The Deputy Chief Executive for City and Citizens’ Services has submitted a report to seek agreement of the licence fees for 2025/26 where the Council has discretion over the level of fee charged.

 

Recommendation(s): That the General Purposes and Licensing Committee resolves to:

1.    Agree the licence fees and charges for 2025/26 as set out in appendix 1 and recommend to Council for adoption.

Joshua Curnow, the General Licensing Team Manager, and Katie Thorp, the Supervising Senior Licensing Officer, were present throughout the meeting to present the report and respond to questions.

  

The Deputy Chief Executive for City and Citizens’ Services had submitted a report to seek agreement of the licence fees for 2025/26 where the Council has discretion over the level of fee charged. 

  

The Chair invited the General Licensing Team Manager to present the report.

 

The General Licensing Team Manager informed the Committee that the report seeks approval for the General Purposes Licensing fees and charges for the 2025/26 financial year. For commercial events, and events with no commercial element, fees have increased around 4% to cover costs. However, where an application meets the qualification of being a community or charity event, the fee is waived. The General Licensing Team Manager further explained that decisions regarding fees for scrap metal dealers are executive functions and therefore taken by Cabinet. Further fees included within the report were also summarised and the Committee heard of an average 4% increase across these.

  

The General Licensing Team Manager informed the Committee that he had received little time to formulate detailed responses to the public address and would respond to questions as best as possible. The Committee were informed, in relation to matters which would be raised by the public speaker, that between 2018 and 2023 no increases were made to taxi licensing fees. 

  

The Chair welcomed Mr. Khan, the public speaker, to address the Committee. Mr. Sajad Khan, Secretary of C.O.L.T.A, made a public address to the Committee as follows:

 

I am writing this letter to object to the level of increase in the Hackney Carriage Licence fees proposed today by licensing.  

  

I fail to understand how the officer can warrant or justify this amount of increase.  

  

Especially in the light of:  

1. Uber gaining an operator’s license and how that will impact an already struggling trade.  

2. Botley Road closure. Not opening till October 2026. 

3. Closure of nightclubs in Oxford.  

4. The investment in 2026 to purchase the electric taxi. 

 

So now was not the appropriate time to propose this level of increase of the fees.  

  

It’s not just about licensing duties or enforcement (lack of). What about the review of taxi ranks. We have been asking since 2021 for a review of the Gloucester green taxi rank in terms of appropriate signage at the coach station and at the rank itself including markings on the Gloucester green rank. To date, nothing has been done. It’s been 4 years. That’s a serious delay which has been impacting our trade.  

  

Both of the increases in February 2024 and today have been proposed at times when the trade has been pressured by licensing.  

  

Last year February 2024 when we asked for an extension on the emission standards policy, we had an 8% increase in the fees.  

Again today, the increase proposed is 4% alongside what would have been a discussion on the quantity control report and the potential killing off our trade.

  

As of December 2024, UK RPI was 3.5%. The Licensing Authority is proposing an increase of 4%. I fail to understand why this increase is above the RPI rate. There have been no reasons given for this level of increase apart from ‘inflationary pressures’. What specific duty constitutes this level of increase?  

  

We believe the cost of administrating the Licensing Department has decreased not increased as everything is done online, and the service provided by the Licensing Department in some cases has got progressively worse not better because of the delays in renewing license applications. This means the driver is off the road whilst the applications team and the licensing officers communicate with each other or exchange documents. 

  

I have also attached photos of taxis queueing up at the Taxi ranks during what should’ve been a busy period but very quiet. Included are a couple of photos of an illegal ‘rank’ of private hire vehicles including out of town taxis on St. Aldates. This proves that the level of enforcement is poor and the private hire operator in question has not been challenged or the behaviour of their drivers.  

  

As such, we object to this level of increase and would urge the committee to seek a revised increase of 2.5% which would be reasonable in light of the above concerns.  

  

 

The Chair thanked Mr. Khan and invited any questions from the Committee. 

  

Councillor Rehman queried how often enforcement trips are conducted, when the last check took place, and how many times this occurs on average per year. Based on data to hand, the General Licensing Team Manager outlined that 140 hours of ‘out of hours’ compliance and enforcement checks occurred in the 2024/25 financial year. The Supervising Senior Licensing Officer confirmed that the most recent check took place on the Friday prior to the meeting. A comparison to previous years was not possible as historic data was not available in the meeting. 

