Appendix D - Representations from Perth Taxi Association
Perth and Kinross Council · 6 October 2025
Back to Licensing Committee — 6 October 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
1 Karen Engelberts Licensing Manager Legal & Governance Services Perth & Kinross Council Dear Ms Engelberts Unmet Demand Survey Response on behalf of Perth Taxi AssociaƟon 1. We write to provide a wriƩen response to the current consultaƟon being conducted by Perth & Kinross Council (“PKC”) on the subject of unmet demand for taxi services. We provide this response by way of leƩer rather than using the online consultaƟon portal. 2. We refer to our earlier wriƩen response to the consultaƟon. A number of legal arguments were set out in our earlier response. For the avoidance of doubt, we stand by those arguments but, in the interests of brevity, we do not repeat them here. 3. We note (and appreciate) that you have sought to respond to a number of the issues raised in our earlier response, but the updated report and Q&A document from LVSA does not deal with all of the issues and certainly does not deal adequately with those it seeks to address. Indeed, the addendum to the report illustrates that we were correct to note that the report is (and remains) flawed and is not a proper basis on which to proceed. 4. For the reasons set out in this response, it remains our view that the LVSA report (including the addendum and Q&A) (the “Report”) is fundamentally flawed and unscienƟfic in nature, meaning it does not provide a proper or raƟonal basis on which to proceed to determine whether there is unmet demand in Perth. It is therefore our posiƟon that you should refuse to give any weight to the Report, and you should determine there not to be any significant demand for the services of taxis in their area which is unmet for the purpose of secƟon 10(3) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.
Page 2
2 5. We invite you, on that basis, to find that there is no need to issue any addiƟonal taxi licences. The Report is flawed 6. It now appears to be accepted by PKC that the Report requires to be properly considered and not simply accepted at face value. It is essenƟal, therefore, that the considerable and material deficiencies in the Report are acknowledged by PKC. A failure to face up to those deficiencies by PKC would render any decision open to legal challenge. 7. We begin by making some general comments in relaƟon to the unscienƟfic nature of the report and then, in the interests of ease of comprehension, the remainder of this response follows the order of the Q&A document. UnscienƟfic CalculaƟon/ Failure to Explain 8. The Report seeks, at its heart, to draw a comparison between the 2024 data and the data in 2017 or someƟmes (seemingly interchangeably and arbitrarily) with the 2021 data. 9. The ISUD calculaƟon is crude in its nature. Read short, it is a series of numbers which are then mulƟplied together to give an “ISUD figure”. That figure is then assessed against a benchmark figure of 80. It is unclear why that figure is chosen. 10. Given that the numbers are mulƟplied together, one or two of the numbers being arƟficially inflated will, as a maƩer of basic mathemaƟcs, skew the end result. 11. One of the numbers used is the “Percentage of passengers travelling in hours with average queue of over one minute”. It is recognised in the Report that “For the 2024 survey, average passenger delay was 1.23 minutes (1 minute 14 seconds)”. Bearing in mind that LVSA accepts that the Report was prepared on a very short “snapshot” basis,
Page 3
3 the “Percentage of passengers travelling in hours with average queue of over one minute” is set at 40 in the ISUG calculaƟon. 12. Self-evidently, if one of the figures in the calculaƟon is set at 40, it is already rendered all but impossible for the end ISUG figure to be below 80. Seƫng the figure at 40 because the waiƟng Ɵme was, on average and during the very short snapshot window, exceeded by 14 seconds (as opposed to the 2021 data where the waiƟng Ɵme was said to be, on average, over 2 minutes) seems to us to be a material misrepresentaƟon of what the data really shows. 13. It is clearly misleading in the extreme to use an arbitrary cut-off of 1 minute when the average waiƟng Ɵme figure is over that figure by such a small amount. Nowhere in the Report is it explained properly that, but for the 14 seconds on average, the percentage figure in that line of the calculaƟon would be zero. Because of how the calculaƟon works, if that figure had been zero, the end result ISUG figure would have been zero (ie mulƟplying anything by zero produces a zero). By any reckoning, zero is materially below the benchmark figure of 80, and the Report would have had no basis on which to suggest there was any unmet demand at all. 14. Bearing in mind the other flaws with the data set out below alongside (i) the very limited window, (ii) the very small amount of data, and (iii) the fact that what data there is appears to have been gathered by aƩaching a camera to an arbitrary selecƟon of taxi ranks, and (iv) the general subjecƟvity inherent in the calculaƟon, the ISUG value is simply not capable of being relied upon as a standalone basis on which to make a decision such as this. 15. PKC has been presented with a figure (ie the 40% figure) which would have been the same for the purposes of the calculaƟon whether the 40% of relevant passengers had been travelling in an hour with a wait of 90 minutes or with a wait of 90 seconds. Given the incredibly small margin by which the average exceeds the 1 minute threshold, it was incumbent on LVSA to have explained that to members and to provide them with other worked examples so that they are able to make an informed decision on the data.
