Agenda item

Report of the Director of Public Protection and Licensing.

3.1      Kerry Simpkin, Licensing Team Manager, introduced the report.  He stated that the report set out proposed fees for licensing regimes where the Council has the power to set its own fees for 2017/18.  He wished to emphasise that there were other fees that would be brought before the Sub-Committee at a later date such as the street trading fees.       

3.2      Mr Simpkin advised that the fees were being set at a level which would enable the Council to recover its costs in managing and administering the licensing regimes.  It was proposed that the fees would come into effect from 1 January 2017.  He referred to the fees which had increased or decreased from the levels from agreed by the Committee in November 2015 and introduced in January 2016.  The majority of fees had been subject to an increase.  The licensing fees for premises that provide special treatments within the borough had increased significantly last year as part of the fee review.  It was proposed that as part of this year’s review, fee levels for new, renewal, transfer and confirmation of provisional licence applications would be reduced.  Mr Simpkin added that all applicants would be informed of any changes to the fees for the various licensing regimes prior to 1 January 2017.          

3.3       The Chairman thanked officers for all the time and effort they had put in to calculate the fees.  She had worked with them and was able to vouch for the fact that the levels set were a true reflection of the work of the officers in relation to the various licensing regimes.  The Committee made a number of points and asked Mr Simpkin a number of questions regarding the fees, including the following:

·           Councillor Freeman asked whether there was an upper limit for the setting of fees.  Mr Simpkin replied that the only set of fees that is capped is the gambling premises licences.  Local authorities were required to assess all other fees.

·           Councillor Gassanly welcomed that it was proposed that fee levels for new, renewal, transfer and confirmation of provisional licence applications for special treatments would be reduced.  He asked whether there was a reason for Westminster setting higher fees than some neighbouring boroughs, including in relation to special treatment licences.  Mr Simpkin responded that fees were set based on the Council’s costs.  It was difficult to compare other Councils as they might have a different model in terms of costs, salaries etc.  He stated that in respect of special treatment licences, officers were exploring whether to base specific fees for special treatments on a number of criteria, including what was involved with the different types of treatments provided and the risk assessment required.  This would require significant additional administrative work.  At the moment there was a flat fee based on average costs for the special treatments.

·           Councillor Mitchell in his capacity as the Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services made the point that it was important that there was full cost recovery and that it was unfair if residents were asked to subsidise businesses.  He welcomed that there was a consistent system in place to review fees.

·           Councillor Harvey asked whether it was specifically possible to set different fees for small, medium and larger businesses and assist those attempting to establish smaller businesses.  Was more enforcement required for larger businesses?  Councillor Burbridge also put forward the idea of a discount for new businesses in their first year.  Mr Simpkin replied that it would be good to reduce fees for smaller businesses.  However, smaller businesses often cost more as they regularly required a lot more work in terms of enforcement and compliance.  The concept of different fee levels for specific types of businesses was something that officers would continue to look at going forward. 

·           Councillor Acton asked why the costs for riding establishments had risen.  Mr Simpkin stated that there was a legal requirement for them to be inspected on a yearly basis.  The Council had not prior to 2016 charged for costs associated with the vet inspections.  The vets’ fees had increased and it had been necessary for the Council to pass these on.  There was also a greater involvement in terms of staff time as previously the vet had carried out more of the administrative work.

·           Mr Simpkin was asked about the costs for the zoo.  He stressed that the figure quoted in the report is for a six yearly licence.  The DEFRA inspection costs which needed to be absorbed as part of the costs amounted to approximately £1100 per year.

3.4       The Chairman made the point that any suggestions relating to assisting small businesses needed to be raised with the Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration, Business and Economic Development.

3.5       RESOLVED: That the proposed fees attached to the report as Appendix 1 be approved commencing 1^st January 2017.