Download the Agenda

Regulatory Committee

Monday 17 August 2015 11am

Council Chamber Runnymede Civic Centre, Addlestone

Members of the Committee

Councillors D W Parr (Chairman), Mrs M Roberts (Vice-Chairman), J Broadhead, Mrs D V Clarke, and Mrs M T Harnden.

In accordance with Standing Order 29.2 any non-member of the Committee who is considering attending the meeting should first request the permission of the Chairman.

A G E N D A

Notes:

1) Any report on the Agenda involving confidential information (as defined by section 100A(3) of the Local Government Act 1972) must be discussed in private. Any report involving exempt information (as defined by section 100I of the Local Government Act 1972), whether it appears in Part 1 or Part 2 below, may be discussed in private but only if the Committee so resolves.

2) The relevant 'background papers' are listed after each report in Part 1. Enquiries about any of the Agenda reports and background papers should be directed in the first instance to Miss C Pinnock, Democratic Services, Law and Governance Business Centre, Runnymede Civic Centre, Station Road, Addlestone (Tel: Direct Line: 01932 425627). (Email: [email protected]).

3) Agendas and Minutes are available on a subscription basis. For details, please ring Mr B A Fleckney on 01932 425620. Agendas and Minutes for all the Council's Committees may also be viewed on www.runnymede.gov.uk.

4) In the unlikely event of an alarm sounding, members of the public should leave the building immediately, either using the staircase leading from the public gallery or following other instructions as appropriate.

5) Filming, Audio-Recording, Photography, Tweeting and Blogging of Meetings

Members of the public are permitted to film, audio record, take photographs or make use of social media (tweet/blog) at Council and Committee meetings provided that this does not disturb the business of the meeting. If you wish to film a particular meeting, please liaise with - 1 - V:\agendas\Regulatory Committee\2015\08\Regulatory 170815 Agenda.doc the Council Officer listed on the front of the Agenda prior to the start of the meeting so that the Chairman is aware and those attending the meeting can be made aware of any filming taking place.

Filming should be limited to the formal meeting area and not extend to those in the public seating area.

The Chairman will make the final decision on all matters of dispute in regard to the use of social media, audio-recording, photography and filming in the Committee meeting.

- 2 - V:\agendas\Regulatory Committee\2015\08\Regulatory 170815 Agenda.doc If you need help reading this document please contact the Council on 01932 838383. We will try to provide a reading service, a large print version, or another format.

- 3 - V:\agendas\Regulatory Committee\2015\08\Regulatory 170815 Agenda.doc

LIST OF MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

PART I

Matters in respect of which reports have been made available for public inspection

PAGE

1. FIRE PRECAUTIONS 5

2. NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES TO COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP 5

3. MINUTES 5

4. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 5

5. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 5

6. EGHAM HACKNEY CARRIAGE STANDS 5

7. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC 7

PART II

Matters involving Exempt or Confidential Information in respect of which reports have not been made available for public inspection. a) Exempt Information

(No reports to be considered under this heading) b) Confidential Information

(No reports to be considered under this heading)

- 4 - V:\agendas\Regulatory Committee\2015\08\Regulatory 170815 Agenda.doc 1. FIRE PRECAUTIONS

The Chairman will read the Fire Precautions which set out the procedures to be followed in the event of fire or other emergency.

2. NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES TO COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

3. MINUTES

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting held on 4 June 2015, which were in the July 2015 Minute book, previously circulated.

4. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

5. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

If Members have an interest in an item please record the interest on the form circulated with this Agenda and hand it to the Legal Representative or Democratic Services Officer at the start of the meeting. A supply of the form will also be available from the Democratic Services Officer at meetings.

Members are advised to contact the Council’s Legal section prior to the meeting if they wish to seek advice on a potential interest.

Members who have previously declared interests which are recorded in the Minutes to be considered at this meeting need not repeat the declaration when attending the meeting. Members need take no further action unless the item in which they have an interest becomes the subject of debate, in which event the Member must leave the room if the interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or if the interest could reasonably be regarded as so significant as to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest.

6. EGHAM HACKNEY CARRIAGE STANDS (ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES)

Synopsis of report:

To make Members aware of the results of the consultation exercise regarding hackney carriage stands in Egham town centre.

Recommendation:

The Committee is asked to consider the establishment of hackney carriage stands in Egham town centre in light of the representations and petition received and make a recommendation for consideration by a full Council meeting on 22 October 2015.

1. Context of report

1.1 Under section 63 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 part ll, councils may provide hackney carriage stands (known as ranks).

1.2 Following the Committee meeting on 4 June 2015 Members gave their support to the proposal to establish new ranks in Egham subject to the proposals being advertised and consulted upon.

1.3 Although advertising the proposals to establish a rank is the only statutory requirement in relation to the advertising and consultation regarding new hackney carriage ranks, best practice is to seek as wide a view as possible, therefore a full consultation exercise has been undertaken.

1.4 People who responded to the consultation in August 2014 were contacted and made aware of the proposals along with Egham Chamber of Trade, Egham Residents Association, Royal Holloway University Students Union, all Runnymede licenced Hackney Carriage drivers /

- 5 - V:\agendas\Regulatory Committee\2015\08\Regulatory 170815 Agenda.doc Private Hire Operators and businesses close by the location. In addition notices were placed around the immediate area of the proposed ranks advertising the proposal.

2. Report

2.1 The consultation period closed on 16 July 2015. A number of representations and a petition have been received.

2.2 The total number of representations received was ninety seven (97). Of these, sixty five (65) were against the proposals and thirty two (32) were in support of the proposals.

2.3 All 32 who supported the proposals are current Runnymede hackney carriage drivers. This represents 20.77% of the total of one hundred and fifty four (154) licenced hackney carriage drivers in Runnymede.

2.4 26 of the 32 drivers signed and submitted an identical letter in support of the proposals. The text of the letter is set out below:-

‘Regarding the proposals for the Runnymede Borough taxi ranks in the Runnymede Borough and Egham, I am in full agreement with the locations and would like to see them implemented’.

2.5 The content of the representations are attached for information:-

• Appendix A against the proposals.

• Appendix B supporting the proposals (the remaining 6 drivers of the 32 in support)

2.6 In addition to the representations, we have received a petition objecting to the proposed ranks from Egham Chamber of Commerce. This contains 1729 valid signatures, the majority of which are from local residents or businesses. A small number of entries were not counted (10) as they did not meet the petition scheme criteria. For example, no address given, no signature, or similar.

2.7 The petition prayer states ‘The Egham Chamber of Commerce wish to ensure that there is the maximum amount of short term parking in the High Street to enable customers to visit local businesses and shops. It is proposed by Runnymede Borough Council, to make some of the High Street parking into permanent taxi spaces. This is not a good use of space as many people now call taxis by phone rather than expecting a taxi to be waiting in the High Street. We, the undersigned, wish to advise Runnymede Borough Council that we object to the loss of the short term parking in Egham High Street.’

3. Legal implications

3.1 The proposals were advertised in accordance with section 63(1) and (2) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 part ll. They were published in the Surrey Advertiser on 19 June 2015 and notice was given to the Chief Constable of Surrey. The proposals were then subject to a 28 day consultation period from the date of publishing.

3.2 As the petition amounted to more than 1500 signatories, under the Council’s Petitions Scheme contained in the Constitution the matter must be heard by full Council. This meets on 22 October 2015. However, Officers considered it appropriate for this Committee to consider the matter first and to make a recommendation to full Council.

3.3 The lead petitioner was contacted and gave his approval for the matter to be considered by this Committee first before being submitted to the full Council where the petitioner will have the right to present the petition and speak to it for up to 5 minutes.

3.4 This Committee is asked to make a recommendation to be considered by full Council as part of the debate.

4. Conclusions

4.1 These proposals have generated much local and media interest. It is clear that this is considered to be an important matter by all who responded to the consultation. This is - 6 - V:\agendas\Regulatory Committee\2015\08\Regulatory 170815 Agenda.doc particularly evident in some of the replies which go to some length to demonstrate their strength of feeling and explain their point of view.

(To resolve)

Background papers

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 part ll Surrey County Council – Egham High Street consultation document

7. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

If Members are minded to consider any of the foregoing items in private, it is the

OFFICERS' RECOMMENDATION that -

the press and public be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the report(s) under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that the report(s) in question would be likely to involve disclosure of exempt information of the description specified in the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

(To resolve)

PART II

Matters involving Exempt or Confidential Information in respect of which reports have not been made available for public inspection. a) Exempt Information

(No reports to be considered under this heading) b) Confidential Information

(No reports to be considered under this heading)

- 7 - V:\agendas\Regulatory Committee\2015\08\Regulatory 170815 Agenda.doc Regulatory Committee Monday 17 August 2015

Appendices

Appendix Page no.

A Egham Hackney Carriage Stands – 2 representations against the proposals

B Egham Hackney carriage Stands – 34 representations supporting the proposals

1 Appendix 'A' Representations received Egham High Street Taxi Rank Consultation 19 June- 16 July 2015 (against)

From: Wendy Holmes Sent: 15 June 2015 19:31 To: Nicola Clarke Subject: Re: Taxi Rank Consultation

Thank you for your email, none too pleased to hear that their will be another Taxi Rank in Egham .. why for heavens sake do we need so many when we have one already at Egham Railway Station.

