Agenda item

To set out the draft revenue budget for 2021/22 including fees and charges.

To seek approval for the draft budget and draft fees and charges schedule prior to submission to the Councils in accordance with the Inter-Authority Agreement.

To seek approval for the recommendation to revise the fees for licences issued under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018.

To seek approval for the recommendation to revise the fees for Houses in Multiple Occupation issued under the Housing Act 2004.

The Committee considered the report (Agenda Item 6) which set out the draft revenue budget for 2021/22 including fees and charges. The report sought approval of:

·         the draft budget, draft fees and the charges schedule prior to submission to the Councils in accordance with the Inter-Authority Agreement.

·         the recommendation to revise the fees for licences issued under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018.

·         the recommendation to revise the fees for Houses in Multiple Occupation issued under the Housing Act 2004.

Councillor Parry Batth introduced the item by informing the Committee of a request from Councillor Mary Temperton of Bracknell Forest Council to address Members on the licence fee for small businesses to look after dogs from their homes. The Committee would need to suspend standing orders in order to permit this.

Councillor John Harrison proposed to suspend standing orders and this was seconded by Councillor John Porter. The Committee voted to suspend standing orders.

Councillor Temperton addressed the Committee and made the following points:

·         As stated, she wanted to address the Committee in relation to the licence fee for small businesses to look after dogs from their homes.

·         She started by pointing out that the licence fee for hackney carriages and for private hire was £288 for new applications and £288 for renewals. The renewal fee did not include a new application fee.

·         She therefore asked why home dog boarders were required to pay, each year, an application fee of £228 and a renewal fee of £342. A total annual charge of £570. Councillor Temperton felt that the annual application fee needed to be reconsidered as she considered this to be unjust. 

·         She supported this by pointing out that the initial application process took more time than for a renewal. The initial application visit could take three hours and this was followed by an unannounced 30 minute visit during the year. The duration of the renewal application visit, which was more of a tick box exercise, was much shorter at 30 minutes. There was also the unannounced 30 minute visit. Councillor Temperton felt that the fees should reflect the time taken for the application and renewal processes.

·         There was no support available to new applicants on how to comply with the requirements. Applicants would either have to look to existing licence holders for advice or undertake research online. Greater support should be provided.

·         If a boarder did not comply with the requirements then the licence was not issued and they would need to reapply. A fine would be levied if a boarder operated without a licence. However, Councillor Temperton asked why enforcement costs were incorporated into the licensing application fee. Why was this the case when they had a licence? The unlicensed operators should be fined and the costs should not be passed on to the licensed boarders. They should not be penalised in this way.

·         Boarders should be made aware of and consulted on any increases in fees. Proposals to increase fees needed to be publicised and this was an area to improve upon.

·         Councillor Temperton closed her comments by requesting that the application fee and the renewal fee be reconsidered.

Councillor Batth thanked Councillor Temperton for her contribution.

The Committee then voted to reinstate standing orders.

Paul Anstey, Head of Public Protection and Culture, introduced the report. The recommendations in the report had been approved by senior officers at the Joint Management Board. The proposed draft budget, which had to be set annually, incorporated the fees and charges for 2021/22, and took account of costs and inflationary rises.

The points raised within the public questions and by Councillor Temperton meant that additional work was proposed on discretionary fees and charges. He acknowledged that it was important to be transparent on the methodology for setting fees and charges for the different services that were provided. Mr Anstey drew attention to Appendix A to the report which gave further detail on the fees and charges, how the total budget requirement of £3.876m was calculated and how that would be allocated across the three local authorities (outlined in paragraph 5.11 of the report). The allocation took account of the agreed percentages and the demand assessment of the three partner authorities to ensure the necessary service provision for the coming year. The expenditure levels of previous years were also taken into account.

It was the intention to improve transparency for businesses on the methodology for setting fees and charges. This was described in the report. Much work had been undertaken on specific hourly rates for different services.

Mr Anstey clarified that the Committee was being asked to recommend a budget for the Public Protection Partnership (PPP) to the three local authorities for approval at the three separate Council meetings. The Committee needed to form a view on the fees and charges as part of that. He added that any decision to reduce the budget requirement of £3.876m could have an impact at an operational level and could result in some service reductions.

In conclusion, Mr Anstey stated that the Joint Management Board had acknowledged that there were significant issues to resolve in the budget, in particular in light of the impact of Covid-19, and to take account of annual inflationary rises.

There had been an acknowledgement of the need to review discretionary fees and charges. It was also necessary to enhance communications, for example, it was important for the PPP to be transparent on its fees and charges, and demonstrate that costs had been set on a reasonable and proportionate basis. This information needed to be publicly available.

Councillor Batth gave thanks for the report and the hard work undertaken.

