Agenda item

The item was taken first on the agenda as representatives of the Taxi and Private Hire Trade, and Members attending the hearing under Rule 30 wished to address the Committee.

The Licensing Manager outlined a report setting out a revised policy for tinted windows/ privacy glass in Private Hire and Hackney Carriage vehicles. He also referred to a supplementary document that was published on 18^th October and a tabled a document which set out Manufacturers details of tinted windows.

The Committee was advised that the original policy for tinted windows/privacy glass in respect of Private Hire and Hackney Carriage vehicles was approved by the Licensing Committee in November 2012. The policy addressed the  personal safety of licensed drivers and fare paying passengers and required  vehicle owners to pay for the replacement of manufactured fitted tinted windows that came as standard, where they did not meet the policy.

The Officer advised that the cost in replacing tinted windows was now prohibitive for owners/ proprietors who wanted to upgrade their licensed vehicles.  However, the protection and safety of the public should be balanced against this.  The Committee was advised that the revision of the policy if approved would negate the unnecessary costs and inconvenience of vehicle proprietors having to replace factory fitted tinted windows.

There were no regulations regarding the transmission of light through the rear windows or rear windscreen of vehicles and a number of manufacturers offered the option of very dark windows and ‘after market’ window tinting.  It was highlighted that very dark or heavily tinted windows were mainly fitted as standard in higher class models or makes of vehicles.

The Committee noted the best practice recommended for tinted windows which stated that the minimum light transmission for glass in front of, and to  the side of, the driver was 70% and that when licensing vehicles, authoritiesshould be mindful of this as well as the large costs and inconvenienceassociated with changing glass to meet approval.  Members were advised that Officers had met with the Taxi and Private Hire Trade at their request to review the policy to allow more prestige/executive class vehicles to be licensed without having to incur high costs involved in replacing the glass. A  consultation exercise had followed and Members were referred to the responses set out in the report together with examples of policies required by other Authorities in the Thames Valley area.

The Officer highlighted that public safety was an important aspect for the Committee to consider when resolving to approve a policy or revised policy.  The Licensing Manager referred to a report by David Wilson, Licensing Consultant.  This had concluded that useable information collected from almost half of the Police Forces in England and Wales who participated in a  study, had indicated that there was no information held which demonstrated  that anti-flare/ tinted glass had ever contributed to the commission of an offence, alleged or otherwise by anyone in a Hackney Carriage or Private Hire Vehicle.

The Chair of the Slough Taxi Federation advised the Committee that the Federation was in agreement with the revised Policy as set out.  The Private Hire representative also advised during the meeting that his Members supported the revised Policy.

Two Members addressed the Committee under Rule 30 and stated their belief that the revised policy was a retrograde step.  It was argued that the number one priority was the safety of the public and the image of Slough.  It was also suggested that a simple policy of allowing no tinted windows in vehicles such as the one adopted by Wycombe DC was preferable.  It was also argued that drivers could if they wished buy a model of vehicle without tinted windows, thereby avoiding the need to pay for the vehicle to be modified.

In the ensuing debate, Committee Members raised a number of questions and comments.  The Officer confirmed that it would be possible to create  a separate policy for Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Drivers but he would not recommend this and had never known any other Authority adopt this approach.  A Committee Member enquired whether the two Trade representatives in attendance would have supported the new policy had the tabled document regarding manufacturer details been available at that time. Both representatives confirmed that they would have done so.

The Officer confirmed that the public had not been consulted on the change to the policy because this was not a new policy.  Views had been sought from Traffic Officers and Thames Valley Police and both thought that the revised policy was reasonable.

A Member asked whether the Policy would be reviewed annually and this was confirmed. 

Resolved-  That the revised Policy for Tinted Windows/ Privacy Glass in Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Vehicles be revised as set out in Appendix B of the report.