We are already experiencing bottle necks at the mini roundabout near Goodley's Jewellers when Taxi drivers park up by Barclays Bank to drop off fares on the double yellow lines, so per,haps this needs looking into too.

Please bring this to the attention of Licensing Manager.

Thank You once again

Wendy Holmes Resident!NHW

Dear Sir/Madam

I am protesting against the proposed taxi rank site, but not against the taxi rank itself. The high street from the Christian Science Reading rooms up, gets very busy both on weekends and weekdays and sometimes it's difficult enough to park there without removing a further four spaces. The constant flow of taxis will only add to the congestion in this area. I would have though a better location would be outside the fish and chip shop/rumbles or further down the road on the other side where there is an existing layby that is not always fully utilised. The lay by starts by Strode's college and runs up to Dominos pizza.

I have lived in Englefield Green for over 30 years and recently moved down to Old Windsor and I frequent Egham regularly. Often catching a taxi to or from Egham.

Kind regards

Emma

Emma McMahon (Craney)

Space Management Officer

The Estates Department

Royal Holloway, University of London

Egham

Surrey

TW20 OEX

1 Appendix 'A' 2 Dear Sirs,

I would like to object to the proposed conversion of parking bays in Egham High St into Taxi ranks.

I disagree to this plan for a number of reasons:

There are not enough parking bays in Egham anyway, so to take away even more parking bays in Egham High St will serve no benefit to local community, but only favour the most noisy of minority groups. The reduction in parking bays will make parking that much more difficult and only serve to make the area more congested. The reduction in parking bays will have a direct detrimental impact to local business, this will surely be more of a net financial loss than that of any gain. (The High St will be worse off for the loss of High St business outlets than visiting Mini cabs drivers). I believe the position of the proposed Taxi rank is not in line with the best practices of town planning and Egham. They will be in the wrong area. Surely they should be located near to transport hubs, such as the railway station or even at the main shopping centre car park and access1point at the rear of Tesco? (Or even near to local hotels?) The main thoroughfare of the High St, that is in fact closed during the majority of the working day. will be in the wrong place. If you go to the Railway station you will see many Taxis parked up waiting for business. The fact that there are always an abundance of cabs waiting for business clearly shows the ratio of number of cabs in Egham is not supported by the volume of business Egham provides. So to provide even more Taxi Ranks does nothing but have more Taxis sat idly by waiting for business. Had there been excessive queues of customers at Egham station one could argue the business case for more ranks (in the correct location of transport hubs). But there is no clear business case and so no demonstrable need. The use of Egham and it's High St is for us all, the community of Egham. It should not be handed over to the self-interests and financial gain of one small entity.

In summary, please do not allow the lobby power orchestrated by the self-interests and profit demands of Gemini cabs to change the face of our High St into a line of mini cabs. Please do not take away the few parking bays that do exist, but continue to provide it for the whole of the cornrnunity for us all to use and share.

Kind Regards, Mr R. Tappin

I would like to object to the taxi rank parking provision in Egham. It is extremely difficult to park in Egham at the moment. This is not good for the local ecconomy and shop keepers. Sometimes you just want to pop in and park for ten minutes and by reducing the parking spaces available to do this will cause a big problem. The taxis in Egham already drive too fast especially round by the train station I have nearly been run over numerous times. There is absolutely no need for them to be parked in Egham High Street taking up our valuable space. This is not acceptable and must not be approved.

Regards Sarah Prentice

From: Mick Wells Sent: 25 June 2015 13:53 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi Ranks in Egham

My view is to have one only at the Goodleys Jewellers end of the High Stand one only on Church Road somewhere opposite StJohn's Church.

Any more, (in my opinion) than one, will not be used as they won't generate enough fares .... Irs the Egham railway station rank most, if not all drivers will head for.

MickWells

Managing Director

Gemini Cars (Egham) Ltd 50 Station Road, Egham, Surrey TW20 9LF

T 01784 47-11-11 I DO 01784 223950 I M 07800 621901 E [email protected] !I http://www.geminicars.co.uk

3 To whom it may concern

I am writing to lodge my objection to the proposed taxi rank by Goodleys Jewellers in Egham. The reason for my objections are:

• There is limited free 30 minute parking in Egham for short term stops for visiting bank, convenience shops, Building society , chemist, pet shop, Redan Print etc. This parking is extremely convenient and vital for working people such as myself that need to make a short visit to the afore mentioned shops. • There is no bank in Virginia Water anymore and my nearest bank is Egham, Barclays which I use frequently. • This very efficient parking of free 30 mins is a service well served by the local people in the direct and surrounding areas of Egham. • There is only paid parking behind Tesco and underground at Waitrose. • For the elderly it saves a long walk from the main road free parking . • Should you wish to set up a taxi rank then possibly consider the parking bay outside Strode College.

I employ you to consider the hardworking tax payers of Surrey and NOT allow taxis to park in the very small but effective parking bay here in Egham.

Could I please have an acknowledgement of my email.

With kind regards

From: Paresh Lodhia Sent: 28 June 2015 19:40 To: Licensing; Nicola Clarke Cc: Neal Subject: RE: Taxi Rank Consultation

Dear Runnymede Borough Council ("Council"),

I am writing to you in response to the attached Taxi Rank Provision in Egham notice. For over 20 years I have been a business owner and a keen supporter of promoting Egham, but I again adamantly OBJECT to establishing a permanent taxi rank adjacent to 169 to 172 High Street. I am surprised and disappointed at learning that the Council have agreed on the appointment of a new taxi rank as I note from the minutes of the Regulatory Committee meeting dated 4 June 2015 that an identical taxi stand was established in 1992 but was removed "owing to a lack of use", what makes the Council think that this would be any different 20 years on where smartphones and technology make it easier than ever to request a taxi or cab? Surely the Council can see there is very little appetite for such a rank as only 13 of 147 taxi drivers responded to the Council's consultation, and given Egham already has a 6 taxi rank outside the station, surely the Council can agree that this suffices to service the taxi needs of Egham?

The reasons for my objection are due to the wider negative business implications of having these ranks in the High Street as primarily it would reduce the parking spaces available to customers/visitors in Egham and more importantly to my shop. I feel that the considerations of the only retail unit in the parade have not been taken seriously and having done my own research, speaking to local cab companies who are adamant that they will not be having taxi drivers sitting in the bay (for potentially hours on end) to wait for a customer, it would not make business sense for taxi companies who can easily rely on customers phoning for taxis as they have done for years. 3 4 My shop has been established since 1931 and in this climate where business is a struggle I would have expect the Council to promote what will benefit long established business which are the lifeblood of the Egham High Street and moreover the British economy as a whole. The move to add the taxi rank at the cost of parking spaces is counterintuitive, and moreover the Council has shown very little consideration in understanding the needs of the community, business owners and local Egham cab firms, especially those that signed the petition to stop this initiative, did the Council receive this?

Whilst on the face of it and with a limited understanding of the business and the town, adding a taxi rank would add an extra travel option to and from Egham, but in reality I insist the reduction in parking spaces will adversely affect the flow of customers from wider parts of Surrey, reducing Egham High Street's catchment area and consequently the economic prosperity of the town. Furthermore the absence of taxi ranks would not mean the unavailability of taxis in the town, multiple taxi companies operate in the area and are often available for immediate dispatch hence essentially providing the same availability of taxis as a rank would do with increased convenience, without dominating parking spaces and being a hindrance to the prosperity of my shop and more so Egham as a whole.

We often get customers that come to Egham as opposed to other towns solely because of the parking options available to them especially in close proximity to the banks, alongside the inimitable nature of the High Street, and rather worryingly they have suggested they may consider other towns and worse so, shopping centres to fulfil their requirements. Egham as a town needs to take every step possible to ensure the preservation of our High Street and do everything we can to avoid the demise of Egham High Street, which a taxi rank would undoubtedly propagate, as has been the case with other local town high street's across England. A further petition to show local support has been started as the last seemed to be ignored, so please ensure this is taken into account as there is no mention of the last in any of the correspondence or minutes.

I look forward to hearing a positive response that the agreement for a permanent taxi rank in Egham has been scrapped. Please note, should the Council intend to pursue this further I intend to escalate this issue to the local MP, Philip Hammond, who's Conservative Party are likely to empathise with the issues that a business such as mine has and how the state should be doing everything to support such businesses.

Please do keep me abreast of any developments in this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Mr P Lodhia

Goodley's Jewellers

From: Paul Silvester Sent: 27 June 2015 21:28 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi rank in Egham

As an Egham resident, I would like to object to the proposal for a new taxi rank in Egham High Street. We have enough taxi provision. This is unnecessary and we have enough parking issues already.

Paul Silvester

From: Fi Hall Sent: 28 June 2015 12:15 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi rank provision in Egham

I object to the proposed taxi rank in Egham at 169-172 High Street. There is a cab office this side of the station AND a rank at the railway station less than a 3 minute walk.

Parking is 80p an hour, in a small car park. However there is nearly always space in there. A huge amount for so few shops AND there is very limited short term parking already.

4 5 Most people come to Egham by car not taxi AND only want to pop into a shop mostly for 10 minutes. To put a taxi rank in Egham denying us of 4 valuable short term car parking spaces will have a detrimental effect on all the shops in Egham.

Please consider you shops and shoppers not the very few taxi drivers that MAY use it.