Page 4
4 16. The failure to do that is misleading at best and, given the material effect that PKC has been told this decision will have on the livelihoods of taxi drivers, it is essenƟal that that factor be given significant weight. The Railway StaƟon Rank 17. The above flaw with the Report is exacerbated by the aƩempt by LVSA to explain away what is, by any reckoning, a material error in having used data from the Railway StaƟon rank. The Railway StaƟon rank is not a rank that is capable of being used by all taxis. That has now laƩerly been accepted in the addendum to the report, but it is noted as follows: “It is the view of LVSA that all locaƟons where taxis commonly wait for fares, including formal ranks, informal ranks and ranks on private grounds, should be included in an unmet demand the assessment. Taxis which wait at informal locaƟons and private ranks are not available at other locaƟons, including public ranks.” 18. It is unclear in the extreme what relevance that statement has to the ISUD calculaƟon. For example, there is no line in the equaƟon which takes into account how many taxis were waiƟng at the staƟon whilst there were none at another rank where passengers were waiƟng. It seems to be an aƩempt to explain away a material error in the Report. 19. The Report sought to use data from a rank at which only selected taxis can collect passengers to suggest that the whole of Perth requires more taxis. The backtracking aƩempt to say “it would not have maƩered anyway” belies the wholly subjecƟve and unscienƟfic nature of the calculaƟon. 20. In effect, the addendum and Q&A indicate that the data is arbitrary. As long as LVSA are able to demonstrate that they witnessed a percentage of people waiƟng at any arbitrarily chosen rank for longer than 1 minute (even if, as here, by only a few seconds), the ISUD calculaƟon will inevitably suggest that there is unmet demand. It is a wholly unreliable report, made worse because of the selecƟve and subjecƟve manner in which it has been carried out.
Page 5
5 21. That PKC has failed to recognise the material deficiencies in the Report is clear by the parroƟng in the Q&A of the aƩempted explanaƟon by LVSA. That is a material error which must be recognised and acknowledged because it undermines the credibility of the Report as a scienƟfic exercise. LoŌ Rank, South Street 22. The explanaƟon of the manner in which the data from this rank has been used makes no sense. It is wholly incredible in our experience to suggest that there were no rank hires or waiƟng taxis. 23. This rank is well used, and cars regularly queue there from approximately 11pm when the rank is open. That suggests to us that one of two things has happened: (i) the data has not been analysed correctly, or (ii) the data is wholly unrepresentaƟve of the usual manner in which that rank operates. In either of those cases, the data in the report has been skewed to a material extent. 24. Again, there appears to be no explanaƟon in the Report of the manner in which small changes to the data could have considerable effects on the ISUG calculaƟon. The Report is misleading in that it gives to PKC members a false impression of the extent to which the conclusions are (i) supported and (ii) definiƟve. WaiƟng Times 25. The Q&A gives a misleading indicaƟon of what the data suggests on waiƟng Ɵmes. 26. Whilst the Report concludes that “The average waiƟng Ɵme for all passengers who had to wait for a taxi during the 2024 survey was significantly longer than the observed average wait Ɵme during the 2017 survey, of 2 minutes and 8 seconds”, the reason for that is enƟrely clear if one looks back to the preceding paragraph. That preceding paragraph notes as follows: “The maximum wait Ɵme observed during the 2024 survey was 39 minutes 30 seconds.”
