1847 byelaw runs tuk tuk taxi plan off the road
A BAND of Totnes entrepreneurs have lost the first round in their battle to launch a Totnes tuk tuk taxi service powered by chip fat after being run off the road by a 161-year-old licensing law.
Now the bosses of the Totnes Rickshaw Company are taking legal advice before deciding whether to continue the battle with an appeal direct to the magistrates courts.
-
The company had applied to South Hams Council's Licensing Committee for a taxi licence to run its two 416cc tuk tuk — powered rickshaws — in Totnes, primarily picking up passengers on Steamer Quay and taking them to the top of the town's steep main street.
But the application was booted out because the three-wheeled machines, which are used as taxis across South East Asia, do not comply with the council's own byelaws or the act covering Hackney Carriage licenses which dates back to 1847.
The Totnes businessman behind the tuk tuk operation, Pete Ryeland, said after the licensing hearing: "It seems to me that the reasons for refusal are because they do not conform to the byelaws. We will be looking at appealing but we will have to take legal advice first.
"Byelaws are put there by the community for the community and it's up to the community to change them."
He said that if the district councillors had said yes to the licence the tuk tuks would have been the 'only sustainable public transport in the whole of Totnes'.
The Totnes Rickshaw Company wants a taxi licence to link up with the Riverlink pleasure boats calling at Steamer Quay to carry up to three passengers at a time from the quay to the top of Totnes.
It would also operate a service taking people as far as Bridgetown, Follaton and Dartington using the machines which would be power on biofuel derived from recycled cooking oil.
Company director Dave Lacey, who runs the Sachs wholefood shop in The Narrows, said: "It's a novel vehicle but it has a serious purpose."
He said the tuk tuks would enable people to get to the top of the steep main street, many of whom at the present neither have 'the time or the energy' to get there when they land at Steamer Quay.
The licensing committee took just 35 minutes to make up their minds about the tuk tuk taxi licence after the district's licensing officer Graham Munson told them that the three-wheeled machines fell foul of the council's byelaws, including rules that a taxi must have two rear doors while the tuk tuks don't have any doors at all, and cab must be over 1,300cc but the tuk tuks have less than two thirds of that power beneath their bonnets.
Mr Musun also explained that the rules governing Hackey Carriage actually date back to 1847 when they were dealing with carriages pulled by donkeys and horses.
"There are calls for a revamp of the taxi legislation but it has not happened yet," he told the nine members of the committee.
The committee members were invited to examine a tuk tuk and watch Mr Ryeland driving it around the grounds of their Follaton House HQ before launching into the hearing.
Committee chairman John Baverstock told Mr Ryeland and Mr Lacey: "We very much recognise the merits of the application and what you intend for the people of Totnes. However it is with regret that we have to refuse this application.
"One of the reasons for doing that is that the existing byelaws severely restrict us from granting it."
Mr Ryeland had told the committee that an alternative to a taxi licence was a 'flexible bus licence' which means applying to the Traffic Commissioners.
However, he explained, that would take months to come through, would be a lot more expensive and impose restrictions on the Totnes operation the Rickshaw Company wanted to set up.
10 Comments
by Jo, Totnes
Sunday, August 31 2008, 8:22PM
“Well, I am lost for words for a change. Well done SOUTH HAMS COUNCIL for being a bunch of complete idiots yet again you let down the people in Totnes. No new car park so even less parking than last year and then to make things even worse you slap a big fat NO on a really great idea pull your heads out of your own back sides and check out what Totnes is trying to do its called GREEN, ECO, LOW IMPACT and above all else a Green town.”
by Tom, Tuk Tuk specialist, south coast
Sunday, August 31 2008, 6:47PM
“It is the council which sets the rules - e.g minimum engine sizes etc - and they can change the rules if they want. Swanage Council did just that for Tuc Tucs (although the service never started due problems obtaining the vehicles). A Licence through the Traffic Commissioner is not what that system - which is all about licencing buses and coaches - i.e. vehciles with nine or more passenger seats - is all about. This also means that every stretched limo operating in the area must be illegal too, if the council refuses to licence them.”
by Bin Paper, Maker Heights
Saturday, August 30 2008, 10:57AM
“Oh dear.........
'reluctant.....' indeed
- South Hams reacting again- so self conscious it really is a shame - one has to ask whether they REALLY consider it good political judgement to incur the costs to the rate payer involved in the appeal - when central government is making so much noise about getting up to speed with a green agenda - and whether an action to recover the loss of profit engendered by their 'unreasonable' restraint of trade, would have any
success ?