Regard Fiona Hall

From: Peter Clark [ Sent: 28 June 2015 22:06 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi rank provision in Egham

I write in opposition to the plan to convert four short term parking spaces in Egham (outside Goodleys Jewellers, the Christian Bookshop and the estate agents) into a taxi rank.

Short term free parking is crucial to the small independent traders in the centre of Egham and there is already huge demand for the limited spaces on offer in the area. I personally object to paying for parking when I just want to get a key cut or collect my dry cleaning and will only do so if I can park for free - services like these are available in big out of town supermarkets as an alternative.

Conversely there is a taxi rank less than five minutes walk away at Egham station and for those less mobile or with heavy shopping, a taxi can be dispatched with a quick phone call to the taxi company and be there in literally a minute.

I'm not therefore sure what exactly what the problem this proposal seeks to fix, but I can see what the potential negative impact will be.

Please consider these representations in arriving at your final decision.

Yours, Peter Clark

Dear Sir I Madam,

I am writing in connection with the above consultation process to register our objection to the proposed taxi rank provision in Egham.

Our grounds for objection are as follows:

Most people commission taxis through mobile phones and other electronic devices. Indeed, the growth of on line companies such as Uber shows that traditional stands are a thing of the past. There is already a taxi rank at the station, some 250 yards away, should there be a need for someone to physically find a cab

Egham shops are increasingly reliant upon encouraging passing trade. The free parking, with a half hour restriction, works well, but sadly there are insufficient spaces. There is no business case for losing four spaces given that there will be no guarantee that they will be permanently occupied at peak time any way

It is vitally important that the council considers the wider economic impact on Egham and has a future strategy for encouraging more people to shop there as a precursor to regeneration.

Regards, Ken Cole and Wendy Timoney

Dear Sir/Madam,

6 The very short term free parking in Egham is extremely useful for quick stops to local trades at the start of the high street and converting the nominated bay for taxis is certainly going to damage local trade.

I am certainly opposed to this plan for a taxi rank, for what it is worth.

The actual policing (parking) of the High Street for people who do not obey the parking time constraints along the entire length, especially the far end near Tesco/Costa is somewhat of a joke with people parking there for the entire day from 07:00 onwards and not a ticket in sight. This has been the case for over a year now. Perhaps that could be addressed also as it would assist those who abide by the stated restrictions in the first place.

Faithfully, J M Forkin

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to express my opposition to a taxi rank being provided in the HighStreet adjacent to 169- 172. I am not aware of any pressing need for people to take a taxi from this location - but there is a need for parking in order to use the shops and banks nearby. I frequently use these parking bays in order to pop into Santander and the Christian Science Bookshop -or indeed to park and walk down to other shops in the town centre. I really cannot think who would wish to use a taxi rank- or expect to find one - here. Taxi ranks are usually at train stations or supermarkets -these are good locations for them. Taking away valuable fre~ parking close to the town centre will adversely affect the local shops and High Street, and I know that people use these spaces on a Sunday to attend the services at the Christian Science Church. The strong voice of a commercial taxi company should not be allowed to override the wishes of local residents and those who use the town and its facilities. I hope very much that the opinions of local residents and those associated with the nearby shops and banks will be heeded and that the short term parking bays will remain, to the benefit of many people in Egham.

Yours sincerely, Suzie Gouldstone (Mrs)

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to you as the business owner of Redan Print (48 High Street, next to Nationwide) and am dismayed at the plan to turn 4 parking spaces (in the bay adjacent to 169 to 172 High Street- next to Christian Science Reading Rooms, Goodleys Jewellers and estate agents) into 4 permanent spaces for taxis.

My customers use these spaces to collect work from us which sometimes can be heavy boxes.

The high street is suffering enough and this will not entice customers to Egham.

1. When people normally need a taxi they ring so having 4 spaces makes no sense at all. 2. There is a taxi rank at Egham station which is about a 2-3 minute walk away from the proposed spaces. 3. Waitrose has a phone that customers can call for a taxi.

I would have thought that Runnymede Borough Council would have wanted to help local businesses but turning these into a taxi rank would do the complete opposite.

Kind regards

Paul Hickman

Managing Director

Redan Print

I am definitely in objection to the parking bay outside the Christian science bookshop, the jewellers and estate agents being turned into a taxi rank. Egham struggles enough with parking especially for residents, and this would affect the local businesses located at the top of the high street. People can get Taxi's quite easily without having to go to a specified taxi rank. How about taking residents into consideration for a change instead of concentrating on potential pound signs!

Mrs Stephanie Bates

6 7 Sir/Madam,

Do we really need a taxi rank at 169 to 172 High Street, Egham. I would have thought the exsisting short term parking facilities would and have been of more use to the local community considering parking is difficult and the propsed loss of some spaces could have a knock on affect on local businesses and shops.

I therefore object to the proposed removal of the parking spaces in favour of a taxi rank.

Sincerely,

L.Turner.

Please note our objection to this proposed plan.

Pam & Ben Garden

3 July 2015

Dear Licensing Department

I am disturbed to learn of the decision to turn the parking bay outside the Christian Science Reading Room at 172 High Street, Egham into a taxi rank.

I collect people from the Esher and Weybridge areas and bring them to use the Reading Room, and also to attend the church services there on Sundays and Wednesdays. They are 'not as young as they were' and it takes a certain amount of time to load and unload folks as near as possible to the CS Reading Room's entrance. It is particularly convenient to be able to park there on Sundays.

We should all therefore be grateful if you would reconsider your decision and retain the space as a parking bay.

Yours sincerely

Sandie Tassell (Ms)

PS. Congratulations to the Runnymede Councillors and staff for the excellent events included in the recent Magna Carta 800 years' celebrations. They were outstanding and great fun.

I object to the taxi rank provision in Egham at the far end of town in the High Street..

The shops in Egham only exist due to it being easy to pop in and buy something from 1 or 2 shops. Nobody actually goes shopping in Egham.

If you remove these spaces then it becomes less convenient to pop to buy that one thing you need, and makes it more likely that one will simply buy what one wants on the internet- killing whats left of Egham bit by bit as more people become used to shopping this way.

Whilst of course there is need for Taxis, why not put them in the Waitrose facility as its most likely that people will go food shopping and require a vehicle to take them home vs at the far end of town.

I think you've got this one wrong.

7 8 Taxi rank yes

Location you've proposed - ill thought out.

DO you not think directly outside Waitrose makes more sense?

Best Regards,

Justin Bowman

The proposal to remove short term parking in the bay adjacent to Goodleys Jewellers is one that I wish to object to in writing.

The station car park has a line for taxis to park within but they are often double banked. They are the chief cause of littering at the station and shower the car park with cigarette butts. Also, it would seem, that there is competition between the local taxi companies and newly arrived ones from futher afield.

There obviously is a need for more ranks but not at the expense of shoppers who wish to use the bank and building society or shops in the high street.

The taxis that vie with each other for custom bring students up and down the hill. The students then go off to London. They bring little revenue to Egham. If Surrey County Council wishes to enhance Egham as an attractive place for shoppers, then this is a retrograde step that mitigates aginst small and successful shops like Goodleys.

I urge you to reconsider this planning application.

Janice Ketley

TAXI RANK PROVISION IN EGHAM

I would like to register an objection to the conversion of 4 short-term parking bays in Egham High Street to Taxi spaces.

The short-term parking in the High Street is already limited. In this age of mobile phones, Uber, etc I do not see the need for taxi rank provision. I believe these 4 spaces will lie empty for a vast majority of the time.

Who has proposed this scheme and what is their rationale?

Best wishes Mickey Lamb

From: Mickey Lamb Sent: 08 July 2015 23:11 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi rank in Egham High St

Further to my objection to this sent earlier, could the Council consider the provision of ONE space initially and monitor this with a few spot checks to gauge the uptake?

Best wishes Mickey Lamb

From: Margaret Quinn Sent: 09 July 2015 07:09 To: Licensing 8 9 Subject: Loss of parking in Egham High st

This is not necessary, there are spaces for taxis at Egham Station! We need the parking outside the ONLY bank left in the area. Totally unacceptable.

Mrs M Quiinn,

From: jbw Sent: 09 July 2015 11:34 To: Licensing Subject: proposed taxi rank, Egham

I have heard of the possibility of a taxi rank outside Goodley Bros., Jewellers, in the High Street. I think this is quite unnecessary. It would also take up four of the small number of parking spaces available to the general public. The taxi rank at the Railway Station is quite adequate for the stationing of taxis, the number of which has recently in any case become quite disproportionate. Most of the time these taxis stand idle. I hope the Council will take my view into account.

John Wilkins

From: Christina Gomaa Sent: 10 July 2015 06:10 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi spaces in Egham High Street

I understand that there is a proposal for 4 taxi spaces near the jewellers and Christian Science reading rooms. I believe that this is too many. To restrict the parking even further is a shame. I believe 2 spaces would be sufficient.

Regards Christina Gomaa

From: Rebecca Atkinson Sent: 10 July 2015 08:46 To: Licensing Subject: Egham Taxi Rank

I'm emailing to submit my objection to the proposal regarding the taxi rank in Egham High Street.

