Agenda item

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 that this might limit who could attend to hear reports about Environmental Health and Trading Standards;

·           Rachel Lucas stated that the licensing function was statutory and the local authority was required to have a Licensing Committee.  She believed that there was no statutory requirement in relation to Environmental Health, Antisocial Behaviour and Trading Standards.  She confirmed that training was required for all those Members sitting on the Licensing Committee, to enable them to sit on Licensing Sub-Committees;

·           Councillor Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey suggested that training be offered to Members in relation to Antisocial Behaviour and other areas that the PPP covered that Members were not currently trained for;

·           Rachel Lucas questioned the need for training in relation to Antisocial Behaviour given that there were no decisions to be made in this respect.  Licensing applications did not fall within the remit of Antisocial Behaviour.  The powers that the local authority had in relation to Antisocial Behaviour did not fall within the remit of Sub-Committees, they are at Officer level;

·           Councillor Younis asked that consideration be taken to not duplicate work unnecessarily;

·           Councillor Kerr suggested that a report with options and more information be submitted to the Committee for consideration;

·           Councillor Firmager suggested that it would be useful to include information in the training about decision making, with clarification on which decisions are made by the Committee and which decisions are made by Officers;

·           Councillor Bowring stated that the scrutiny function was very different from the function of this Committee which was a decision making body.  He was of the opinion that this was a political decision;

·           Councillor Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey pointed out that the Community and Corporate Scrutiny Committee had a heavy workload, and had had a few extraordinary meetings in the past year, she worried about adding to their workload;

·           Councillor Ferris stated that Antisocial Behaviour could sit with Community Safety Partnership, but he was concerned that there needed to be a discussion and thinking about where other areas would sit in the future;

REOLVED That the report be noted and that a progress report would be submitted in one year time.