is taken in consultation with the Chair of the Licensing Committee and allows drivers to be taken off the road swiftly without waiting for a Licensing Sub-Committee hearing.

Questions were invited from the Committee.

The Chair noted that paragraph 4.3 of the policy refers to operators, not drivers. It was clarified that paragraph 2.2 specifically related to drivers being deemed fit and proper. The Licensing Manager confirmed this would be highlighted by emboldening it in the report.

Councillor Robinson said that he had consistently supported the introduction of cameras in taxis, viewing them as a positive safety measure. He acknowledged concerns regarding the cost for drivers and suggested a phased approach—proposing that all new vehicles be required to have cameras installed.  Councillor Candy confirmed this would be being looked into.

Councillor Hedgley supported cameras in taxis but raised concerns about ensuring they are always operational, citing a case where a faulty camera failed to capture an incident. He asked what impact the additional work would have on the licensing team. The Senior Licensing Officer responded that it would create extra workload, raise data protection concerns, and might require inspections. However, if the government mandated the changes, data protection issues would not be a barrier. It was noted that it would be up to the committee to decide whether to act before any central government directive.

It was noted that the Government would consider the report and make recommendations regarding taxi cameras. If cameras were mandated nationally, no consultation would be needed. However, if East Suffolk Council chose to implement them earlier, a consultation would be required. It was suggested that a condition could be included to ensure cameras were always working and always on. The Committee would need to decide whether they acted now or waited for central government.

Councillor Robinson said that a sub-committee had previously required a driver to have a camera as a condition for keeping their licence. The Senior Licensing Officer clarified that this had occurred in only one case and had proven difficult to enforce.  They questioned whether it should be a licence condition at all, suggesting that if there were doubts about a driver’s behaviour, they perhaps shouldn’t be licensed. It was emphasised that this situation differed from the current discussion, which was about making cameras mandatory for all vehicles.  There was an example where one operator implemented cameras but the passengers were not happy with them and they were removed.

Councillor Jepson said that since there had been no particular issues in the district, he trusted the licensing team and recommended waiting to see what the central government decided, noting that early action could cause additional work and expense.

Councillor Smith-Lyte expressed concerns about cameras but acknowledged the balance needed. Councillor Hedgley understood this but pointed out that all tubes and buses in London had CCTV and that people had to get used to public transport being monitored. Councillor Fisher added that local trains also had cameras.

Councillor Fisher asked for more detail around the safeguarding test, and Councillor Candy confirmed the content was listed in the report.

There was discussion about concerns over requiring a 100% pass mark. The Senior Licensing Officer acknowledged it was difficult to achieve in the full two-day course but suggested it could be applied specifically to the safeguarding element. Both the Licensing Manager and Senior Licensing Officer hoped to develop this approach with other Suffolk authorities, proposing an 80% pass mark for the overall course, with a 100% requirement for safeguarding.

Councillor Fisher asked about the Prevent content, and it was confirmed that drivers would receive general awareness training to help them recognise concerning behaviour or conversations. Councillor Candy added that the training would guide drivers on how to respond and report if they heard something suspicious in their taxi.

Councillor Hedgley asked about the impact of recommendation 11 regarding stopping out-of-area taxis. The Senior Licensing Officer explained that, aside from a few drivers operating in Ipswich, there were no out-of-area operators or drivers licensed elsewhere working in the district.

Councillor Folley noted that Uber operated in Felixstowe and asked who licensed them. The Senior Licensing Officer responded that they were licensed in Ipswich and gave the example that a driver could hold a West Suffolk licence while primarily working in East Suffolk. This was the loophole the report aimed to close.

It was confirmed that Uber would be held to the same standards and enforcement requirements as any other operator working in East Suffolk.

Councillor Hedgley noted the report stated that recommendations would be implemented over several years. The Licensing Manager confirmed that the timing would be determined by central government.

Councillor Folley praised the report and hoped that the Government would implement the recommendations promptly, noting it would close loopholes and promote consistency across authorities, eliminating the idea that some areas were more lenient.

The Chair was horrified to see that Wolverhampton Council had 51,000 licensed drivers operating all over the Country.

Councillor Hedgley welcomed the tougher approach, saying it was long overdue, but expressed concern about the additional workload for the licensing team.

Councillor Jepson reiterated that, regarding CCTV, they should wait for central government’s directive, emphasising this was not complacency but confidence in the performance and relationships of the licensing team.

It was by general assent

RESOLVED

That Committee:
1. Note the National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and Recommendations and the Government’s Response to the Report.

The Committee received report ES/2467 from the Cabinet Member for Community Health, providing an update on street trading in East Suffolk. Councillor Candy introduced the report, explaining that the Council had resolved to adopt a district-wide street trading policy under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. Following three consultations and previous committee discussions, views were gathered on proposed policy changes and the designation of streets as either prohibited or consent streets.

Prohibited streets would ban all street trading, while consent streets would allow only community events involving street trading. A clear statement to this effect would be included in the policy. The final list of designated streets was approved in April 2025, and a notice of intention was published in local newspapers on 2 May 2025. With no public objections received, the Committee was asked to approve the policy for immediate adoption. A £350 consent fee will apply per street per year.

The Licensing Manager informed the Committee that key roads (A12, A146, A117, car parks, and B1375) were omitted from the street trading advert because they were always intended to be excluded and not open for debate. However, despite their exclusion, highways authority approval would still be required. The licensing team expressed concern about potential loopholes, so the Licensing Manager proposed adding these roads to the advert and readvertising to prevent any future disputes.

Councillor Robinson fully supported the proposal, emphasising the importance of a thorough approach. The Policy had already been at several meetings, he agreed it was important to tidy up the details and get it right.

Councillor Smith-Lyte left the meeting.

On the proposition of Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Hedgley it was

RESOLVED

That Street Trading would be subject to a further consultation with re-advertising taking place containing the roads (A12, A146, A117, car parks, and B1375).

The Committee received report ES/2468 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health, which provided an overview of the issued Licences and work of the Licensing Sub-Committee during the period April to June 2025. The report was introduced by Councillor Candy and was taken as read. 

There were no questions on the report. 

It was by general assent

RESOLVED

That Committee:
Notes the overview of some of the work of the Licensing Team and the Licensing Sub-Committee.