D It's more common to call for a mini cab now that the majority of people have mobile phones. The idea of standing at a rank is antiquated. D Sometimes people need taxis because they've heavy shopping to carry- this is mostly shopping from Waitrose or Tesco. Both sites have alternative entrances where cabs pull up to collect shoppers. The proposed cab rank defeats the object as you'd have to walk the length of the High Street to get there. o The spaces are extremely useful for popping to the banks along there as well as the other shops Thank you for considering my objections

Kind regards, Rebecca Atkinson

From: Christine West Sent: 10 July 2015 08:54 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi rank in Egham high street- outside Goodleys jewellers

Good morning

I think that four spaces for taxis is totally disproportionate- there is a taxi rank at the railway station which is only a short distance away and most people would 'phone for a taxi. There is little enough short stay parking in Egham as it is especially in that particular area.

10 Please do not give permission.

Mr & Mrs West

From: Trisha McKeown] Sent: 10 July 2015 09:10 To: Licensing Subject: Objection to proposed taxi rank in Egham

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed taxi rank in Egham high street.

Trisha McKeown

From: Claudine Harvey Sent: 10 July 2015 09:11 To: Licensing Subject: Car parking spaces in Egham

Dear Sir/Madam

I understand there are plans to convert four of the 30 minute parking spaces in Egham high street into a taxi rank. I cannot think of a reason to justify this as there is already a taxi rank nearby at the station, and Gemini cabs have their office 2 minutes walk away. Parking spaces are already at a premium in Egham & the 30 minute spaces are essential for quick trips to the bank or to drop donations at the Oxfam shop.

Please register my opposition to these plans

Yours faithfully Mrs Claudine Harvey

From: Marie Sent: 10 July 2015 12:39 To: Licensing Subject: Parking Spaces in Egham

Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to ask that the four proposed taxi parkings to be allocated in Egham remain parking for other cars only. There is little or no space to park as it is in the town and to leave these open for possible taxi use is ridiculous. thank you for listening

Marie Pinto

From: Sheila Hatcher Sent: 10 July 2015 16:38 To: Licensing Subject: Proposed taxi rank in the parking area in Egham high street

Dear sirs

We already have a shortage of short term parking in Egham and the loss of this area will only worsen the situation. Surely the taxi rank at the station is adequate

10 11 Sheila Hatcher

From: Michelle Garcia Sent: 10 July 2015 18:10 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi Rank Provision in Egham

Dear Sirs

Please note my objection to the proposed taxi rank in Egham High Street.

Kind regards,

Mrs Michelle Garcia

From: Sent: 10 July 2015 20:45 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi rank provision in Egham

Dear Sir or Madam

I am writing in response to the proposal to remove the short-term parking in Egham town centre in the bays adjacent to 169-172 High Street, Egham and replace with 24/7 taxi bays.

I am a regular member of the congregation at the Christian Science Church, which is in 172 High Street, the same building as the Christian Science Bookshop. I also work during the week in the bookshop. The spaces in front of the bookshop, jewellers and estate agents are important for a quick visit for customers to us and the shops opposite as well as for deliveries, window cleaning, etc. Having done our own research, many people come into Egham to visit the banks, which are all in this section of the High Street, because it is easier for them to park here than in other towns, such as Staines and Weybridge. There is also a quick turnaround in the cars using these spaces and in excess of 100 vehicles use these spaces during the day.

On Sunday mornings, we use these bays and the ones opposite for our congregation, especially as a few of our attendees are unable to walk any distance and need to be dropped off or park in front of the church. We have been unable to have parking o our own. Losing the use of them would be a major inconvenience for the Church.

Having spent many years working in Egham, it has become clear to me that taxis are required near Tesco and Waitrose. I park at the back of the Tesco car park and I frequently get held up getting to my designated space by a taxi parked by the crossing, blocking the narrow access road outside the rear entrance of Tesco, while the passengers and shopping are loaded! That is where bays for taxis are needed. The same applies to Waitrose, where I have seen taxis waiting in the pick up bays in their car park. This is especially important as taxi spaces were removed when the building of Waitrose started. Why are the council not putting these spaces back?

Having these 4 bays as a taxi rank was passed in 1992 and then removed in 1995 due to lack of interest by local taxis. We already have taxi bays at the station and more spaces there than many stations around the area. These bays will be empty for a large part of the day. Most people now use phones to order a taxi, not pick them up like a Black Cab, so what would be achieved? Nothing positive, I believe.

It strikes me that the Council is intent on making life more difficult for businesses in Egham to survive, by cutting off passing trade as well as regular customers, who need just 30 minutes or less to pop in to one or two shops or visit the banks and use the ATMs. All the ATMs are at this end of the High Street, except for the ones at Tesco and the Post Office, both of which are inaccessible to drivers during the day as they are inside the pedestrian area of the High Street. If Runnymede Council really want to discourage people from visiting Egham, it appears that you are going the right way about it. Everyone, without exception, who has parked in those bays and to whom I have talked is against the proposals. The vast majority were unaware of the proposals until local businesses informed them.

With the proposed closure of the High Street on Sundays as well, the ATMs at Tesco and the post Office will be only accessible on foot during the busiest part of the day for the whole week, compounding the problem.

Losing those 4 bays will not just have a major effect on the adjacent businesses but the ones opposite and further along the High Street in both directions, such as the dry cleaners (Panache), banks, printers (Redan) and Budgeon. This area already has more cars needing to park briefly, than it has spaces and will only lead to more congestion and frayed tempers than at present.

11 12 I also cannot understand how the Council can make a decision based on the request of 13 out of 147 taxi drivers. What happened to a democratic majority?

One solution to providing more spaces for taxis might be to allow them to park in the High Street, near Tesco, and have access through the gate when it is pedestrianised, i.e. 11am-4pm. Another would be to put spaces in Waitrose, Precinct Extension and Hummer Road Carparks.

I sincerely hope that these proposals do not go ahead as so many local people are opposed to them.

Yours faithfully

Joanna M Bowley

Sent: 10 July 2015 21:28 To: Licensing Subject: Egham Taxi spaces - Objection

I am writing to object to the proposal for 4 spaces to be assigned to taxis outside the Christian bookshop. Taxis already have parking at the station and outside Waitrose which is pretty central to town. I do not see the need for spaces a so many different locations. If all the taxis are in one place (sensibly the station) then people will know where to find them and taxis will not need to be covering 2 areas.

Regards

Louise Milner

From: carlsen-jones Sent: 10 July 2015 21:41 To: Licensing Subject: Parking for taxis in Egham

I would like to object to the proposal to make 4 of the parking spaces in Egham High Street re designated as a taxi rank? ( The four outside the jewellers, the Christian Science reading rooms and the Estate Agent).

Thousands of people use these spaces to park for 10 minutes or so to visit local shops and banks so it would be ludicrous to take this use away.

Kind regards Sue Carlsen-Janes

From: Gary Cooper Sent: 10 July 2015 22:16 To: Licensing Subject: Loss of parking spaces in Egham

Parking is already at a premium so the loss of four to taxis is unacceptable. There is a taxi rank at the station.

From: stephenback Sent: 10 July 2015 17:40 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi rank Egham High Street

I wish to register my objection to the proposed taxi rank in Egham High Street.

12 13 There are few enough spaces already without taking away 4 for taxis which won't get used during the day. Why not have an evening rank only.

Steve Back

From: Shirin Ahmed Sent: 10 July 2015 23:28 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi ranks

I strongly object to converting parking spaces in Egham into taxi ranks. It is most inconvenient and there are already taxi stands in Egham Station. Please reconsider your proposal as it will become difficult for locals like us and old people who come to the High Street to use banks. Thank you Shirin Ahmed

From: Philip & Heather Hall Sent: 11 July201512:31 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi rank provision in Egham

Sir,

I am writing to register my disagreement with the provision of new taxi ranks in Egham, outside Goodleys Jewellers and Christian Science Reading Room.

In my opinion these are unnecessary provisions. Should I require a taxi in Egham the Gemini office in Station Road is within easy reach, and if I were less mobile (as is my wife) I or she would telephone for a cab instead of struggling to the end of the High Street to find one.

My other objection is that at present it is relatively easy to find a short term parking space at that end of the High Street and in Station Road. Removal of four spaces will reduce that availability and convenience. This again affects those drivers with mobility problems, and will also undoubtedly affect the traders in that area.

These taxi bays were removed in 1995 because of lack of use, according to the Council's website, and I feel there is no case for their reinstatement.

Yours faithfully,

Philip Hall

From: Rich Corcoran Sent: 11 July 2015 15:43 To: Licensing Subject: Re: Egham High Street- proposed taxi rank

Dear Sirs,

Please accept this e-mail as a protest against the current proposal to introduce a taxi rank to the High Street in Egham.

13 14 I am a local resident (home address is 41 Rusham Road, Egham, Surrey, TW20 9LP), and see the need for the current parking spaces as being much greater than the need for a taxi rank.

The end of the High Street in question has many business premises (banks, convenience stores, barbers) that need short-term parking for quick visits, so I do not see the benefit of sacrificing some of these parking spaces for taxis when taxis are available at Egham station.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you need any further details.

Kind regards,

Richard Corcoran

From: Rita Fanning Sent: 11 July 2015 18:28 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi rank egham

I wish to oppose this as the parking in Egham is already insufficient. Roy Fanning

From: Joan Cauldwell Sent: 12 July 2015 13:05 To: Licensing Subject: Egham Taxi rank

Dear Sir

I understand that there is a plan to put a taxi rank in the bay outside Goodley's in Egham. This would have a harmful effect on businesses in that area, which are already struggling for survival.

There are many taxis in the station car park, and most people now have mobile phones, so can order a taxi easily.

Please consider the local traders who need customers. If people are unable to park for short periods they may well go somewhere else.

Regards Joan Cauldwell

From: Mark Adams Sent: 12 July 2015 21:27 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi Rank Provision In Egham

Dear Sir,

14 15 We are writing in relation to the proposed taxi rank in Egham High Street and wish to register our objection to the proposal on behalf of Chamber members and local businesses.

The town has endured a torrid time in recent years due to the Waitrose development, and changes made to parking arrangements by Surrey County Council, leading to a reduction in the availability of parking spaces for short term visitors. It has led to people looking elsewhere to utilize shops and services. Egham Chamber have a mandate from its members to explore all avenues possible to ensure that the town and local businesses are as accessible to as many visitors as possible, leading to a healthy and vibrant town.

We do not feel that losing four short term parking spaces for use by taxis will help visitors or the businesses they wish to use. The report made by the Licensing Officer indicated that spaces had been made available before which were not used and there is no "overwhelming support" for this proposal.

We have consulted with the Managing Director of a local taxi firm and he does not feel that the rank would be used, he has also confirmed that how people access taxis has changed and there is no requirement for a rank anywhere other than the railway station. The use of mobile telephones has resulted in people booking their taxi in advance and agreeing a time and place to be picked up. We are not aware of people wandering around the town looking for a taxi.

There is a provision for taxis at Egham Railway Station and outside the new Waitrose store. It is also possible for taxis to collect customers at the rear of Tescos. With the need to maintain and increase visitor capacity we do not feel that providing additional spaces solely for the use of taxis can be justified.

You will be aware that a number of businesses have had customers sign a petition against the proposal which will be delivered under separate cover. The petition demonstrates the strength of feeling amongst local people regarding this proposal and access issues generally which impact the town.

We will be pursuing a review of parking provision in the town with Surrey County Council, in the meantime we hope that the proposal for a tax rank is rejected by the Licensing Committee.

If you require any additional details please let us know.

Kind regards from Mark Adams, Chairman, Egham Chamber of Commerce

Phone:07756 199286 Email: [email protected] Website: www.eghamchamber.org.uk Address: c/o Strodes College, Egham TW20 9DR

From: Rosalind Robinson Sent: 13 July 2015 10:15 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi rank provision in Egham

Dear Sir,

I wish to object most strongly about the proposed taxi rank provision in Egham Town Centre for the following reasons:

The high street needs as many free 30 minute slots for visitors as possible, this is important for the visitors and the businesses in the high street. To reduce this. At all both parties will suffer and probably the traders the more so, as visitors will go elsewhere.

Taking out the entire bay for a taxi rank would have a huge detrimental effect on the traders in the immediate vicinity in particular.

In the 21st century taxi ranks are only required at stations, everywhere else everybody else uses phones to call for a taxi, when required.

As your minutes show, the taxi drivers themselves are not requesting the taxi ranks.

15 16 The rank would not be located where people are arriving with heavy shopping or luggage.

The supermarkets have phones linked directly to a taxi firm and so taxis can be called when required.

Your minutes show that you have already received a huge number of objections

I would suggest a maximum of one place, but ideally none.

Kind regards,

Rosalind Robinson

DipPFS Certs CII(MP&ER)

Focus Financial Planning, Runnymede Malthouse, Malthouse Lane, Egham, Surrey, TW20 9BD.

Tel: 01784-741156, Fax: 01784 741272, Mobile 07976-230835

From: Ross McFarlane Sent: 13July201514:15 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi Rank Provision in Egham

Ross McFarlane

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to you to object to the proposed replacing of the four parking spaces outside Goodley's Jewellers & The Christian Science Church & Bookshop in Egham High Street

I feel these drop in parking spaces are invaluable for motorists to freely access Egham Town & losing these would have a detrimental affect on the wellbeing of Egham's many businesses

We're fortunately moving away from the draw of the 'out of town' Superstores & the High Street is making a strong comeback

With the addition of the new Waitrose store & the Travelodge, Egham is feeling revitalised & I'm sure this mood will continue therefore less parking provision is clearly a regressive action

I and many others do not believe there is any significant demand for a taxi rank, most people have their preferred Taxi company programmed into their smart phones & there are numerous pick up & drop spots right now to cover that

There is genuinely strong public opinion against this new proposal & I would therefore ask you to reconsider & reject this idea & instead embrace the increased flow of drop in traffic to Egham

You will see in the weeks Surrey Advertiser the residents & businesses of Englefield Green are lobbying for an increase the half hour parking limit in Victoria Street which I also fully support

Clearly there is significant demand to support our local businesses & towns such as Egham, Englefield Green & Chertsey who shine in comparison to Staines & they should be helped in their quest to 'Bring Back The High Street'

Thank you for considering my objection

Yours Faithfully

Ross McFarlane

16 17 From: Librarian, Egham Sent: 13 July 2015 17:06 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi rank provision in Egham

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have posted you a detailed letter regarding the removal of the parking bay outside of 169-172 High Street Egham, including some suggestions of where you could provide spaces which would be logical and in the right place, which this is not.

Just in case the letter did not arrive, I wanted to make sure that our church and bookshop was represented as objecting very strongly to these proposals. Not only will losing the parking spaces outside our church severely inconvenience our eld,erly congregation on Sundays, but will have a negative impact on all the town traders.

Yours sincerely,

Judy Macpherson, Librarian

(Letter received and reads as follows)

Christian Science Reading Room, Egham 172 High Street, Egham, Surrey, TW20 9Ej Tel: 01784 475002email:

Dear Sir or Madam

We're very grateful that Robert Smith, the Licensing Office'r came around at the end of June to alert us to what was going to happen, as well as putting the notices on the lamp posts.

This is now the third time we've written about the parking spaces outside our church and bookshop, expressing our objection to them being removed, not only because we particularly need them on Sundays, with an elderly congregation, but also because of the impact their removal would have on all the town's traders. Since the opening of the Two Rivers Retail Park in Staines, trading has been quite difficult in Egham- you have only to see the number of shops that have closed, with charity shops taking their place to realise this. It went downhill again very dramatically when we lost the parking spaces in the Precinct car park due to building Waitrose and we were just starting to recover, with people returning to the town, when this bombshell hit us!

One of the reasons that people use Egham (and we've been speaking to many shoppers from outside Egham during the past weeks) is that they can park for free here. Rather than taking away parking spaces, what is needed to make the town more vibrant and affluent, is more parking- and free for longer hours so people could stop, have a coffee or meal and also browse the shops, that they don't do with only half an hour's free parking.

The drivers we have spoken to have all been outraged and none of them had any idea this was happening. One wrote on Streetlife.com that the Council is out of touch with the needs of the community and we feel that he or she just summed it up.

When we bought this building in 1995, the area outside our church was a taxi rank, but it was always empty and we were overjoyed, when, just before our first service, a notice appeared in the paper saying that the taxi rank was to revert to parking because of lack of use. Interestingly, just after we had written in objecting to these plans last Autumn 2014, taxis started blocking the space on Sundays mornings (normally there is not a car around before 10 am) but thankfully that didn't last long.

17 18 Since this latest notice went out, we have again noticed taxis driving around, though they can seldom park as the places are almost continuously filled with shoppers and people wanting to use the A TMs. When there have been taxis there, we have watched, but have never seen a single one hailed by a person on the street, which shows that this is not the right place. For people to hail a taxi, the rank should be at a station or outside a supermarket. Otherwise, calling them by phone is the normal way it is done these days.

18 19 Of course the taxis need somewhere to drop off and pick up. There is one space outside Redan Press that could be marked for this purpose alone. There could also be one or two spaces made in the Waitrose street level area. With a hotel there too, that would make sense. I have never seen all the disabled spaces filled.

Tesco could also be asked to provide a taxi space near their back entrance. And what about providing cabs with a magnetic disk (you could charge) which would open the gates during the pedestrianised hours, so they could use the parking spaces in the High Street outside the two supermarkets?

Also, there are now empty spaces in the former Precinct Extension car park. Having spaces for taxis to park there (which is all they would be doing outside 169-172 High Street) would seem to make up for the spaces they lost due to the building of Waitrose and the hotel.

Looking at the minutes of the Regulatory Committee on 4th June, 2015: 2.16 It is surprising that out of 147 drivers who were consulted only 13 replied. This may indicate that there is not such a demand within the trade for new ranks and that the Council is being pushed along the road to establishing new ranks at the behest of a vocal few.

So, despite the fact that there are thousands of people living in and around Egham and probably hundreds parking every day (totally unaware of these proposals) "at the behest of a vocal few" (12 taxi drivers out of 147), is this unwanted and un-needed taxi rank still going to be imposed to the detriment of the town?

The point is that Egham businesses, residents and visitors were never given the option of no taxi stand, with the previous consultation. Someone had already decided to impose one- is that democratic? How had so few taxi drivers (who do not pay business rates) managed to have such a strong influence on the committee?

Egham does NOT need a taxi rank at this end of the High Street, a long walk from the supermarkets. If this gets pushed through, it will cause more congestion, more frustration and people will go elsewhere and Egham will start dying again.

Please re-think and give us more free parking, not less!