  

Councillor Upton sought clarity on the fees and charges increases since 2018 to which the General Licensing Team Manager explained that a 4% increase is proposed this year.

  

Councillor Upton invited Mr. Khan to offer more information regarding the impacts caused by delays in application approvals. Mr. Khan positively noted the impact of online applications for efficiency but also emphasised the difficulty these can cause for those who experience difficulties using technology. For these parties, Mr. Khan works to provide support through the applications process. Additionally, the Committee heard that some questions on the application request irrelevant or misleading information which can slow down the application process and require it to be returned to the Council, causing further delays. 

  

Councillor Miles requested firstly clarity on the pricing controls used for Hackney Carriages in comparison to private hire vehicles and secondly, further information on actions being taken to address loitering of private hire vehicles. 

  

Councillor Clarkson asked how Oxford City Council compares to other Licensing Authorities in regards charges for Hackney Carriages and private hire vehicles.

  

Councillor Ottino queried whether staffing costs have reduced since the introduction of online applications. 

  

The General Licensing Team Manager explained that varying legislation and licensing compliance processes apply to Hackney Carriages and private hire vehicles which dictate the varying charges associated. In respect of loitering and illegal ranks of private hire vehicles, the Committee heard that it is not within the remit of the Licensing Authority to act as many of the vehicles in question are from out of town, and therefore not under the licensing conditions of Oxford City Council. To work around this, multi-agency relationships with other Oxfordshire Authorities and Thames Valley Police are maintained to support joint enforcement activity. Finally, in regards costs in comparison to other authorities, the General Licensing Team Manager did not have comparative details available but noted that Oxford City Council charges less than South and Vale District Councils, but more than Cherwell District Council. 

  

In response to concerns about utilising online applications for taxi licenses, the General Licensing Team Manager explained that the move was made to improve customer experience and noted that 100% of applications are assessed within 3 working days which he understands to be above national average. The General Licensing Team Manager acknowledged Mr. Khan’s grievances and noted application delays are unavoidable when more clarity is required from the applicant. He provided statistical examples to demonstrate the efficiency of the Licensing Authority’s service.  

  

Councillor Qayyum queried whether recent years without fee increases were linked to Covid, and whether therefore, the proposed increases now are linked to service demands. It was also asked whether reviews take place to check the validity of fees.  

  

Councillor Morris asked Mr. Khan what financial pressures Hackney Carriage drivers are facing and what positive steps he believes the Licensing Authority could take to mitigate these.  

  

Councillor Rehman noted that during Covid taxi drivers could not work but were still required to pay licence fees. Therefore, he asked whether some of the financial benefit now being received by the Council could be passed back to taxi drivers in efforts to support them. Additionally, he sought to clarify whether private hire vehicles are required to return to a base between trips, rather than loitering.  

 

Councillor Lygo left the meeting.  

  

The General Licensing Team Manager explained that since 2020 fees have increased in line with the cost the Council endures for the services and functions provided. This includes salaries and costs which are less visible, such as training. The Committee were assured that the Licensing Authority does not operate to produce profit, rather that it only seeks to cover costs. Secondly, in relation to costs during Covid, it was also explained that the Licensing Authority provided exemptions for financial assistance, and grants to the taxi trade where available. Finally, in relation to private hire vehicles, the Committee heard that they cannot contravene traffic law, nor can they wait in “prominent positions” making themselves available for immediate hire.  

 

In regards online applications, the General Licensing Team Manager informed the Committee that the online application service costs around £11.5k annually, not accounting for set up and officer time. At present, no profit has been made from this investment and the Committee were assured that the initial cost of onboarding existing licence holders to the online Disclosure and Barring Services system ‘TaxiPlus’ was not shouldered by license holders. 

  

Councillor Lygo rejoined the meeting. 

  

Mr. Khan responded to Councillor Morris’ earlier question and described a miserable and dire situation on the taxi ranks in Oxford City at present, explaining that few customers are available as fewer people are arriving on trains to Oxford Station. As a recommendation for positive steps, Mr. Khan suggested that the Licensing Authority look to install new taxi ranks to help boost the trade. 

