Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was submitted from Councillor Parry Batth.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 26 January 2022.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 26 January 2022 were confirmed as a correct record, subject to the amendment below, and signed by the Chairman.

Amendment: That Sean Murphy, as an Officer, be removed from the list of Committee Member attendees.

Matters arising

Councillors asked for an update on the process which had been undertaken to deal with the Committee’s recommendation to freeze the 2021/22 fee for taxi vehicle licences at the same level as the previous year and to re-imburse those that had already paid the higher fee in 2021/22.

Ed Shaylor, Head of Enforcement and Safety stated that the proposal to subsidise the fees for taxi vehicle licences in 2022/23, as recommended by this Committee on 26 January 2022 had been submitted to the Council in February 2022 as part of the fees and charges report.  Members asked for reassurance that the subsidy had been submitted to Council in February 2022, as this was not clear within the budget documents.  Ed Shaylor agreed to email Members with the information about the fees within the budget papers which were submitted to Council.

Members expressed frustration that there had not been an explanation of how the decision to not carry out the Committee’s recommendation for the subsidy in 2021/22 had been taken.  Members questioned the legality and transparency of the process.

Members asked for an explanation about the decision making process in relation to the recommendation to freeze fees for 21/22.  Ed Shaylor informed the Committee that Sean O’Connor, Legal Specialist would be emailing Members about the process in relation to the Committee’s recommendation for the subsidy in 2021/22.

In response to a question about the Taxi and Private Hire Policies, Julia O’Brien, Principal Officer Compliance and Enforcement explained that the solicitor who was working on it had only sent the draft policy today.  She ascertained that the report would be ready for the June meeting of the Committee.

In response a question Officers informed that the Council had still not received a response from Reading Borough Council with regard to the use of Reading bus lanes by Wokingham drivers.  The Chairman stated that the Leader of the Council was having conversations with Reading about this issue.

To receive any declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

To answer any public questions

A period of 30 minutes will be allowed for members of the public to ask questions submitted under notice.

The Council welcomes questions from members of the public about the work of this committee.

Subject to meeting certain timescales, questions can relate to general issues concerned with the work of the Committee or an item which is on the Agenda for this meeting.  For full details of the procedure for submitting questions please contact the Democratic Services Section on the numbers given below or go to www.wokingham.gov.uk/publicquestions

There were no public questions.

To answer any member questions

In accordance with the agreed procedure the Chairman invited Members to submit questions to the appropriate Members.

Question

Wokingham Town has been experiencing a considerable amount of Anti-Social behaviour revolving around people leaving the bars that have a late licence.  This can be as simple as noisy behaviour and broken glass around the town from people heading home to fighting and a recent stabbing incident. 

Wokingham Borough Council has the power to recover a late licence levy on premises that have a late licence – essentially to cover the cost of extra policing and support from problems that arise from late licences.

Is this something that we can ask the licencing team to consider?

Question

Wokingham Town has been experiencing a considerable amount of Anti-Social behaviour revolving around people leaving the bars that have a late licence.  This can be as simple as noisy behaviour and broken glass around the town from people heading home to fighting and a recent stabbing incident. 

Wokingham Borough Council has the power to recover a late licence levy on premises that have a late licence – essentially to cover the cost of extra policing and support from problems that arise from late licences.

Is this something that we can ask the licencing team to consider?

Answer

Licensing authorities have (since 2012) had the power to introduce a “late night levy” on premises licensed to sell alcohol after midnight.  The levy must cover the whole of an authority’s area, although the Government is considering amending the rules so that just a part of the Borough can be subject to a levy, e.g. a town centre, but it has not done so yet.

The Council cannot set its own levy – the amount of the levy is prescribed nationally based on the rateable value and varies from £299 for the smallest premises up to £4,440 for the largest premises in which the primary business is the sale of alcohol.  There would be costs to the Council to conduct consultation and administer the scheme.

The revenue raised, after deduction of costs, goes towards the costs of policing the late-night economy and must be split between the Council and the police.  At least 70% of the revenue must be given to the police and the Council can retain up to 30% to fund the services it provides to manage the night-time economy.  Examples of using the levy around the country are:

• additional police officers
• projects like a Club Host project aiming to reduce sexual harassment within clubs
• first aid training for staff of licensed premises,
• defibrillators for town centres
• taxi marshals and street cleaning

The Government estimated that about 94 licensing authorities had enough late opening premises to generate sufficient revenue from the levy to make it worthwhile to implement it but in the 9 years since it came in very few Council areas have put a levy in place.  The number is about 10 or 12 and are mostly large towns like Newcastle, Nottingham and Liverpool and urban Boroughs like Hackney, Camden and Islington,

Cheltenham introduced a levy in 2014, but scrapped it in 2017 as the Council had not received the income it had expected from the levy.

Late night levies are strongly opposed by the licensed trade who believe them to heap financial pressure onto venues that are already contributing financially to the success of their areas, and to be a blunt tool that penalises well run businesses, as well as those which might be causing problems.  This is because there are only a few exempt premises allowed – the levy would apply to all on and off sales premises with a late licence in the Borough, even if  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.1

To receive and consider a report containing details of the consultation on Hackney Carriage Tariffs.

The Committee received a report detailing the outcome of the consultation on increase to hackney carriage fare tariffs.

Ed Shaylor stated that responses had been received to the consultation, as detailed in the report and appendixes.  The Committee was now asked to make a decision, based on the information provided.  The options were as described in the report.

It was pointed out that it might be advisable to change the date in which any changes come into effect from 1 April to 4 April, this was because another neighbouring local authority was also altering its fees and there may be a delay in being able to recalibrate the meters.

During the discussion of the item the following comments were made:

·           Councillor Younis asked why we were prevented from implementing changes on 1 April;

·           Moira Fraser, Policy and Governance Officer explained that Wokingham was not prevented from implementing changes from 1 April.  She explained that the PPP had been approached from one of the meter companies who suggested that they may not be able to provide the service from 1 April;

·           Councillor Burgess proposed to agree to the trade’s proposal and to accept the Officers modification that the 110 second waiting time be retained.  She pointed out that the number of objections was low and she worried that not allowing a rise would make some drivers leave the trade and this would have negative consequences in the provision of the service;

·           The Chairman stated that the proposed increase would put Wokingham’s taxi fees amongst the most expensive in the country;

·           Councillor Burgess stated that some drivers had already gone out of business and that Wokingham was a very expensive place to live;

·           Councillor Bowring stated that it was difficult for anyone to ascertain what the fees should be.  However, he agreed that the Committee should accept the trade’s proposal, in view of the fact that drivers could lower the fare tariff if they wanted to.  Should drivers decide to lower their tariffs, he asked if the Council would be able to help publicise this change;

·           Councillor Kerr wished to clarify that the table on Appendix D of the Agenda was not the complete table, looking at the complete list, Wokingham would not be the second highest in the country;

·           Councillor Younis was in support of the trade’s proposal to increase the tariffs for the following reasons: the last time the fees were reviewed was in 2010, there had been considerable inflation in the last 11 years, their business had been severely impacted by the pandemic in the last two years and the upcoming increases in energy bills.  He believed that if this increase was not allowed, a number of drivers would go out of business, resulting in unreliable services;

·           Councillor Fishwick agreed with the trade’s proposals. He pointed out that the local authorities listed in the comparison table had not raised their fees for a long time and were playing ‘catch up’;

·           Councillor Loyes asked if the request to move back  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

To receive and consider a report giving an update on the return of the licensing functions from Public Protection Partnership.

Ed Shaylor addressed the Committee to give an update on the return of licensing functions from the Public Protection Partnership to Wokingham from 1 April 2022.

Ed Shaylor drew attention to the new staffing structure, as described on page 28 of the agenda.  The new Licensing Manager had been appointed and his name was Keiran Hinchliffe.

It was hoped that the change process would be seamless, with licence applicants still able to use the same email address.  Wokingham’s licensing website pages were being rebuilt, and the new website pages would go live in April.

There would be an online payment system for small amounts, and invoices for amounts higher than £100, in order to facilitate the recording of payments. 

The intention was to move to online forms so that people would be able to apply for applications online.  However, this required new software and capital investment, which was in the forward plan.

During the discussion of the item the following comments were made:

·           Councillor Kerr asked if any members of staff were coming from the PPP, and if there were concerns around continuity of services;

·           Ed Shaylor informed that one colleague was coming over from the PPP, there would be three new members of staff and one new manager.  Across the whole service there were nine people coming over from the PPP;

·           Councillor Younis requested that in one year time, a report be brought back to the Committee, with KPIs and evidence that the service being provided in house is better than the service that was provided by the PPP;

·           The Chairman was concerned that it might be difficult to draw comparisons as the structures were very different;

·           Councillor Ferris asked if the remit of the Licensing Appeals Committee changed as a result of Wokingham now delivering services in-house, he wondered if the remit would increase;

·           Ed Shaylor agreed to bring back a review report in one year time;

·           Ed Shaylor was of the opinion that the licensing service that had been provided by the PPP had been good, so he questioned if it would be possible to prove that licensing services were better in-house;

·           Ed Shaylor suggested that it may be appropriate for the Overview and Scrutiny to look at Environmental Health, Public Protection and Antisocial Behaviour services;

·           Councillor Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey stated that the Committee wished to be kept informed of any major issues happened before one year time;

·           Ed Shaylor agreed to keep the Committee informed of any risks;

·           Councillor Bowring stated that the PPP was responsible for Environmental Health, Trading Standards and Licensing.  He pointed out that the licensing function was not changing, just being delivered from Wokingham.  However, he questioned if it was possible extend the remit of the Licensing Committee to include Trading Standards and Environmental Health;

·           The Chairman stated that before the PPP was created, Environmental Health and Trading Standards were within the remit of the Licensing Committee;

·           Councillor Soane asked if there was a training requirement to sit on the Licensing Committee and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.