Page 6
6 27. It is, again, a basic maƩer of mathemaƟcs that, if an outlier figure of that nature is included in the average, it will skew the figures. On a proper scienƟfic basis, that clear outlier figure (assuming it to be accurate) should have been discounted from the calculaƟon of the average. Otherwise, the snapshot nature of the exercise gives an enƟrely misleading view of the underlying reality. 28. We do not have access to the underlying data but it seems to us enƟrely like that, if the outlier figure had been discounted, the 2024 average would have been significantly reduced. That would have been a fairer and more balanced comparison figure to use. 29. That this is not explained in the Report is a significant concern to us. It indicates that the Report sets out to prove a pre-determined conclusion rather than following the data in a fair and scienƟfic manner. It is essenƟal that PKC recognises this flaw. 30. In any event and by any reckoning, the snapshot data from 2024 is now considerably out of date. There is a very real limit to which it can possibly be taken to be representaƟve – if ever it was. It is our posiƟon that a new survey ought to be carried out, on a more scienƟfic basis, in order to get a set of data that is more accurately representaƟve of the reality in the city. Period of Survey and Sample Size 31. We enƟrely appreciate that proporƟonality must be factored into the carrying out of these exercises. That being said, the effect of a decision premised on flawed data will have a disproporƟonate effect on the livelihoods of exisƟng taxi drivers in Perth. It is, therefore, incumbent on PKC either (i) to ensure that the period is long enough to provide a representaƟve snapshot, or (ii) to use a shorter period but to adjust the figures to remove outlier results which skew the data. 32. It seems to us that neither of those things happened here. Instead, a very short period of Ɵme was used and a very small data set of consultaƟon responses, which has created a completely unrepresentaƟve data source, and a wholly unscienƟfic approach has been
Page 7
7 taken whereby the black and white snapshot data is not adjusted to make it more representaƟve. 33. Simply noƟng that “seasonal variaƟons are taken into account” does not resolve the issue. If, for example, as noted above, a single passenger has an extremely unusual waiƟng Ɵme, that will affect the whole of the data set. It is, therefore, important to prevent that from happening or at least to present the data with a spectrum of possibiliƟes. Instead, the Report presents the data as black and white. That is a very serious error which must be taken into account. Inconsistent comparisons of populaƟon data 34. There remain issues with the populaƟon data and how it has been used. It is insufficient to suggest, as is done in the Q&A document, that it is not pracƟcable to make comparisons on a zone-by-zone basis. 35. The reality is that we are talking about taxi licences for a specific zone in Perth. We are not talking about the whole of Perth and Kinross local authority area. We previously made the point in our earlier response, but we repeat it here as conƟnuing to be a concern to us. 36. Much is made of the licensed vehicle per 1,000 populaƟon in the Report, but the populaƟon figure used on page 2 is 153,810. That is the total populaƟon of Perth and Kinross. The Report does not collect data over the whole local authority area. It focuses only on Perth City. In the 2022 census, Perth City had a populaƟon of 47,893. This is all informaƟon readily available on the council’s own website1 so there is no reason why it would not have been available to LVSA. The reliance on the larger populaƟon figure to exaggerate the raƟo of vehicles to populaƟon is misleading at best. 1 hƩps://www.pkc.gov.uk/arƟcle/15093/PopulaƟon-and-the-Census
Page 8
8 37. Again, this is a flaw that PKC is required to take into account. It makes the Report an unreliable basis on which to make the decision that PKC is being asked to make. Effect on exisƟng drivers 38. One very relevant factor to the decision-making process must be the extent to which the decision will affect exisƟng drivers. The Q&A notes baldly: “It is likely that 24 addiƟonal licences would influence both demand for taxis and supply of taxis. It is unlikely that the introducƟon of 24 new licences would result in 24 licences leaving the fleet.” 39. That statement is not made on the basis of any data as far as we are able to tell. PKC has shown no interest in the issues that are affecƟng exisƟng taxi drivers without adding to those concerns by puƫng in doubt whether their business will even remain viable. We menƟon, in parƟcular, the increasing level of anƟ-social behaviour and violence faced by drivers in their taxis. AddiƟonally, the increasing level of non-payment and passengers booking with more than one company and failing to cancel the booking, resulƟng in wasted journeys for the drivers. PKC may be aware that, for example, Police Scotland is taking up to four weeks to respond to any reports of non-payment. The overall working condiƟons for drivers at the moment are very difficult for a number of reasons. 