Mrs Judy Macpherson, Librarian Christian Science Reading Room, 172, High Street, Egham

(The above also submitted a Jetter of objection in her own right as an Egham user, this is show below)

From: Judy Macpherson Sent: 15 July 2015 10:55 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi rank provision in Egham 1 169-172 High Street

Dear Sir or Madam, I work in Egham, am a member of the Egham Chamber of Commerce, I shop in Egham, attend church in Egham and have my dentist in Egham and am very much opposed to the council removing 4 very much needed parking spaces in the non-pedestrianised area, that are in constant use. 19 20 In the public consultation on the retention of pedestrianisation and the provision of taxi ranks in the High Street both in 2014 and earlier this year, no choice was given to Egham traders, residents and visitors of NO taxi rank. Someone had already decided that there had to be one. This is really undemocratic, given that Egham businesses have been struggling to exist for the past years (really since Two Rivers). It seems from reading the committee minutes that a few taxi drivers pressurised someone on the committee into complying with their demands and the needs of the Egham community (particularly traders, paying business rates, which taxi drivers do not) were ignored. You only have to read the comments on Streetlife.com to get a flavour of how people feel about this imposition.

I remember when the spaces were a taxi rank before 1995. They were always empty, so were changed into parking spaces. Taxis need a parking space while they wait for their phone calls- and that is ill!_ that this area will be -so why not give them some parking places in the former Precinct Extension car park now that the residents have moved out of there? Taxis these days are always called by phone, so they can be based anywhere, the one exception being a railway station and to a lesser extent, being based outside of a supermarket and hotel may generate trade, but not a long walk away from the supermarkets. They will never pick up passing trade outside 169- 172 High Street.

Taxis need a drop off and pick up space. There is one space outside of Redan Press. That would be an ideal solution if it was designated for taxis only. Alternatively, give taxis permission to drive through and park in the pedestrianised area.

People gave up coming into Egham when the Waitrose/hotel building was taking place because it was so difficult to park. This is going to cause huge problems in that area of the High Street and Station Road North. If the Council wants to kill off the trade in Egham, they have chosen the right path. Why not support the town, rather than damage it?

Yours sincerely, Judy Macpherson,

20 21 From: Geoffrey Sent: 13 July 2015 19:29 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi Rank provision in Egham

Dear Madam or Sir

I originally moved to Egham in 1985, living in Stroud Road, and it naturally became my shopping centre and a place to visit, eat out and enjoy. I later moved but continued to use Egham however in more recent years those visits have become far fewer and unfortunately parking issues are the reason. I used to use a physiotherapist and dentist in Egham and visit shops on the High Street but that seems to just become increasingly difficult. I stopped almost totally once the construction of the Waitrose store caused a complete closure of that car park.

Although I am now an irregular visitor to Egham, I understand the frustration of both businesses and customers who use the short term parking spaces at this end of the High Street, discovering that they will be converted to a taxi rank, thus losing four more short term parking spaces.

On the occasions that I have driven into Egham it is noticeable that there are far more cars wishing to park for less than 30 minutes than spaces and this causes congestion for everyone. Taking four more of the spaces will increase the problem and dissuade people from coming into Egham altogether. The banks and cash machines are at this end of the High Street, making it ideal for many people to 'pop in' for just a few minutes, visit a bank or some other facility then easily leave. I attended the meeting last year with the first suggestions for the regeneration of Egham -so much for that, as the Council seem intent on putting as many obstacles as possible in front of the local businesses.

The churches in the High Street (yes there is more than one!) rely on these spaces on Sunday mornings for parking for senior members of their congregation who cannot walk long distances- I know I have been there. I have used the jewellers by the parking spaces, the dry cleaners across the road and several other shops in that locality. This is convenient for just a few minutes to drop off or pick up. Other people must do the same with Santander, Nationwide (I use), Barclays and NatWest.

Removal of these parking spaces will impact badly on these businesses and cause major inconvenience as well as adding to parking frustrations of the local community. The underground parking at Waitrose is not the same, it takes too long to get in, sort out parking and get out again so is not a viable short term parking option for many people

Why is the council intent on reinstating these spaces after the original attempt at using them as a taxi rank sometime back in the 1990s? They were so underused then they were returned to short term parking! On this basis plus learning that in a recent survey or whatever it was, only 13 taxi drivers out 147 who were asked if they were needed said yes, why this perverse decision?

My democratic solution is simple. I will never visit Egham again if these four spaces becoming a parking spot for taxis so they can have a coffee in between the telephone bookings they almost certainly rely on for business. One less supporter of business in Egham thanks to this illogical decision. Makes you wonder who else benefits from saying yes - not the local businesses, not the local community.

Geoffrey Laycock

22 Re: Proposed Taxi Rank in Egham High Street

Dear Mr Smith,

I am writing with regard to the proposal for a 24-hour taxi rank to be established in the existing parking bay adjacent to 169-172 High Street, Egham, recently approved by Runnymede Borough Council.

As a member of the Christian Science church at 172 High Street and a worker at our church's bookshop on the same site, I wish to lodge an objection to this proposal.

As other traders in this stretch of the High Street have also noted, turning this parking bay into a permanent taxi rank will have a detrimental impact on local businesses and services. Parking in central Egham is in very high demand and this four-space parking bay, with a 30-minute time limit, gets a great deal of usage daily from customers of the nearby shops and businesses - upwards of 50- 60 cars per day on weekdays, especially during the hours when the main part of the High Street is closed to cars.

Our bookshop staff and neighbouring businesses have, over the past few weeks, handed out copies of the taxi rank proposal to visitors parked in this parking bay as well as across the road, to alert them to the potential loss of those four parking spaces. These visitors' responses have been overwhelmingly against the proposed taxi rank.

As well as providing valuable short-term parking for customers of local businesses (including our church bookshop) during the week, these four spaces are used by members of our church at 172 High Street for our Sunday worship services, when there are no time limits on parking. Several of our members are elderly and find it difficult to walk long distances or cross a busy street unaided, so having this parking bay directly in front of the church is very important to them.

While taxi services are certainly a vital part of Egham's business district, having a permanent rank for four of them in this particular location would be completely counter-productive. With the increasing use of mobile phones over the past couple of decades, the majority of customers no longer go looking for taxis parked in the street - they phone to book one to come directly where they are. As I understand, this very same parking bay actually was designated as a permanent taxi rank in 1993, only for this designation to be removed two years later due to lack of use. If a taxi rank in this exact location was not viable 20 years ago - when taxi bookings by mobile phone were less common - how could it be viable now?

It is well known (and has been reported in two local newspapers) that the decision to establish this taxi rank was made with very little support even from local taxi drivers. It clearly goes against the wishes and interests of many local Egham businesses and their clients. Could the Council please take these facts into consideration and find an alternative to the current proposal?

One sensible solution might be to designate a few parking spaces in the Precinct Extension car park (nearest to Waitrose) and/or the Hummer Road car park (nearest to Tesco) as a taxi rank. Being closer to the major supermarkets, these areas would be far more convenient for taxi users with large amounts of shopping than the parking bay outside 169-172 High Street, a few hundred yards' walk from the supermarkets.

Another alternative that I believe has been proposed is to make the single space outside Redan Print (48 High Street) a 24-hour pick-up and drop-off point for taxis. Either of these ideas would serve the needs of taxi services and their users without the harm to local businesses (and waste of much needed parking spaces) that would result from the proposal as it stands.

I sincerely hope these views and those of other business owners and customers in Egham will be taken into account by the Council before any final decision is made on the proposed taxi rank.

Many thanks for your attention and consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Miss Courtenay Rule 22

23 From: ian Macphersen ] Sent: 14 July 2015 08:10 To: Licensing Subject: Parking in Egham

I visit Egham regularly and was angry to hear that there are plans to change the four parking bays by the Christian Science Reading Room and jewellers into a taxi rank. This is utter stupidity as it is already difficult to find parking in Egham. What is more, had it not been for a few astute members of the public and local press this deceitful action would have quietly taken place.

I hope that honesty and common sense prevail and this idea is dropped.

Regards,

Visitor to Egham

From: MARK SULLIVAN Sent: 14 July 2015 09:40 To: Licensing Subject: "Taxi rank provision in Egham

Dear Sir? Madam

I would like to put in a submission to my objection to the proposed taxi rank in the High Street outside Goodly Jewellery shop. The first point I would like to make is why there was no yes or no question in the recent consultation document to see if people even wanted a taxi rank in the High Street. This suggests that decision had already been made to install a taxi rank. Secondly I even question the need for a taxi rank in the High Street, there are there is the taxi rank at Egham train station and I believe some spaces in the Tescos car park. In this modern society people use mobile phones to call a taxi to come and pick up where they are located. It seems sensible to me that if needed more space should be created on the outskirts of town for them to park which will give them quick access to the High Street when required. As I run a business in Egham, I am seeing the constant erosion of short term parking spaces that businesses need to thrive, this cannot be allowed to continue. The consultation clearly said there was no legal right from the council to supply a Taxi rank in that locations and that it will do damage local businesses, this decision makes no sense end must be overturned. Egham Town needs a thriving High Street to attract more visitors to the town who can then call taxi drivers on their mobile phones if required, if these spaces are continually taken short term visitors Egham will decrease causing a massive loss of turnover for local businesses. I have spoken to some local taxi drivers who have indicated to me that that position is not where they want a Rank anyway, but the very fact that so few reply to the consultation indicates to me that there is no demand from them anyway.

They complain that historically there was a Rank there in the 1990's , but i would like to say that back then there was substantially more short term parking in Egham as a hole to support the local businesses.

Please take these points into consideration when making your decision and i believe you will see that The Taxi Rank is the wrong option for Egham.