Councillor John Harrison raised two points of concern. Firstly, did the proposed hourly rates accurately take into account the work undertaken by officers. Secondly, was too long a period of time allocated to some inspections? Could the service be more efficient and reduce costs to users? Councillor Harrison queried if these points had been addressed in the proposals and what work had taken place as a result, i.e. consultation.

Mr Anstey explained that a methodology was followed for the setting of fees and charges. Data was analysed where possible to inform the time taken on an activity and was multiplied by the hourly rate in order to arrive at a fee. Peer local authorities were also benchmarked and if the PPP did not align then fees and charges would be reviewed. However, a cost recovery approach was taken.

Analysis had been undertaken in response to challenges on hourly rates. There were a variety of points to consider which included the number of licence types, the high number of premises and the different pay rates of officers. Mr Anstey felt that the fees and charges were reasonable and could be explained.

Guidance from the Local Government Association (LGA) stated that local authorities should not generate a budget surplus from businesses. This was adhered to. It was the aim to protect local businesses as much as possible with any budget deficiencies managed within the local authorities.

It was a very complicated process to differentiate between the different fees and hourly rates, although this was the intention and efforts had been made to ensure transparency. It was necessary for local authorities to cover their overheads in order to operate and this did perhaps raise some costs beyond what operators expected from the services they received and resulted in queries from them. There was a great deal of work behind the scenes to support the service and this contributed towards the total fee.

Mr Anstey then referred to the LGA document ‘Open for Business’. This permitted local authorities to include a range of areas when setting fees and charges (both discretionary and non-discretionary). He did repeat however the aim to achieve genuine cost recovery. There was a complication however when setting fees and charges for newly established licences and requirements, i.e. for animal welfare licences, which came in as a result of new legislation. In such cases it was necessary to estimate the length of time allocated to new activities in order to set a fee.

Mr Anstey added that if it became the case that the service could not deliver a particular service, i.e. due to pressures arising from Covid-19, then a refund could be provided if the service was not delivered. This was an area for ongoing review.

The service would annually review lessons learnt and consider if greater efficiencies could be found. However, it was still necessary to cover costs, including on enforcement activity. Enforcement of unlicensed animal welfare activity was important and resource needed to be funded to conduct this work.

A lesson learnt was to improve communications, i.e. with licence holders, and achieve greater transparency. 

Mr Anstey concluded his response by stating that over time the full licensing regime needed to be reviewed and all costs covered when setting fees and charges. This would need to be prioritised and future agenda items could be agreed.

Councillor Harrison noted that a reason for cost increases came as a result of a heightened inspection regime to ensure animal welfare. This would help to raise standards, but this increased costs of the service which had a cost impact on businesses. Councillor Harrison also pointed out that the cost subsidy of previous years provided by the service could be removed by the proposed cost increases.

Mr Anstey advised that he was in regular contact with members of the trade and there remained issues to resolve between how business interpreted the law in terms of charging and how this was interpreted by the service. For animal home boarding, there were different grades of compliance. Businesses able to achieve a higher standard of compliance could benefit from a reduced inspection regime and/or reduced service costs. It was however recognised that animal boarding businesses were often operated from people’s homes and greater compliance could only be achieved by installing certain adaptations which incurred costs and therefore made it difficult to reach the highest levels of compliance.

The legislation was clear in stating that animal boarders were regulated businesses. While this contrasted with the views of the trade who felt that they operated a more informal business, animal boarders needed to be defined as regulated businesses and they therefore incurred the costs associated with that.  Mr Anstey remained of the view that fees and charges were reasonable and proportionate.

Councillor Chris Bowring sought clarification on enforcement. A Court of Appeal ruling stated that licensing fees should not be used to pursue unlicensed businesses. He therefore queried if this was accounted for separately.

In response, Mr Anstey explained that he was aware of the view amongst the trade that enforcement costs should not be included in licensing fees and that enforcement costs incurred by the service should be recouped via the award of court costs. However, and Mr Anstey would double check this point, the LGA guidance stated that enforcement costs of unlicensed operators could be met from fees and charges. The scope of the legislation extended to the entire licensing cost and therefore the service applied a per licence cost which included enforcement of unlicensed operators.

RESOLVED:

·         That the Committee had considered the draft revenue budget including the fees and charges set out in the report.

·         To recommend to the Councils the contributions set out at 5.11 of the report (total budget of £3.876M) along with the fees and charges set out in Appendix B.

·         That the proposed revisions to the 2019/20 fees for licences issued under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 and the fees for the licences issued under the Housing Act 2004 be approved as set out at Appendix C.

·         That with respect to any monies received under the Asset Recovery Incentivisation Scheme, the Committee approved that the policy position approved at its meeting on the 14 March 2017 remained the policy to be applied to the spend or allocation of any such monies. In 2019/20, the total money received under the terms of the scheme was £36.7K.