Agenda item

To set out the Public Protection Partnership’s (PPP) draft revenue budget for 2023/24, including fees and charges for 2023/24.

To seek approval for the draft budget and draft fees and charges schedule prior to submission to Bracknell and West Berkshire Councils as part of their budget setting process in accordance with the Inter-Authority Agreement (IAA).

To agree the figure and the basis for the recharge to Wokingham Borough Council with respect to the services provided to Wokingham Borough Council under the shared service agreement effective on the 1st April 2022.

Sean Murphy introduced the report (Agenda Item 7) which set out the Public Protection Partnership’s (PPP’s) draft revenue budget for 2023/24, including fees and charges for 2023/24.

The report sought approval for the draft budget, and the draft fees and charges schedule prior to submission to Bracknell and West Berkshire Councils as part of their budget setting process in accordance with the Inter-Authority Agreement (IAA).

The report also sought agreement of the recharge to Wokingham Borough Council with respect to the services provided to Wokingham under the shared service agreement effective on the 1 April 2022.

The proposed budget was outlined within paragraph 5.17 of the report. The budget, excluding pressure bids, was proposed to increase by 6.54%. This was largely influenced by cost of living and salary increases.

The budget setting process for 2022/23 identified that additional funding would be required to support the current management structure for two years whilst the service was re-configured following the departure of Wokingham. This additional funding would not be needed post this two year period.

One item of service investment identified for 2023/24 was for the appointment of an officer specialising in bringing empty homes back into use. This area of work aligned with the housing priorities of both local authorities.

Funding was also available for crime prevention, detection of crime and to reduce the fear of crime in line with the policy for utilising money recovered from proceeds of crime work.

In response to a query from Councillor Peter Heydon, Sean Murphy explained that the cost of living increase was predicted at 2% for the current financial year with 4% predicted for 2023/24. This figure could be adjusted prior to final budgets being approved by the two Councils in March 2023.

Councillor James Cole sought reassurance, when considering increases to costs, that the financial contribution being sought from Wokingham Borough Council was at a sufficient level. Sean Murphy confirmed that the contribution was proposed to increase in line with the 6.54%. The level of contribution was regularly reviewed.

Fees and charges were either statutory or discretionary and were largely aligned across Bracknell and West Berkshire.

Moira Fraser explained that in order to achieve cost recovery, the generic hourly rate was proposed to increase from £59 per hour (set in 2021/22) to £64 (an 8.5% increase). To clarify, the cost of a service was calculated by multiplying the time taken for an activity with the hourly rate.

It was noted that statutory consultation would take place in relation to the fees and charges for hackney carriage and private hire drivers, vehicles and operators.

Sean Murphy explained that an updated position would be provided at December’s meeting. This would include further information on the implications for businesses of lost income following Covid.

Councillor John Porter raised questions in relation to other Private Hire and Hackney Carriage charges. In response, Moira Fraser explained that the fee proposed for a change of address was £16 as it was a 15 minute verification process. The current charge of £10.50 did not achieve cost recovery. Moira further explained that the time period of 15 minutes was the minimum unit for charging. This was something that could be reviewed if Members felt this was needed.

Councillor Porter voiced concern at the £84 charge for Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, viewing it as being too high. Moira Fraser advised that this was a discussion point with the taxi trade.

Councillor Porter felt that the charge for the knowledge test should be reduced when considering that drivers had access to satellite navigation systems. Sean Murphy explained that licensees needed to pass a test to evidence their understanding of legal requirements and knowledge of local areas, this incurred a charge. However, officers agreed to explore alternative options as a way of reducing costs and would report back.

Councillor Porter opined that the fees for street trading consents should be standardised across Bracknell and West Berkshire. For example, Bracknell charged for ice cream vans whereas West Berkshire did not. Sean Murphy advised that West Berkshire did levy a charge for ice cream vans, but this was a rare instance of a fee variation between the two local authorities. West Berkshire’s annual fee for 2023/24 was proposed at £1,487 (there was not a separate fee for ice cream vans). This fee was almost double that charged by Bracknell Forest for ice cream vans, which was based on a fee set some time ago when ice cream vans began to be considered as street trading. It would likely create difficulties for traders to experience what would be a high increase to bring it up to the West Berkshire fee.

This specific matter and potential alternative options would be discussed further at Bracknell’s Licensing Committee being held later in October.

RESOLVED that:

·         The draft revenue budget, including the fees and charges, set out in this report had been considered by the Committee.

·         The percentage split set out in paragraph 4.3 of the report be agreed.

·         The contributions set out in paragraph 5.17 of the report be recommended to partner Councils along with the fees and charges.

·         Partner Councils be asked to consider the investment bid identified in paragraph 5.9 of the report.

·         The contribution request from Wokingham Borough Council be agreed as set out in paragraph 5.17 of the report.

·         The policy position in relation to monies received under the Asset Recovery Incentivisation Scheme (which was approved at the 14 March 2017 JPPC meeting) remains the policy to be applied to spend/allocate any monies received under the scheme.