Agenda item

Report of the Operational Director for Premises Management.

5.1       Mr Simpkin introduced the report.  It set out the proposed fees for those licensing regimes where the Council has the power to set its own fees for 2016/17.  Mr Simpkin advised that there had been some delays to undertaking licensing fees reviews whilst awaiting the outcome of, and taking into account the requirements of, the Hemming sex establishment licensing fees case.  There had now been a Supreme Court ruling which enabled the Council to recoup some of its enforcements costs specifically in relation to sex establishments. Mr Simpkin referred to the major restructure involving Public Protection and Licensing which had taken place earlier in the year.  The fees before the Committee had been calculated following a review of all the costs associated with the new structure and the changes to personnel.  The proposed fees were set to enable the Council to recover its reasonable costs in processing and determining applications and ensuring compliance with the appropriate legislation and the conditions of the licence. Mr Simpkin described the fee methodology which was calculated by assessing the time it takes for each step in the process from receipt of application to determination and also aspects such as the perceived cost for the compliance and enforcement function carried out by the City Inspectors.

5.2       Mr Simpkin took Members through the recommendations of the report.  The first was that the proposed fees in Appendix 1 of the report save for the lower risk massage and special treatment premises licence renewal fee be approved commencing 1 January 2016.  Mr Simpkin explained that the date of 1 January was being put forward because the majority of the fees had not been determined for over a year and it was therefore important that they were implemented as soon as possible.  The second recommendation was to introduce a surcharge for paying the licence fee by cheque.  There was now a move to promote online and telephone payments.  The submission of cheques incurred a cost to the Council.  This included the time it took for officers to process them and put the information on the system.  The third recommendation was for the Committee to approve one of the proposed options for the increase in the lower risk Special Treatment Premises Licence renewal fee as set out in the report.  Mr Simpkin made the point that it had been identified that the Council had not been recovering its costs relating to the special treatment regime for a number of years.  Due to the nature of the fact that the businesses were often smaller in nature and that the fee increase would be significant for 2016/17, four options were being put forward as to whether the full increase would be implemented in 2016/17 or over the course of two, three or four financial years.  If the Committee decided on option one the regime would be cost neutral in 2016/17.  Other options would mean cost neutrality would not be achieved until the year when the costs for 2016/17 are finally recovered.  There would therefore be a shortfall in projected income in future years.  The fourth recommendation before the Committee was the proposed surcharge for late renewals of special treatment premises licences.  Mr Simpkin explained that each year there are a number of licence holders that fail to renew their licence.  The legislation which governed the licensing regime requires that once a licence has lapsed a new application is required.  However, the fee involved for a new licence is significant and includes inspections and assessment that would not be necessary as the premises has already been licensed.  Mr Simpkin added that the proposed surcharge fee would be less than the requirements for a new licence fee.  Mr Simpkin also requested as part of the recommendations that the Committee note the need for further lobbying on amending the relevant regulations under the Licensing Act 2003 and Gambling Act 2005 to enable the Council to recover its reasonable costs in carrying out its functions under the Acts.

5.3       The Committee asked a number of questions and made a number of observations in response to the report and the points made by Mr Simpkin, including the following:

·           Mr Simpkin was asked how many premises the proposed increase in the lower risk Special Treatment Premises Licence renewal fee was likely to affect in Westminster. He replied that it was likely to be approximately 229 premises.

·           Mr Simpkin was asked how fees compared with neighbouring boroughs.  He replied that in many cases the fees were more expensive than other London boroughs but it was calculated on recovering reasonable costs in Westminster.

·           Mr Simpkin was asked whether fees could be apportioned depending on the size of the business providing the lower risk special treatments.  Councillor Gassanly expressed concerns that the proposals would have a detrimental impact on smaller businesses.  Mr Simpkin replied that when fees were calculated they were based on the work that officers had carried out and the work was the same for a large business as a small one.  The fees could not be adjusted on the basis of the size of the business. Members appreciated that whilst there was a moral case for larger businesses paying more than smaller businesses for licensing applications they noted that the legal framework would not permit this. 

·           Councillor Freeman asked about the data in order to get a better appreciation as to how the fees had been arrived at.  Mr Simpkin informed him that his team had worked very closely with Finance Department over the summer to make a number of calculations including costs for each licensing regime and average officer time for each application.  Finance would have access to more detailed data.  The Chairman emphasised the work that had taken place amongst officers to ensure that the figures were accurate and costs were recovered. 

·           Councillor Caplan stated that given the circumstances it was understandable why it was proposed that revised fees on this occasion were introduced on 1 January 2016.  In general however the Council was looking to regularise the implementation of fees and charges and April was a more logical time for introducing this.  He recommended that fees were either rounded up or down to the nearest pound.  Thought could also be given to a surcharge for credit or debit card use given that this also resulted in a cost to the Council in terms of processing.

·           The Chairman made the point in relation to concerns that smaller businesses could potentially struggle as a result of fee increases that the Council could not be seen to be subsidising any businesses with taxpayers’ money.  She also referred to the need for further lobbying with the Home Office in particular as the Council was not able to recover its costs in relation to applications received such as the big increase in numbers of Temporary Event Notices.  Steve Harrison, Operational Director for Premises Management, referred to the fact that due to the Hemming case, the fees for the special treatment regime had not been reviewed since 2012/13.  Had they been reviewed on an annual basis, the percentage increase would not have been so significant for 2016/17.

5.4       The Committee approved option one relating to the full increase in 2016/17 for the fees for special treatment premises licences which offer lower risk treatments.  This would enable the regime to be cost neutral.  The Committee approved the proposed surcharge for late renewals of special treatment premises licences and also approved a proposed surcharge for paying the licence fee by cheque of £20.  The fees would be rounded up or down to the nearest pound.  Consideration would be given to whether a surcharge would be implemented for credit card payments.  The Committee strongly supported the need for further lobbying on amending the relevant regulations under the Licensing Act 2003 and Gambling Act 2005 to enable the Council to recover its reasonable costs in carrying out its functions under the Acts.         

5.5       RESOLVED: (i) That the proposed fees be rounded up or down to the nearest pound;

            (ii) That taking account of (i) above, the proposed fees in Appendix 1 save for the lower risk Massage and Special Treatment premises licence renewal fee, be approved by the Committee without any recorded abstentions and objections, commencing 1^st January 2016. 

            (iii) That a proposed surcharge of £20 for paying the licence fee by cheque be approved;

(iv) That taking account of (i) above, the Committee approve without any recorded abstentions and objections option one for the full increase in 2016/17 in the lower risk Special Treatment Premises Licence renewal fee;

(v) That the Committee approve the proposed surcharge for late renewals of special treatment premises licences;

(vi) That the need for further lobbying on amending the relevant regulations under the Licensing Act 2003 and Gambling Act 2005 to enable the Council to recover its reasonable costs in carrying out its functions under the Acts be noted and supported by the Committee; and,

(vii) That consideration be given to introducing a proposed surcharge for paying the licence fee by credit or debit card.