[ as it has for so many developers over the years]
such dinosaurs - the sooner they die out the better for all of us!”
by Totnes Friends, Totnes
Thursday, August 28 2008, 8:35AM
“As I have followed this project since the very start, I was made aware that the vehicle went to the government test centre, and therefore complies with the rules and regulations regarding safety on the road. Otherwise, the DVLA would not have registered it. So to call the vehicle a ¿death trap¿ is ridiculous in my opinion. Admittedly, some of the rickshaws that have been brought into Europe are not as substantial as the one that The Totnes Rickshaw Company has purchased. In fact, the chassis weight is so heavy it did not fall below the weight to be registered as a tricycle. I know this for a fact as I have seen the tax disc on the one running around Totnes. The company was so concerned about it being stable that they have carried out their research prior to purchase.
As far as I can see from the comments from the licensing officer, the only thing that the rickshaws do not comply with is the fact that it does not have doors, which is stated in South Hams Council¿s bylaw.
With regards to your comment about the road to Dartington, I would like to remind you that the speed limit is 30mph. Since the rickshaw has a top speed of 45mph I do not see the problem. If some fool wants to overtake a rickshaw or a tractor on a winding road where the maximum speed is 30mph, I think it is them who are at fault, not the vehicle travelling below this speed.
From what I can gather from all the licensing officers and the governing bodies, the licensing laws are well overdue to be reviewed. In fact, the government is in the process of doing so as we speak.
Regarding your comment on the engine capacity, next year the larger the engine the higher the road tax! This clearly shows that the government is trying to get us all to use smaller sized engines, in the interest of conserving what little fuel we have left.
If you do not believe that one day Oil will run out, I suggest that you look at some of the comments from people who actually work for the Oil companies who claim that we haven¿t got 40 or 50 years of Oil left ¿ at the current rate of consumption, we only have 10 years left.
So, I praise The Totnes Rickshaw Company for bringing to the forefront the whole issue of finding alternative methods of fuelling our vehicles. I would also like to point out that your last comment on profit is totally wrong. If you hadn¿t noticed, the company is actually registered as a CIC. If you care to look at Company House register, you will find that all the profit is being plugged back into the community. You obviously wrote your comment before receiving your facts.”
by Bazzerd, Paignton
Wednesday, August 27 2008, 4:40PM
“Either the Committee's decision has been poorly reported or they are sadly deluded. I would be very surprised if the byelaws require a minimum engine size. It is far more likely that this is a policy which is just that and this must be flexible. I believe an appeal would succeed. Hackney Carriages do not even have to have an engine, based on the law as it now stands.”
by Tik Tok, Torbay
Wednesday, August 27 2008, 1:25PM
“I was sort of under the impression that the road to Dartington was in fact 30mph with a whacking great speed camera at one end - within the performance boundaries of your average Tuk Tuk.
OK, so your average Tuk Tuk doesn't comply with car safety laws, but neither does your average 4x4 (or pony and trap, or Rickshaw, all of which are used in this country to ferry fare paying passengers around), and at least with a Tuk Tuk any inherent danger is obvious and passengers can choose to take the risk. Tuk Tuks are probably quite safe compared to some of the minicabs on the road today...”
by Worried Driver, Paignton
Wednesday, August 27 2008, 12:54PM
“I would firstly like to congratulate South Hams District Council for their insight - imposing a minimum engine capacity for Hackney Carriages in a bye-law that pre-dates the invention of the internal comustion engine, let alone the automobile (and yes, I do realise the bye-law has been updated since it was first introduced, so no need to point out the error in my comment). My main concern is that these are small vehicles that offer virtually no protection for passengers in the event of an accident. They have worked well in asia, primarily in areas where traffic and other factors limit the speeds of these vehicles - they don't often go fast enough to have a serious accident. I have real concerns about the comment that they will be used out as far as Dartington. The road from Dartington is busy enough at the moment and does not need these motorised death-traps causing further delays and frustration for drivers. How long before a driver 'chanced their arm' to overtake out of frustration - and how well would the driver and passengers fare being side-swiped by an overtaking vehicle? If they are licenced, it should be within very specific geographic boundaries where they will not pose an inconvenience or danger to both other road users and pedestrians alike. One other thing to remember that although the company are 'talking green', they are in this to make a profi!”
by Tim, Canada
Wednesday, August 27 2008, 12:38PM
“Keep up the fight, I'm sure you will find a way!”
by H Kemal, Torquay
Wednesday, August 27 2008, 11:47AM
“Innovation stifled by bureaucracy yet again.”
by Worried, Brixham
Wednesday, August 27 2008, 10:24AM
“I thank God that the administrative borders of South Hams Council do not extend to South East Asia.”