Agenda item

To receive and consider the Fees and Charges for Licensable Activity 2024/25 report.

Keiran Hinchliffe, Licensing Manager presented the Fees and Charges for Licensable Activity 2024/25 report.

No changes to the fees and charges structure were being proposed.  The proposal was in line with the approach taken by the Committee last year by increasing fees in line with the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) at 6.3%.

The income from licensing fees should offset the costs to the Council of administering the licensing service.  Shortfalls or excesses should be balanced in following years over a balanced five year period of review.

In addition to processing, enforcement and management of the service, Licensing Officers would now administer crime reduction schemes relevant to licensing that could support the Violence Against Women and Girls agenda or other best practice schemes such as Best Bar accreditation and Purple Flag Status.

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

·           In relation to the street trading consent annual fee (page 25 of the agenda) Councillor Soane stated that whereas Wokingham was charging £1,514 Reading was charging £901.  He wished to understand why it was so much more expensing in Wokingham?  He mentioned that he had been made aware of cases where ice-cream vans which were licenced in Reading would take their chance and operate in Wokingham – if they were caught and taken to court, they would only incur in a £50 penalty fine;

·           Keiran Hinchliffe informed that the service was looking to introduce innovations to streamline the application processes.  Computer systems and database were potential areas for improvement, and it was hoped that with improvements the cost would go down;

·           Councillor Soane was concerned that Wokingham was charging £150 more than Bracknell for street trading consents;

·           Councillor Younis stated that in the past the Committee had been told that it was difficult to produce evidence of administrative costs because of the PPP.  He asked if it was possible to produce this evidence now that Wokingham was no longer in the PPP?

·           Councillor Burgess sough reassurances that the service would not build up reserves from fees and charges.  She pointed out that the CPI measure being used was as of August 2023, however inflation was expected to fall in the next year;

·           Councillor Smith agreed that more information about the cost of administering applications would be useful.  In relation to temporary event notices, he pointed out that it seemed wrong that large events paid the same amount as very small events;

·           Keiran Hinchliffe explained that when Wokingham pulled away from the PPP, there had been unknown factors, for example it had not been known how much would be received as income from licence fees.  One year on, there was now more understanding, but it would be advisable to review the five year period for a more complete analysis of the costs and revenue;

·           In 2022/23 the budget was £309k and £356k was received.  This year’s budget was £368K and so far, £179k has been received so the forecast was to be on budget this year;

·           Councillor Younis asked what would happen with the additional amount that was received?

·           It was explained that this would be part of the five-year review.  However, the annual fee setting process would always come through to this Committee for approval;

·           Councillor Kerr asked that future reports include information about any surplus or deficit amounts, so that Members could monitor the performance of the fee structure;

·           In response to a question, it was confirmed that the standard of service provided by different local authorities varied, especially in relation to enforcement and proactively promoting public safety.  This affected the cost of licensing activities;

·           Councillor Smith believed that there was a discrepancy between the forecast figures in this report and that presented in last year's report.  Keiran Hinchcliffe confirmed that the figures contained in the report were correct and had been checked by Finance Officers;

·           Councillor Smith stated that it would be useful to know the cost of administering licences for which there were statutory fees, in order to lobby the government if necessary;

·           Councillor Dennis asked if there would be a fee to process taxi drivers’ applications for advertising in their vehicles.  Keiran Hinchcliffe stated that this would have to be added to the list following the adoption of the new policy;

·           Councillor Dennis stated that it would be useful to have some benchmarking against other local authorities.  Councillor Kerr added that benchmarking should include prices and standards of services;

·           Councillor Dennis believed that there was a discrepancy between the charge of a single driver (£500) and the bigger providers (£2000);

·           Keiran Hinchcliffe explained that the cost involved in processing the application was a large part of the cost.  It was hoped that innovations such as a new computer system would improve the processing time of applications and therefore reduce the cost;

·           Councillor Soane stated that when Wokingham left the PPP, there was a considerable backlog of hygiene inspections.  The PPP was supposed to pay those fees back to Wokingham if the backlog was not cleared.  He asked if this payment had been made?

·           Keiran Hinchliffe was not sure if a refund had been made.  He stated that the service was working well and there were no concerns over its performance.

Upon being put to the vote, Members voted in favour of the recommendations contained in the report.

RESOLVED That:

1)     The Committee notes the fees set out at Appendix A and Appendix B as part of the Council’s annual fee setting process; and

2)     The Committee recommends to Executive that, in relation to those fees which are within the Council’s discretion to set, they are increased in line wit the Consumer Price Index (CPI).