40. As a result of the new condiƟon that all new licences must be wheelchair accessible vehicles, PKC is increasing the cost for new intrants whilst diluƟng the revenue stream into which they are entering. There is no data that suggests that, on a large scale, there is a demand for wheelchair accessible taxis that is going unmet. It appears to be a soluƟon in search of a problem. 41. The taxi industry in Perth does not need diluƟon; it needs help. There has been no consideraƟon of that at all throughout this process. Use of earlier consultaƟon responses
Page 9
9 42. We understand it is the intenƟon of PKC to have regard to the previous responses received in relaƟon to the earlier stage of this consultaƟon. Whilst we take no issue with that in principle, it is incumbent on PKC to have regard to the iniƟal response having been made when there was no opƟon to select “no change”. Therefore, given that anyone who completed the first round of this consultaƟon by way of online response had to select either 24 new plates or unlimited new plates, the number of people to made that response will be materially overstated. It is impossible for PKC to know how many of those people would have selected “no change” if that opƟon had been available to them. 43. It will, therefore, not raƟonally be open to PKC to rely on those numbers. 44. AddiƟonally, we are aware that a number of people responded to this extended consultaƟon with a request that their laƩer response supersede what they had said previously (when certain outcomes were not available opƟons). We are aware that a number of those people asked for confirmaƟon from PKC that their earlier response would be disregarded, but no such confirmaƟon has yet been given. Unless a second response incorporates the earlier response, PKC should not be relying on the earlier response. Conclusion 45. For all of those reasons, it is our view that there is no proper basis on which it can be said that there is significant unmet demand in Perth City. It would be wholly irraƟonal of PKC to rely on such a flawed report and such an inadequate consultaƟon process as providing any lawful basis for an alternaƟve determinaƟon. The Report should be recognised as being unscienƟfic and misleading, and should be given no weight at all in the decision-making process. 46. There is no need for the current maximum number of taxi plates to be increased, and we accordingly invite PKC to refuse to permit any further plates to be issued.
Page 10
1 Karen Engelberts Licensing Manager Legal & Governance Services Perth & Kinross Council Sent by email to:- civiclicensing@pkc.gov.uk Dear Ms Engelberts Unmet Demand Survey Response on behalf of Perth Taxi AssociaƟon 1. We write to provide a wriƩen response to the current consultaƟon being conducted by Perth & Kinross Council (“PKC”) on the subject of unmet demand for taxi services. We provide this response by way of leƩer rather than using the online consultaƟon portal because, as set out in more detail below, it is our view that the online version of the consultaƟon is parƟal, unfair, and fails to comply with the requirements of a lawful consultaƟon. 2. This response makes the following three broad representaƟons which are expanded upon below: a. PKC has misdirected itself as to the nature of the LVSA Report from December 2024 (the “Report”) in that it regards itself to be bound by it. b. The Report is flawed and should not be followed. c. The consultaƟon has not been conducted lawfully, and the outcome appears to be pre-determined. 3. In the interests of clarity, those three representaƟons are dealt with separately below. MisdirecƟon in relaƟon to the Report 4. We provided to you some comments on 5 May 2025 in relaƟon to the flawed nature of the consultaƟon. By response on 9 May 2025, you said the following:
Page 11
2 “As the survey indicates that there is a significant demand which is unmet, the Council now has no legal basis on which to refuse an applicaƟon for a taxi licence in Perth City on the grounds that it exceeds the exisƟng limit.” 5. That statement is incorrect as a maƩer of law. You will be aware that PKC as the licensing authority must comply with the provisions of inter alia secƟon 10 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. That includes secƟon 10(3) which requires the licensing authority to consider whether it is saƟsfied that there is no significant demand which is unmet. 6. A statutory power of decision-making must be exercised by the person on whom the power has been conferred and not deferred to another person: Shahid v Scoƫsh Ministers 2016 SC (UKSC) 1. PKC is not permiƩed, therefore, to abdicate responsibility by saying that, because the report reaches a conclusion, PKC is bound by it. That is not correct. PKC is under a duty to analyse and consider the report, and to quesƟon its analysis, before ulƟmately coming to a view of its own in relaƟon to significant unmet demand. 7. In doing so, it is a requirement that all relevant factors be considered: cf City Cabs (Edinburgh) Ltd v City of Edinburgh District Council 1988 SLT 184. In these circumstances, the representaƟons made during this consultaƟon are one such relevant factor in order to gain an understanding of the actual experience of those who use and operate taxis in Perth. It is impermissible to restrict the consultaƟon arƟficially as if certain opƟons are no longer open to PKC when that is not, in fact, the case. 8. We deal in more detail below with the issue of pre-determinaƟon in relaƟon to the adequacy of the consultaƟon which also touches on this issue but, for the purposes of this secƟon of this response, it is clear that you are simply incorrect to say that the Council now has no legal basis on which to refuse an applicaƟon for a taxi licence in Perth City on the grounds that it exceeds the exisƟng limit. Such a statement is a feƩering of the PKC’s discreƟon, meaning any decision taken in reliance on that statement is liable to challenge.
Page 12
3 9. PKC is not bound to accept the conclusions of the Report. The Report is flawed and should not be followed 10. Having established below that the Report requires to be properly considered and not simply accepted at face value, we set out in this secƟon the manner in which the Report is flawed. 11. The Report is premised on a single 72-hour period between Thursday and Sunday. It must be seen and understood in that context as a snapshot which cannot possibly be indicaƟve of the whole experience of taxi users and operators. Similarly, the data collected come from only five taxi ranks as is made clear at page 8 of the report. Of those five ranks, one is them is not capable of being used by every taxi, and no account appears to have been taken of the fact that certain ranks (because of their locaƟon) will be busy at different Ɵmes. A rank outside a supermarket will not be busy at the same Ɵme as a rank outside a nightclub. Taxi drivers are well aware of when the train staƟon is likely to be busy and will plan accordingly. 12. Separately, despite the Report suggesƟng that the rank at The LoŌ nightclub was surveyed, that rank was not surveyed at all. That is a major flaw and makes the data within the Report wholly unreliable. 13. We take issue with the enƟrely unscienƟfic method by which the data has been recorded. The Report notes that: “Surveys were undertaken using video cameras which recorded acƟvity at the ranks from Thursday to the following Sunday morning. The video footage of each rank was processed to assess the level of usage of each rank and to record any incidences of passenger waiƟng. Footage was recorded from 7:00 on Thursday 20th June 2024 to 7:00 on Sunday 23rd June 2024.” Put another way, LVSA has aƩached a camera to each rank and then observed the footage later. There was nobody from LVSA at the ranks when the data was being
Page 13
4 collected. This is problemaƟc for a number of reasons. It is impossible to take account of what may have been happening in the local area at the Ɵme of collecƟng the data if nobody was there. A road being closed because of an incident off camera would simply not be capable of being taken into account in the assessment of the data because LVSA would not know about it. That notwithstanding, the report does go on to make assumpƟons and to state them as categorical fact on occasion. A parƟcular example at page 9 is as follows: “It should be noted that not all passengers observed waiƟng for a taxi, actually boarded a taxi. 40 intending passengers leŌ the ranks in frustraƟon, having waited at the rank for a taxi to arrive.” 14. People leave a taxi rank without geƫng into a taxi for all manner of reasons. They may have arranged a liŌ with a friend, decided not to travel at all, or decided to travel later. To suggest without any foundaƟon whatsoever that 40 passengers leŌ the rank in frustraƟon is not possible when LVSA did not have anyone there to speak to the people and ask them. That such a comment is made in the report is indicaƟve of the report seeking to provide a basis for a finding of unmet demand rather than scienƟfically carrying out a survey in order to see what conclusion is reached. 15. Separately, the comparisons with 2017 and 2021 are not apt. The habits of the public have fundamentally changed since the covid-19 pandemic. The Report makes a passing reference to that changed behaviour in the execuƟve summary, but then goes on to pay it no aƩenƟon at all when comparing the figures: “Clearly, the way in which taxis operate has changed. The way in which people hire licensed vehicles has also changed, with more people prebooking hires for immediate travel.” 16. Seeking to draw comparisons with the manner in which people used to use taxis is not comparing like with like. The 2017 data is simply too old to be at all useful, and the use of the 2021 data also appears to be wholly arbitrary and inconsistent throughout the