Many thanks

Mark Sullivan

24 From: kathleen croft Sent: 14 July 2015 10:51 To: Licensing Subject: Taxis in Egham.

Dear Sir,

I do not live in Egham but sometimes just need to pop in for a very short time so find the street parking very useful. I object to Taxis being given preferential treatment over the residents and others who support the shops.

The loss of streetiparking means just one thing ! More MONEY for Runnymede , giving nothing free to anyone!

Kathleen Croft

From: kathleen croft Sent: 14 July 2015 10:57 To: Licensing Subject: Taxis In Egham

I do not live in Egham but I find the street parking very useful when I just pop into Egham very quickly. I find it appalling that Taxis, will be given priority over residents and shoppers who keep towns going do we want another town to start closing down, and losing all of the shops.

Emily Langley

From: Geoffrey Sent: 13 July 2015 16:02 To: Cllr Gail Kingerley; Generalenquiries; Cllr Alan Alderson; Cllr John Edwards Subject: Taxi Rank provision in Egham - end of High Street

Dear Madam or Sir

The churches in the High Street (yes there 1s more than one!) rely on these spaces on Sunday mornings for parking for senior members of their congregation who cannot walk long distances - I 24

25 know I have been there. I have used the jewellers by the parking spaces, the dry cleaners across the road and several other shops in that locality. This is convenient for just a few minutes to drop off or pick up. Other people must do the same with Santander, Nationwide (I use), Barclays and NatWest.

From: Fay Lock Sent: 14 July 2015 16:05 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi Rank Provision in Egham

Dear Sir/ Madam, I am writing to object to the proposal to remove the existing short term parking bay adjacent to 169 to 172 High St, Egham.

The reasons behind my objection follow:- 1) I am mystified why you would consider this a suitable place for a taxi rank. Most people who need a taxi would be either in the restaurants/ bars in the centre of the High St, and this location is really not a convenient place to walk to. In addition, most people will have a local taxi number on their mobile phone, and would have no requirement to look for one. Gemini Taxi company is a few hundred yards away, and there are usually taxis in the car park at the railway station anyway.

2) Why is there a need for a 24 hour operation?. As far as I am aware, everything closes before midnight, and the trains also cease running. Who is going to use them?

3) There is apparently strong opposition to your scheme from the local Traders who are directly alongside this lay-by, and they are concerned that it will affect their business. This place is handy to stop for a short period to use the Jewellery shop, the Banks or the convenience store.

4) I assume that there are flats above some of the shops too. How is the noise that these Taxis and their drivers make going to affect them?

Overall, I feel that this is an unnecessary and pointless proposal, which ultimately will bring little additional benefit to the people of Egham and it's surrounds.

Yours faithfully,

Fay Lock (Mrs)

26 From: Maureen Bartlett Sent: 14 July 2015 22:25 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi rank provision in Egham

Thank you for your document "Taxi Rank Provision in Egham" (mid June 2015) in reply to my response to Runnymede Council's Taxi rank consultation exercise.

As previously, my response is no- I do not agree with the proposal to remove the existing short term parking in the bay outside 169-172 High Street, Egham.

These four short term parking spaces are vital for many people and are well-used by those visiting the Christian Science church (including me, every week), the nearby shops and the banks- and for quick trips further up the High Street. The parking spaces opposite and in Station Road North are also well used. Because they are for short term parking only, I would suggest that many of those drivers who are currently using these spaces would be unlikely to go into one of the car parks, resulting in a potential loss of trade for local businesses.

Even with these four spaces currently allocated to short term parking, it is sometimes necessary to circle several times before one becomes available.

It would seem more appropriate to position any taxi ranks in the pedestrianised area of the High Street, nearer to the larger supermarkets. Shoppers with several bags of groceries, for example, are more likely to want a taxi nearby - or to phone for one, either using their mobile phones or the dedicated telephones in some supermarkets. Please also reconsider reinstating the taxi parking spaces in the Precinct Extension car park, or to give provide spaces behind Tesco, for example.

Many thanks.

Regards, Maureen Bartlett

From: AJ LOCK Sent: 15 July 2015 08:42 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi Provision in Egham 169-172 High Street.

RBC,

I regularly use the car parking spaces you wish to re-allocate to taxis. They provide an alternative to the other Pay & Display car parks, for quick access to the shops and banks. In particular all the banks and building societies in Egham, are by these spaces.

On that basis I object to the cab rank plan. I believe it will place pressure on the remaining car parking spaces and adversely effect the traders that will be effected. In addition cabs already congregate by the station, if anyone needs one.

Surely it would make more sense to expand he existing station cab waiting area, thus centralizing and increasing the likiehood of finding a cab (for anyone who does not have a phone).

Yours faithfully,

Antony John Lock

27 From: Judy Macpherson Sent: 15 July 2015 10:55 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi rank provision in Egham 1 169-172 High Street

In the public consultation on the retention of pedestrianisation and the provision of taxi ranks in the High Street both in 2014 and earlier this year, no choice was given to Egham traders, residents and visitors of NO taxi rank. Someone had already decided that there had to be one. This is really undemocratic, given that Egham businesses have been struggling to exist for the past years (really since Two Rivers). It seems from reading the committee minutes that a few taxi drivers pressurised someone on the committee into complying with their demands and the needs of the Egham community (particularly traders, paying business rates, which taxi drivers do not) were ignored. You only have to read the comments on Streetlife.com to get a flavour of how people feel about this imposition.

I remember when the spaces were a taxi rank before 1995. They were always empty, so were changed into parking spaces. Taxis need a parking space while they wait for their phone calls- and that is §ll_that this area will be - so why not give them some parking places in the former Precinct Extension car park now that the residents have moved out of there? Taxis these days are always called by phone, so they can be based anywhere, the one exception being a railway station and to a lesser extent, being based outside of a supermarket and hotel may generate trade, but not a long walk away from the supermarkets. They will never pick up passing trade outside 169-172 High Street.

Yours sincerely, Judy Macpherson,

From: Yasmin Tompkins Sent: 15 July 2015 12:23 To: Licensing Subject: Loss of Parking Spaces in Egham to a New taxi-Rank!

I have found out about this through website residents' messages promoting the petitions on this matter. I am writing to support the petition against the proposal that means losing public parking spaces for a taxi-rank that I'm not sure who the beneficiary is supposed to be. I've heard the local taxi firms aren't especially interested in them either! We pay an enormous amount of Council Tax that should enable us to be free to move from our homes in Egham locally, to get on with every life essentials including supporting our local traders without being penalised every time for owning or using a car! It's rare enough anyway to get one of the 30min spots when one needs to. How can this help small traders and prevent empty shop-fronts? This change will make matters worse! feel very strongly about it as the Council seems only interested in making money for every conceivable opportunity whether it's ethical or not. Residents seem to be a nuisance or a money-making opportunity. Life is stressful enough as it is even in such a small town!

Mrs Tompkins

28 From: roger alleyne ] Sent: 15 July 2015 13:38 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi rank provision in Egham

I would like to object to the 4 parking bays being turned into a taxi rank, as there is already a shortage of free for 20 minutes short stay parking in and around the high street.

Regards Roger Alleyne

From: Gill Adourian Sent: 16 July 2015 10:33 To: Licensing Subject: No to new taxi rank

Dear Sirs

Now that there are no banks in Virginia Water, I often have to visit Egham to visit the branches there. My visits are usually very brief and I use the spaces you are now planning to convert into a taxi rank. I would be very unhappy to see these spaces taken away and do not see the necessity.

Yours faithfully

G E Adourian (Mrs)

From: Gillian Crewdson Sent: 16 July 2015 15:14 To: Licensing Cc: [email protected] Subject: Taxi Rank Provision in Egham

Dear Sir I Madam

I have just read in the Staines Informer about the latest daft idea from Runnymede Council to get rid of free parking places in Egham High Street in favour of a taxi rank.

Are you all anti shoppers and anti business at the Council? Surely whatever makes life easier for shoppers is best? The shop keepers need to do business to keep Egham High Street thriving. Many people, myself included, go to Egham grab a parking place and nip in and out of e.g. Budgens or Santander or the jewellers.

There is ample provision for taxis at the station or anyone can call a cab if they need it.

Please reconsider.

Yours faithfully

Gill Crewdson

29 I see the absence of the idea of a rank outside Tesco in the High Street seems to have been abandoned and as I did say earlier this did not make a lot of sense as it would be inaccessible during the core times when shoppers are in the High Street but it is closed to traffic.

The proposed rank for four taxis outside 169 - 162 High Street I think will come under fierce opposition as there are traders there who will clearly want to have those spaces for their customers and also being a 24 hour rank there will be residents also complaining.

·And it's not really in the right central place for the shoppers.

A while back you were almost getting to the place where it really would benefit shoppers and actually cause no complaints from businesses and also residents.

This started offwith two very well hidden TAXIS ONLY spaces in the Hummer Road car park next to DF glass designs and was used primarily to store their rubbish containers. And no public signage!

Then, seemingly overnight, these two spaces migrated to almost the middle ofthe car park still with no way for the public to find them. In fact one space seemed to be occupied almost permanently by a black London taxi every time I walked through the car park.

Then these two spaces mysteriously disappeared just as mysteriously as they had appeared.