  

The General Licensing Team Manager responded, noting that Oxford City Council is fully supportive of additional ranks, however the authority to install new ranks falls to Oxfordshire County Council. The General Licensing Team Manager noted that discussions with Oxfordshire County Council were taking place regarding updated signage for the Gloucester Green rank. Furthermore, the Licensing Authority has previously supported installation of a new rank at the John Radcliffe Hospital and recently supported the early-stage proposal for a new rank on Cowley Road but had not seen any formal proposal for a day-time rank on Queen Street. It was also clarified that Hackney Carriages are not restricted to fares secured from taxi ranks, as they can also complete private bookings and are the only vehicle that can lawfully ‘ply for hire’ within the Oxford City District.  

 

The Chair also clarified with the Committee that any new taxi ranks would be at the behest of the County Council.  

  

Councillor Yeatman asked whether there are any existing assessments of the impact of Uber which could be utilised to assess possible impacts in the local area.  

  

Councillor Lygo queried whether any follow up is being conducted with Oxfordshire County Council regarding taxi ranks.  

  

Councillor Miles referred to the Central Oxfordshire Movement and Place Framework and recommended the Licensing Authority be involved. She also questioned road closure fees in the report and asked why non-commercial road closures, such as for street parties, are proposed to have a higher increase in tariff compared to commercial examples, noting this as inconsistent and disproportionate.  

  

In response, the General Licensing Team Manager explained to Councillor Yeatman that whilst Uber hold an operator license with Oxford City Council, it has not been used. In relation to studies of impacts, he noted not being aware of any, but that Uber’s introduction should not be considered differently to the introduction of any other large operator, which has been experienced over time. The Committee heard that the main difference with Uber is that it operates across regional areas and is not managed by one local authority. 

  

In regards Hackney Carriage ranks, the General Licensing Team Manager confirmed it would be useful to follow up with Oxfordshire County Council, specifically in relation to the need for improved signage at the Gloucester Green rank.  

  

In response to Councillor Miles query on road closure fees, the General Licensing Team Manager explained that if considered via percentage difference then her observations were accurate. However, the Committee heard that this increase percentage results from a £1 increase, rather than a direct percentage comparison and for non-commercial road closure. It was explained that administration process places a cost on the Council, and therefore cost recovery drives the fee increase.  

 

The Chair asked, in relation to the ultra-low emission early adoption fees, whether there is a lower fee for Hackney Carriages and whether this would rise after the date on which all Hackney Carriages are required to transfer to electric. Additionally, the Chair specifically asked Mr. Khan, in relation to the images he provided, whether anyone has reported the issues of private hire vehicles at St. Aldates, and whether he would welcome changes to the difference between ULEV and non-ULEV fees. 

  

The General Licensing Team Manager stated it was the Committee’s prerogative to suggest any changes to fees for ULEV Hackney Carriages. 

  

Mr. Khan, in relation to private hire vehicles on St. Aldates, explained that queues have extended so far, and customers often see private hire vehicles and assume they are cheaper. As a result, Hackney Carriages remain in queues whilst waiting for jobs. In regards complaints, the Committee heard that drivers are encouraged to take pictures and note details of dates and times to pass on to the Licensing Authority. On the fees for ULEV Hackney Carriages, Mr. Khan noted interest in the Committee’s discussion.  

 

The Chair invited the committee to discuss views on ULEV charges and queried whether another report on the financial credibility would be desired. The Committee briefly debated the timings of this in relation to future budgets. Several councillors expressed a preference to adjust the early adopter discount to included ULEV compliant vehicles following January 2026 and noted a preference that the fees should be reviewed again next year. 

  

Councillor Miles sought clarity on how and when Hackney Carriage licenses are charged.  The General Licensing Team Manager clarified that it is an annual charge which is made each year, no earlier than 28 days prior to the date of renewal. The Committee were recommended not to amend the existing charge, and rather to propose a new charge that is valid from the transition deadline including any renewal application being allowed a discount. 

  

Councillor Miles proposed a motion to consider the amendment as recommended by the General Licensing Team Manager and the chair seconded the motion. 

 

The Committee voted in favour of this amendment. 

 

The Committee resolved to: 

 

• Agree the licence fees and charges for 2025/26 as set out in appendix 1 and recommend to Council for adoption. 

• Propose an additional discounted fee for ULEV Hackney Carriage Vehicles, who renew their licences after the 1^st January 2026 ultra-low emission vehicle deadline, as they will no longer be considered ‘early adopters’. The new discounted fee is £354.00 and is titled: Hackney Carriage (ULEV Standard Discount - post 1st January 2026). 

   

Mr. Khan left the meeting.