Page 14
5 report. For example, if one has regard to the comparison figures used in the ISUD value on page 54, it is noted that: “For the 2024 survey, average passenger delay was 1.23 minutes (1 minute 14 seconds), this compares with the 2021 survey, when the average passenger delay was 2.17 minutes (2 minutes 10 seconds).” But, when one looks back to page 9 when those averages are being discussed, it is clear that the 2024 average figure is of that for all passengers, including those who did not have to wait whereas the 2021 figure is that for only those passengers who had to wait. Had the proper comparison figure been used from 2021, it would have been 3 minutes and 25 seconds, showing a considerably longer wait in 2021 than in 2024. No explanaƟon is given by LVSA for this arbitrary use of non-comparable figures. 17. There are real and material issues with the methodology adopted by LVSA. Much is made of the licensed vehicle per 1,000 populaƟon in the Report, but the populaƟon figure used on page 2 is 153,810. That is the total populaƟon of Perth and Kinross. The Report does not collect data over the whole local authority area. It focuses only on Perth City. In the 2022 census, Perth City had a populaƟon of 47,893. This is all informaƟon readily available on the council’s own website1 so there is no reason why it would not have been available to LVSA. The reliance on the larger populaƟon figure to exaggerate the raƟo of vehicles to populaƟon is misleading at best. 18. Separately, there is no reference at all in the Report to the difference between a lack of cars on one hand (which does not exist) and a lack of drivers on the other. This is a substanƟal oversight within the Report. ConsideraƟon really needs to be given to how a lack of drivers links to the current or proposed number of plates. Furthermore, there is a confusion in the Report about the current number of plates. The 80 plates currently issued include two cars that are necessarily held in reserve. Those two cars are really 1 hƩps://www.pkc.gov.uk/arƟcle/15093/PopulaƟon-and-the-Census
Page 15
6 now in abeyance and not on the road. They should not be counted among the cars said currently to be on the road. 19. Furthermore, two significant numbers in the ISUD value calculaƟon on page 54 are the 25.3% of weekday off peak hours, and the 40% of passengers with an average wait of over a minute. In relaƟon to the first of those, because of the snapshot 72-hour period over which the report data was collected, that can only refer to off peak Ɵmes on the Thursday and Friday. Fridays are, of course, significantly busier than other weekdays but, more generally, a two-day snapshot is an unscienƟfically short period of Ɵme over which to assess data if one is then going to seek to extrapolate a figure like that one. In relaƟon to the second figure, the average wait of over 1 minute was 14 seconds. It is clearly misleading in the extreme to use an arbitrary cut-off of 1 minute when the average waiƟng Ɵme figure is over that figure by such a small amount. 20. Both of those figures skew the ISUD calculaƟon on page 56 to such an extent that it is effecƟvely rendered pointless. In parƟcular, because the figures in that table are mulƟplied together to give the total, even a relaƟvely modest reducƟon in the 40 figure (ie the second figure discussed above) would have had a substanƟal and material effect on the boƩom-line number. The ISUD figure has, unfortunately, been rendered all but meaningless because of the arbitrary approach that has been taken by LVSA to its calculaƟon. There is, therefore, no evidence – or certainly no reliable evidence – of any unmet demand let alone any significant unmet demand. 21. That must, therefore, lead to the conclusion that there is no need for any addiƟonal plates to be issued at all. Given that possible opƟon was omiƩed from your online consultaƟon, we are only able to make that representaƟon in this manner. Inadequacy of the consultaƟon process 22. This final secƟon deals with the inadequacy of the consultaƟon process as a maƩer of law.
