Agenda item

To receive any Motions submitted in accordance with the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Council's Constitution.

Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda Item 15 – Motion A). The Motion was submitted in the name of Councillor Jeremy Cottam relating to statutory licensing fees.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Jeremy Cottam and seconded by Councillor Justin Pemberton:

“That Council notes that:

· The Licensing Act 2003 provides for Statutory Licence fees to be payable to licensing authorities in return for the functions that they undertake in respect of the Act. The fee levels are set centrally by the Secretary of State.

· Following a consultation exercise the then Secretary of State announced the fee package on 20 January 2005. This was implemented by the Licensing Act 2003 (Fees) Regulations 2005 which took effect on 7 February 2005.

· The fees have not been uplifted since these regulations were introduced nearly 20 years ago.

· Licensing fees should be set on a cost recovery basis.

· The Bank of England Inflation Calculator suggests costs have risen by over 66% since 2005. This would mean that a £100 licence in 2005 would now cost around £170.

· This level of lost income is unsustainable for the Council.

· Reduced income has resulted in staffing reductions, which in turn, could result in an increased risk of non-compliance and risks to our residents.

This Council therefore calls on Central Government to review, as a matter of urgency the Statutory Licensing Fees under the Licensing Act 2003 and therefore asks the Chairman of Council to:

1) Write to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to ask that the statutory licensing fees be uplifted as a matter of urgency.

2) Request that the Members appointed to the Local Government Association General Assembly lobby the LGA to write to the government seeking that the statutory limits on fees related to the Licensing Act 2003 be uplifted.

3) Write to the MPs in the constituencies covered by the Public Protection Partnership and seek their support in lobbying Central Government to uplift the statutory licensing fees as a matter of urgency”

Councillor Cottam introduced the Motion and highlighted that, as Chairman of the Licensing Committee, he was made aware that the fees no longer covered the costs of the licensing service. He informed Council that the fees had been created and set in 2005 by central Government and had not been increased to account for inflation since then. He encouraged Council to recommend that the fees be reviewed and increased.

Some Members indicated that this could be done through the Chairman of the Committee, without needing a Motion. However, it was agreed that brining this through to Council would then carry the full weight of West Berkshire Council when requesting this uplift.

As Council noted that the Licensing Service was operating at a deficit, and that if the fees had kept up with inflation since 2005 they would be bringing in between £80,000-£100,000 extra income for the Council each year, Council agreed to support the Motion.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda Item 15 – Motion B). The Motion was submitted in the name of Councillor Antony Amirtharaj and related to the Fair Management of Public Open Space in New Developments.

The Chairman informed the Council that should the motion be proposed and seconded, under Procedure Rule 12.6.1, it would be referred to the Planning Advisory Group and then the Executive for consideration, as the detail of the Motion fell within the remit of the Executive.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Antony Amirtharaj and seconded by Councillor Tony Vickers:

“That Council notes that:

A. Developers are not always owners of a development site, as is the case with Sandleford East in south Newbury;

B. Section 106 Legal Agreements are between the Local Planning Authority and the landowner, not necessarily the developer;

C. Landowners routinely retain freehold ownership of communal areas of a site, including “public open space” (POS) and some estate roads, which gives the Council little or no control over their management and what happens there but allows them to charge high fees to residents for management over which residents have little or no control;

D. This causes conflict, confusion and problems for councils, e.g. east of Tull Way Thatcham, where local residents of the new estate tried to ban nonresidents from a Public Open Space which only the residents were paying for;

E. The outgoing Government’s commitment to abolish leasehold on new housing has failed to pass into law because of the early dissolution of Parliament and without any proposals being announced by the new Labour Government.

Council believes that, in principle:

a. “public” must mean public and that there is a distinction between communal areas and facilities (which are not for the public but for sharing between residents) and public facilities such as community centres and in particular Public Open Spaces, which can contain public footpaths and sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) for which the Council as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) must have overall responsibility.

b. Communal facilities not available to other residents or the public at large should not be a financial burden on the local taxpayer;

c. Residents of every major new housing development should be enabled and encouraged to play a part in how the estate is managed, especially with communal areas, so as to enhance the sense of ownership of their community.

Council therefore resolves to:

1. Adapt our policies to work with Developers, such that Public Open Spaces in new developments can be taken on by the Council depending on affordability and after being considered on a case-by-case basis, and in such cases where the Council decides to take ownership, it should also take a lead role in initially managing and disposing of community facilities on new housing estates, during the S106 negotiations. Page 622

2. Instruct officers to investigate the financial and legal implications of this change in our policies, in consultation with all interested parties, and report back to Council,

3. Ensure that all policies commit the Council to work with Town and Parish Councils in determining how such Public Open Spaces will be funded and managed when adopted.

4. We will press the West Berkshire MPs to lobby the Government to resolve this issue through legislation.”

Councillor Amirtharaj spoke to the proposal and indicated that the Council should ensure that shared public open spaces in new developments should be accessible and available to all residents. In addition, he indicated that management companies were not locally accountable or transparent in their fee structures. Although this was a national issue that would require legislation from central Government to completely resolve, the Motion requested that the Council examine the financial and legal implications on adopting these public open spaces, on a case-by-case basis, as well as lobbying the local Members of Parliament to secure that longer term solution.

Councillor Denise Gaines, the responsible Portfolio Holder, responded to the points made by Councillor Amirtharaj and gave her support to the proposal, emphasising that some homeowners had raised concerns about management companies as they were unaware of the additional costs incurred from them when they purchased a property.