The Committee is asked to review the proposed Fees and Charges for 2015/16 before submission to Cabinet and Council for approval.

The Chairman welcomed the Cabinet Member for Finance and the Head of Finance to the meeting.

The Cabinet Member for Finance introduced the Fees and Charges report advising that the proposals were based on sound business management.  He reminded Members that some fees and charges were set in legislation, as outlined in paragraph 3.4 of the report, and that no increase was proposed in car parking charges to support local businesses.  He advised that Christmas car parking concessions had been announced by the Cabinet Member for Environmental and Rural Affairs.  The proposals set out in the report would generate an estimated additional income of £4.5k. 

The Chairman went through the report page by page and the following issues were raised:

Were the proposed increases to cover costs incurred in administering the services, or was it to provide additional income for the Council?

The Cabinet Member explained that the estimated additional income was not a significant amount and charges had only been increased by a minimum amount where it was considered reasonable.

A Member advised that the Labour Group would be making a proposal at Council regarding free parking on market days and weekends for a trial period, in-line with Government advice to support town centres and local businesses.

What was the rationale for increasing charges using the Consumer Price Index (CPI)?

The Head of Finance explained that Council contracts used CPI and it was the Government’s chosen index for measuring inflation. 

Members made the following comments in relation to Appendix I of the report.  The Head of Finance undertook to follow up any questions raised with the appropriate Heads of Service and report back to the Committee.

Car Parks

·         Why were all long-stay car parking charges consistent except for Cockleshell Walk and Trinity Road, where it was 40p less to park for over four hours?

·         What was the rationale for increasing the parking charge from 30 minutes to one hour by more than half?

·         Error on page ten of the report - Central Car Park should read Faversham, not Sittingbourne.

Car Parks Fixed Penalty Notices

Discussion ensued regarding the proposed charges; specifically whether they were sufficient enough penalties to encourage people to pay within 14 days, and whether changes to the system would reduce the workload of chasing outstanding payments, and act as a more robust deterrent.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following motion:

“That the charges be amended as set out below:

Lower Penalty System

Up to 14 Days £25

14 – 28 days £50

29 – 56 days £75

After 57 days £125

Higher Penalty System

Up to 14 Days £35

14 – 28 days £70

29 – 56 days £105

After 57 days £150”

This was seconded by Councillor Lloyd Bowen.

A Member referred to other Local Authority areas where there were only two charges for up to 28 days, and over 28 days, and suggested this may be a simplified way of administering the system.

A Member raised concern that some members of the public may not be in a position to pay the penalty charges and raising them further was detrimental to residents.

Councillor Stokes proposed the following amendment to the motion: “For the lower penalty system after 57 days to be £100, and for the higher penalty system after 57 days to be £135.”  The amendment was agreed by the proposer and seconder of the original motion.  Upon being put to the vote the amended motion was agreed.

The Head of Finance undertook to confirm if this was a discretionary charge as part of the report back to Cabinet.

Street Naming and Numbering

·         Who erects the new street signs and was there any cost to the Council?

Gambling Licensing

·         What does “tracks” mean?

Scrap Metal Dealers Licensing

·         Are we charging the correct amount, and could this charge be increased?

·         Why was the licence renewal £25 less than the original licence?

The Head of Finance reminded Members that this charge was set by the General Licensing Committee.  Members agreed that the Licensing Committee should be asked to review the scrap metal dealers licence charge.

Stray Dog Collection

·         What happens if the Council cannot identify a stray dog; or if the owner was identified but they chose not to collect the dog, were they still required to pay the charges?

Pest Control

·         There was no difference in the charges for clients on benefits – is that correct?

Environmental - Fixed Penalty Notices

Members made the following comments in relation to littering and dog fouling: charges should be increased to act as more of a deterrent; increase charges and subsequent income to employ more wardens; need to publicise fines more; not enough wardens; income was not covering the Council’s costs; dog fouling should be a greater charge than littering; and it was a widespread problem across the Borough that needed to be tackled.

Councillor Lloyd Bowen made the following proposal: “That for littering and graffiti and dog fouling, if the charge is paid within 14 days it is £80, after 15 days £320 and for waste carrier offences the charge be increased to £500.”

Councillor Mike Henderson proposed the following motion: “That for littering and graffiti, if the charge is paid within 14 days it is £80, after 15 days £160 and for dog fouling, if the charge is paid within 14 days it is £100, after 15 days £200.”  This was seconded by the Chairman and upon being put to the vote it was agreed.

With regard to waste carrier offences, the Committee agreed to ask Cabinet to re-consider the charges to ensure they were a significant enough deterrent.

Cemeteries Burial Fees

·         What was the rationale for proposing an increase in these fees?

The Head of Finance explained that these were discretionary charges where an inflationary increase was being applied, and the Council did incur costs in operating this service.  He undertook to request more information from the appropriate officer, which would be included in the report back to Cabinet.

Beach Hut Charges

·         A significant increase was being proposed for licence fees, was the Council discriminating against beach hut owners, and was there a risk that the increase would lead to a reduction in take-up?

The Cabinet Member for Finance advised that there was a waiting list of 300 residents requesting a beach hut; the lower charges had been for a trial period, as agreed with the Minster Beach Huts Association; and the proposed charges reflected demand and were relative to charges made in other areas.

Purchase of Electoral Register

·         Why was the cost of a data format copy more expensive than a hard copy, and how many copies had been sold?

Houses in Multiple Occupation Licensing

·         The Council should be strongly supporting accreditation and could there be a bigger difference in the charges for non-accredited and accredited landlords to reflect this?

Staying Put Handyperson rates

·         Could further information be provided on the charges and the income received?

Pre-Application Planning Advice

Councillor Henderson made the following proposal: “Householder planning advice charges should be split into two different charges for major and minor, applicable to both meetings and letters; and the Planning Department to decide on the amounts and definitions”.

This was seconded by the Chairman and upon being put to the vote it was agreed.

·         Can higher charges be imposed for retrospective planning applications?

Appendix II

In response to questions, the Head of Finance undertook to provide previous years’ figures including six month numbers for 2014/15 for the Cabinet meeting to reflect the level of demand for services.

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member for Finance and the Head of Finance for attending the meeting.

Resolved:

(1)  That the Scrutiny Committee makes the following recommendations to the Cabinet meeting on 5 November 2014:

(i)            That subject to confirmation that the Car Park Fixed Penalty Notices are a discretionary charge, the Scrutiny Committee recommend the following charges:

Lower Penalty System

Up to 14 Days £25

14 – 28 days £50

29 – 56 days £75

After 57 days £100

Higher Penalty System

Up to 14 Days £35

14 – 28 days £70

29 – 56 days £105

After 57 days £135

(ii)          That for littering and graffiti, if the charge is paid within 14 days it is £80, after 15 days £160 and for dog fouling, if the charge is paid within 14 days it is £100, after 15 days £200.

(iii)         That Cabinet reconsider the charges for waste carrier offences to ensure that they were a significant enough deterrent.

(iv)         Householder planning advice charges should be split into two different charges for major and minor, applicable to both meetings and letters; and the Planning Department to decide on the amounts and definitions.

(2)  That the General Licensing Committee be asked to review the Scrap Metal Dealers Licence fees.