To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda item

2021/22 Fees and Charges

Purpose: To set out the Fees and Charges which have been proposed by the Joint Public Protection Committee on 28 September 2020 for the Committee to consider ahead of consideration by February  2021 Executive and Full Council in March 2021.

 

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4) which set out the fees and charges within the licensing field which had been proposed by the Joint Public Protection Committee on 28 September 2020 for the Committee to consider ahead of consideration by the 11 February  2021 Executive meeting and Full Council on 02 March 2021.

Paul Anstey in introducing the item stated that the report also included information pertaining to the methodology adopted when setting the fees and any legislative requirements associated with fee setting. It was hoped that these explanations would assist residents and stakeholders, including fee payers, in understanding why the fees were set at the level they were. He noted that this additional transparency had been favourably received. Officers recognised that there were some areas where this work had not as yet been completed and it was recognised that some fees would have to be reviewed in the future in light of this ongoing programme of review.

Councillor James Cole noted the comment in the report that ‘It is not the role of this Committee to set the fees for 2021/22’ and he asked Officers to explain what the role of the Committee was. Paul Anstey explained that the Licensing Committee was tasked with setting the policies associated with licensing. These policies would set out what activities the team were required to undertake. Officers would then calculate the costs associated with the execution of the policy and use that to derive the fees and charges which would have to be agreed by Full Council.

Councillor Graham Bridgman noted the percentage splits between the three authorities covered by the Public Protection Partnership (PPP) as set out in table 1.2 and queried if these were the same as in the previous year. Paul Anstey explained that marginal changes had been made to take cognisance of differences in pension contributions arising from the demand level in each of the authorities.

Councillor Bridgman noted that one of the stated aims of the PPP was to improve consistency across the three authorities when it came to fee setting and he queried if this was being achieved. Officers explained that the balance was improving and greater consistency was being achieved albeit that Officers recognised that Members sought to influence specific areas of fee setting within their authority. The only major difference was around street trading where Bracknell exercised a two tiered approach that was not replicated in West Berkshire and Bracknell. Members were pleased that a more consistent approach was being adopted.

The Chairman noted that the fees associated with animal welfare were likely to decrease in West Berkshire. Sean Murphy explained that the methodology used to set the fees had been revised. What this meant was that the base fee would cover initial administrative costs and the first visit. Additional visits would be charged on top of the base fee. In other words those facilities that were non-compliant would pay more and those that were compliant would not be burdened with those costs. Two members of staff were being trained to undertake this work. The training had started in September and was likely to take around eighteen months to complete. The Council would continue to seek the most cost effective way to provide services including inspections. Where it was cheaper to outsource the work this practice would continue provided that the quality of the work was at the right level so as to keep the costs as low as possible for fee payers.

Councillor Phil Barnett was concerned about the perceived proliferation of unlicensed dog walkers. Sean Murphy reassured Members that the team did follow up on allegations of unlicensed trading.

The Committee acknowledged that the impact of Covid would have an impact both on licence holders and also the resourcing requirements of the PPP. Paul Anstey reassured Members that this was something that was being monitored by the management Team. In response to a query from Councillor Claire Rowles, Paul Anstey explained that there had not been any dedicated grants from Central Government to fund licensing. There were however two pots of money that local authorities could apply for funding from to support local businesses. 

Julia O’ Brien reported that the Council was working with stakeholders to see how they could best be supported. The Council was trying to provide advice and support in recognition of the difficulties being experienced by its customers. A number of initiatives were being implemented and these included suspension of taxi licences, allowing some fees to be paid monthly rather than upfront and using webinars to speak directly with the trade to answer their questions.

Members noted that the discussion on cab fares that was due to take place with the taxi trade in January 2020 had not happened due to the onset of the Covid pandemic but they requested that this discussion be rescheduled as soon as it was feasible to do so (seam Murphy to Action).  

RESOLVED that:

1.    The proposals in the report be noted and it be agreed that the fees set out at Appendix C go forward for consideration as part of the Council’s fee setting process.

 

2.    The fees for Taxi and Private Hire Vehicles and Private Hire Operators be put forward for statutory consultation.

 

3.    The methodology at Appendix B for calculating fees for home animal boarding establishments licensed under Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 be applied to 2020/21.

 

Supporting documents: