Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 23 June 2022.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 23 June 2022 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Matters arising

It was noted that there was a spelling error on page 9 of the agenda pack, it should read Councillor Burgess.

It was noted that the agenda did not contain a recommendation tracker, as per the Committee’s request.  Luciane Bowker, Democratic and Electoral Services Officer apologised for the omission of the tracker and would ensure this was included in future agendas.

Ed Shaylor, Head of Enforcement and Safety provided an update in relation to the Committee’s recommendation to apply a reduction to the licence fees charged in 2021/22.  The Executive Member for Environment, Sport and Leisure and the Executive Member for Finance were considering this recommendation and this would be determined via an Individual Executive Member Decision (IEMD).

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

There were no Member questions.

To receive and consider the Fees and Charges for Licensable Activity 2023/24 report.

Ed Shaylor presented the report which was set out in agenda pages 15-36.

In the previous year, the Committee had recommended that the fees and charges remained unchanged, being mindful that the licensing services were coming back in-house.

An increase of 9.9%, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) was being proposed for 2023/24 (for the licensable activities that are within the Council’s gift to determine).  The income from licensing fees is supposed to offset the costs to the Council of administering the licensing service.

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

·           Councillor Burgess asked for evidence of increases in the cost of the team;

·           Ed Shaylor explained that the cost of running the service was currently more than the income received.  The fee income from 2019/20 was £290k, this was being forecast to be £250k this year.  He agreed that the staffing costs were unlikely to increase by 9.9%, but other costs to the Council would increase, perhaps by more than 9.9%.  The basis of the proposal was that the cost of running the service was more than the current income.  This had been the case for this year and the past two years;

·           Councillor Firmager asked if there was any scope to reduce the cost of running the service;

·           Ed Shaylor explained that infrastructure and overheads costs could be included in the cost calculation of running the service.  The cost calculation of the hourly rate to process an application had been undertaken some years ago and stood at £59, it was proposed to increase this to £65.  The cost calculation of a licence application included the number of hours spent processing a licence and enforcing it;

·           Councillor Younis asked for more detailed information on the calculation of the proposed increase, he also asked if there were any financial benefits with bringing the service in-house;

·           Ed Shaylor informed that the majority of the cost was staffing, it was difficult to accurately itemise the cost of the Council’s overheads for each service.  The process of bringing the service in-house had been driven by a desire to improve the quality of it and make it locally responsive, not by financial reasons;

·           Councillor Younis asked if it was possible to compare the cost before, with the PPP and now with the service being run in-house;

·           Ed Shaylor explained that under the PPP arrangements West Berkshire provided the licensing service to West Berkshire, Wokingham and Bracknell, and it would be difficult to ascertain the exact cost to Wokingham.  In terms of the current staffing structure, there were: a licensing manager, two licensing officers and one full time and one part-time licensing processing officers.  There were 3.5 customer delivery officers working on licensing work too;

·           Councillor Loyes asked how the estimated £250k income was calculated;

·           Ed Shaylor explained that as of September this year £125k had been received in income, this was being doubled to forecast £250k to the end of the financial year;

·           It was predicted that costs would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

To receive and consider the Taxi and Private Hire Draft Policy Review report.

Kieran Hinchcliffe presented the Taxi and Private Hire Review report which was set out in agenda pages 37-153.

The amendments which had been requested at the last meeting of the Committee had been incorporated into the revised document.

Rachel Lucas, Legal Advisor to the Committee highlighted some issues that still remained in the current document, as follows:

Page 88 of the agenda

·           paragraphs 1.48 and 1.49  – DVLA points were not a conviction, so the wording needed to be changed. 

Page 111 of the agenda

·           paragraph 1.65 – the law in relation to child seat belts and restraints referred to the age 12 and or taller than 135cm, so the age needed to be changed to mirror the legal position.

Page 116 of the agenda

·           Paragraph 1.19 – it should read s53 A(8)

·           Paragraph 1.21 – should read s61(2)

Page 120 of the agenda

·           Paragraph 1.9 – it should read s53 A(8)

·           Paragraph 1.11 – it should read s61 (2)

Kieran Hinchcliffe informed that the report would be amended, in line with the legal advice received.

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

·           Councillor Kerr pointed to:

·           Page 68 of the agenda, paragraph 3.45, and stated that this was still not sufficiently clear.  Kieran Hinchcliffe agreed to improve the wording;

·           Page 109, paragraph 1.54 – what was the reasoning behind it? Other  dress code mentions were open to interpretation.

·           Ed Shaylor agreed that the references to dress standards needed reviewing and some should be taken out;

·           Councillor Younis stated that the rules should be simple to follow and easy to implement, based on common sense.  He asked if this rules had been written by WBC or if they had been adopted from somewhere else?

·           Kieran Hinchcliffe explained that the document was based on WBC’s current policy.  A licensing lawyer had been employed to give advice on the policy.  Also, this Committee had been consulted on the content;

·           Councillor Smith pointed to page 81 of the agenda, and asked for clarification on paragraph 1.2;

·           Rachel Lucas explained that 1.2 refereed to case law that said that it was not for the Council to judge the merits of a conviction;

·           Councillor Smith asked for clarification on page 83, paragraph 1.17 – how could temperament be measured?

·           Rachel Lucas explained that, for example, if a person was called in for an interview with a licensing officer because of an allegation of misbehaviour, and this person was then aggressive or abusive towards the officer, this would be judged as the individual having a bad attitude and temperament;

·           Councillor Firmager pointed to page 81 of the agenda, and grammar mistakes in paragraphs 1.1 and 1.3, and recommended thorough proof reading;

·           Ed Shaylor confirmed that the document would be proof read before it went out to consultation;

·           Councillor Burgess noticed that the drivers were put to many tests, she asked if there were any new tests being proposed?  She also pointed to page 53, paragraph 2.7 – she stated that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

Councillor Kerr asked if it was possible to consider having a forward plan in the agendas going forward.

Ed Shaylor informed that a review of the Statement of the Licensing Policy was in the forward plan for the next year.

Councillor Kerr proposed that a review of licensing gambling be brought to the Committee for discussion, with a view to potentially finding ways to protect vulnerable people.  She was seconded by Councillor Burgess.

The Chairman suggested including a review of alcohol licences too.

Upon being put to the vote, Councillor Kerr’s proposal was approved.

RESOLVED That a review of gambling licences would be put in the forward plan.