But alas the will to move just slightly further to the place where a rank would greatly benefit the public was never made or even considered and that is where taxis and PH vehicles pick up almost constantly -the rear of Tesco and a very difficult and dangerous place to load shopping as the roadway is very restricted and taxis I PH vehicles always park on the crossing- even I am guilty ofthat. But who will want to cart all their shopping up to the proposed new rank? So why not lao k at placing a rank at the rear ofTesco? lthas more going for it than the proposed siting:

1. Itis VERY central for both Waitrose and Tesco

2. Easy to signpost along Town Lane

3. A pedestrian crossing already exists

4. Covered by CCTV already

5. No opposition from residents I businesses

6. It's a place shoppers already use to call taxis to pick them up.

30 7. No disruption to traffic flow

Just move the Mother and Baby spaces one row back so then easy access in to rank in line and easy access out right tum through the car park. Easy and SAFE to load shopping as well. The only opposition I perceive would be from the Mother and Baby brigade but there again I have never understood why they need to be so close to stores anyway - disabled yes of course. Take another look, you were getting quite close last year!

Simon Hayden EGHAMTAXIS

31 •.'-.

. -~~-·---~ .....-----·

1J JUL 2015

32 - - (()JJ§tt@m~r §ervi~e§

1-4· JUL 2015

Runnymede Borough Coundl fl-u""'"':~("--~ 5oo-d L::o, '-'"'--<.- ~ r ......

]).~ ~ L ;.___5 To.~ Ro.vJ'( 1-h:,tS l ~,;" ·,"" %lcwr-,

f\- 'S \'-\,tL. <2'_ ?v .e:__\./ L 0 0 .5 \'-·6\.r.>\._j-<:' ( "-- \-l e"_

~he\"-- S\--, '-'-'>"'-':> ~ll-=t ~I LD.G-k

C> ~ u .s ~ \ "'- ~ .q GL 5" \:-l.e_ ~~-a ~\- fLq_ IL- "'7

\- f'<2-- l ~? t-o.1~ Cb v..:; tL ( ~.:s. <.:> l b- l ~ 0

\--\-... e_ s ().<.."""" €_.. " ·ToLJ•<.. ,t.::S ~~~ 1'\....t....~ ~e.DJ....r l-e.----66=

C\,~ Lv 0-: &- .--6 ~

+l ~M.::S o;y- \, ~ c-b v \.oll./ 0-'L.~ -us. L~~ OL.. ~he>~; " ,( I ~ $ ~.,_,_d b ,_,:_ -0 I~ ~ ~ ""-- l-w L ~ i ,,ll II ex_ w e..G?..--1'< c~ olo 1\._ol:--- d i--~ ~e..- --> o Y l l ' [I us .;z__ ~ 1.- s .c--- k... i'\._0 ~ \~La.._ p~ (o (S-;IV"L.-":> '" ,I )I sl:;...... c_yL..-11~~ ,' 1 I! !j '•'

33 Sent: 06 July 2015 18:35 To: Licensing Subject: Taxi Rank Proposals in Egham Appendix 'B'

Please note that I am in favour of the new rank proposals for Egham. Mark Thomas HC007

From: Leon Belsom Sent: 06 July 2015 17:14 To: Robert Smith Subject: Egham rank

Yes taxi rank is good idea

Leon

From: Marc Burchell < Sent: To: Robert Smith Subject: Re: Taxi forum and rank consultation

Good afternoon Mr smith I would be in favour of the new taxi rank Thank you Marcburchell

Sent from my iPhone

From: Belcher Taylor Sent: 07 July 2015 07:26 To: Robert Smith Subject: Re: Taxi forum and rank consultation

Yes I do what taxi rank

Sent from my iPhone

From: Andy Canham < Sent: 06 July 2015 17:22 To: Robert Smith Subject: Re: Taxi forum and rank consultation

Dear Robert,

I would like to support the new rank in Egham.

Many thanks,

Andrew Canham DR2017

34 Appendix 'B' .------~~~~K~-~-~e. ~e~~~~ Customer Service~

.. I· 4 ... ". 20~5 i

Rtifift}itllede Borough CouncH ~------·~~==·:::.:...·----~----,, ~

;(H.Jo("-\a.\-\o~ *'~ ~ ~\~~\~

--\""-'-~ \e..~"2. ,\> a..._ ~e~re':!::.ek~C..~\~1--.\. ~~ ~ ~~"j:~ Q.x:\N..\(1

16 q ·- VI Q \ f-\.~- \::. ~- \\~ ~\,' <.?.\-r 81.\- e1Q ~&. m, ""'-' ~ \ '{'-::\_ ~\:, ~ <-.:J

~~"12.~ \C~~\~ c.. +~x; (G..~\( ,\-.~\;- tJ\R_.o

\\,~\--.w\~~ 'I C t..\.\~,~Q. V\((~V~().. f.~

''""'A-')C\_ ~ ~'---~... ,~~(>Q , s '0..-f'P R..c:s,Cl Mo..:~\ e..~ , stt-- 11 c.~~e.~c\

8()..ci{ '{\,_-l?_~ c..c-~ \\.._~.:\- U ~f\(_ ~ Fl>.'k~ j M-e.c\.~ 'A\~0-.. 1 ~

o..te. -\-~("e.Q..

~~e...\~or~..Q_ c_~ ~,Me_\\ ~ ~\~,M..'-e.o \.,_QJ,_~"'< ~\.)'-

~-\C:\..;~~ Ch\ "\..s, \,.\.~~~~~ ~,S, \.; 0A.\\\ S\J-..{{e~ c._,c_,

-~e_{'€. \ ~ Q>., (_)Q..-\-\~o ~ 'te'~~ ~(ou.."-"cl Q)..~m.'~"7i-

fu .-+f-\.r-· ; r <:\ N.V

'\\GA..~e 0.,~ \~ ~'f> C:>~ \\.o 0~\\~\ ~ N-. ,1 ~·Q:('SON.-3 ~V;tJ -:.:l'~<~~~:,'f.·''' -~·"'·

35 ~d .\-c.D ~\ ~N ·"\""d; f>~\\~ ~ 1----\ Ql-.~ \Jef ~ U.N\\ 'K\~'()

K:'<' o t0 o---~~ f'f€..\.J\ cu..~ "-\ ~\e>r~ ~~o:.\- o._ -\ ~--j-·, 1e..'N-.\(

~ c-.-\ ~\~ '--~'j~ \:,~ ~€__Q,~,J "h ~~(!)) ~ ~'fl 'C){l.\\Je~ ~ catv~ ~Q-..dz.~~ ~(2:. -\--~~~ ls en-..'-~ ~L"-< ~~Cll...c~ ~ r-0- c..\--.,.>Jc..\-. \o~~ c__~< \)o3\z ~e.~ ~ 'f\-~ f~((\Q...CQ_d

~..~-T--e"f' '\-\..o l}~\ra~ d-€\.re.\cYfiM'LN.~ w;~ N-..o o~.el

8\.\t~ '('\.(j.__-\ \ \1 •..e, ;;>

~GL\.\ '?;. ~ ~~C,Qj\ -Q_~

"::, • ?\-€.\;,..b-Q. .~-At~J. ~ \<2..\\e.e_ ·(,+~(!J..Q_".e_~ ~CJi'C\ \'-\" f-e:\--e~ ~\N~S

'{),';:,',?:,\\-c.._ 'N..~ c "''Q._ .Q.. -e~ec_~~ ~ '-€. ,

36 IJunnY-mede , ~~ ..

16 January 2013

Mr, 13· ,§t!~sant

Oear Mr; Bessant,

Taxirank·spacesin:Pre«;!nctC~r Park~ Egham.

~ thank· you-for your Jetter date~-15. ·Januartclr~wlng to my ·~ttentiori the loss bf the three taxt .spaces in the above car park, caused b~tthe corin;nehcement of the re(fevelopmenfto form a Waitrose food store and 'fraveJodge Hotet

1confirm. tf:iat 1have: c:o.ntacled the. developers to ask about the incorporation of taxi parkin·g spaces into .the completed 5Giieme and have suggested that either some of the disabled persons parking bays outsid~ thE:i sfore might be used for this ·pllrpos~. or alternatively put to dlial use for either taxis or disabled per$ons~ The ·developer has replied indicating that he will address this. question to the various qeve)opmeht partner~fand respond to me. ···--· ...... •, .. . .. ~-----~-.-- ··------...-~ .... ------···-· ______------,~---··· ·-~·· '·--~ ------In the interim,. whilst the·deve,lopment progresses, 1 have. asked mY Car Parking Manager and Ucensing staff tcJ liaise about the possible designation of (qf!d for taxis· within the area around the Hummer Road car park, which w1JJ become the main. car park for Egham town ~entre. 1am hopeful that we will be able to finc.t a l:lllitabl~ location Which wlli meet the reasonable needs of the trade.

Thank$ you again for letting me know about this problem and I hope thatwe can find a mutually suitable resolution to thi~ {3hortly.

Yours sincerely, R~ Peter Sims Director of Technical Services.

e-mail [email protected] Tel: 01932·42.5100

cc. K. Elmer;· •.

Runnymede.Borough·GoUr)Cil, Civic Certtr'e! Station Road; Acldlestone; SUrrey; KT15 2AH Tt:>l· t11 W~? J~~R~Rq l=::iv.' :o1 Cl~? R~~~R4 ~MIIM rnrinllmt:>rlt:> nnv 11k \Anhlllit rr lnn\lm~::>rlA n·A,,. ttidt:>nt:~w~ 37