Page 16
7 23. If a public body chooses to consult on a maƩer, it is required to do so lawfully. In R (Coughlan) v North and East Devon Health Authority [2001] QB 213 at §108, the English Court of Appeal determined as follows: “It is common ground that, whether or not consultaƟon of interested parƟes and the public is a legal requirement, if it is embarked upon it must be carried out properly. To be proper, consultaƟon must be undertaken at a Ɵme when proposals are sƟll at a formaƟve stage; it must include sufficient reasons for parƟcular proposals to allow those consulted to give intelligent consideraƟon and an intelligent response; adequate Ɵme must be given for this purpose; and the product of consultaƟon must be conscienƟously taken into account when the ulƟmate decision is taken.” 24. Those principles derive from the decision in R (Gunning) v Brent LBC [1985] 84 LGR 168 and are usually known as the “Gunning principles”. Whilst they derive from an English court decision, they are regularly referred to and applied in Scoƫsh courts: eg Cains Trustees (Jersey) Limited and Cains Fiduciaries (Jersey) Limited as Trustees for the Eastgate Unit Trust [2024] CSOH 80. They are, therefore, a good summary of the broad principles that will be required in order for any consultaƟon process to be lawful: (i) consultaƟon must be at a Ɵme when proposals are sƟll at a formaƟve stage, (ii) the consulƟng authority must give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit of intelligent consideraƟon and response, (iii) adequate Ɵme must be given for consideraƟon and response, and (iv) the product of any consultaƟon must be conscienƟously taken into account by the decision maker. 25. The adequacy of the consultaƟon process is an inherent element of procedural fairness and the sufficiency of the legal inquiry that is carried out: R (Help Refugees) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] 4 WLR 168 at §90. 26. The consultaƟon being undertaken by PKC is in breach of the Gunning principles. It is clear that PKC has determined that the status quo will not be considered and, instead, it is simply a maƩer of how many new plates are to be issued. The consultaƟon is therefore not being conducted when the proposals are at a formaƟve stage. That is
Page 17
8 evident from the first page of the online consultaƟon where one cannot move beyond the first quesƟon without selecƟng an increase in the number of plates. 27. Separately, PKC is required to provide details not just of the general proposals but of what factors are likely to be of substanƟal importance to the decision and the basis upon which the decision is likely to be taken: R (Eisai) v NaƟonal InsƟtute for Health and Clinical Excellence [2008] EWCA Civ 438 at §66. No such details have been given to permit of intelligent consideraƟon and response beyond poinƟng out the flaws in the Report as set out above. 28. It is also apparent that PKC has closed its mind to the opƟon of maintaining the status quo. Again, that is evidenced from the online consultaƟon form. Pre-determinaƟon is a form of apparent bias: Miller v Health Service Commissioner for England [2018] PTSR 801 at §§57 and 66. 29. PKC has closed its mind prior to the making of the decision and is unwilling (and indeed has made the online form such that no aƩempt can even be made) to be swayed no maƩer what evidence is provided, and any decision that follows is therefore likely to be unlawful and subject to challenge: R (Lewis) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council [2009] 1 WLR 83 at §96; Electronic Collar Manufacturers AssociaƟon v Environment Secretary [2019] EWHC 2813 (Admin) at §140. Conclusion 30. For all of the reasons set out above, it is our view that there is no proper basis on which it can be said that there is significant unmet demand in Perth City. It would be wholly irraƟonal of PKC to rely on such a flawed report and such an inadequate consultaƟon process as providing any lawful basis for an alternaƟve determinaƟon. 31. There is, therefore, no need for the current maximum number of taxi plates to be increased, and we accordingly invite PKC to refuse to permit any further plates to be issued.
Page 18
9 We would, of course, be willing to discuss any of the issues raised in this response. AddiƟonally, we look forward to having the opportunity to make oral representaƟons to the council in due course. Yours sincerely