The Committee is asked to consider the Review of Fees and Charges.  The Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance, the Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance and the Chief Financial Officer have been invited to attend for this item.

The Chairman welcomed the Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance, the Chief Financial Officer and the Head of Commissioning and Customer Contact to the meeting.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance introduced the report which invited the Scrutiny Committee to consider the proposals for the level of fees and charges to be levied for the next financial year 2018/19.  He explained that as a result of previous comments from the Scrutiny Committee, the report had become more refined.

The Chairman advised that the Scrutiny Committee would review Appendix I in the report.  Appendix II listed the fees and charges set by Government which SBC had no discretion over.  The Chairman stated that the Committee would go through Appendix I page by page and he welcomed comments and questions.

Page 16

Question:  why was the long stay car parking fees cheaper at Cockleshell Walk, Sittingbourne and the Promenade, Leysdown, than in other locations?

Answer:  Charged less at Leysdown to bolster the tourism trade, and with Cockleshell Walk, this was out-of-town and under utilised, and the lesser charge was to bolster the capacity.

Page 18

Question:  Why had outdoor fitness charges increased, when there were aims to increase fitness throughout the Borough?

Answer:  Charges were aimed at commercial companies, and this allowed checks to ascertain they were legitimate to work on SBC-owned land.  This was about formalising the process regarding risk, and making profit from SBC land.

Question:  We might not know who was operating a franchise on outdoor fitness?

Answer:  The vast majority were self-employed; SBC asked whoever ran the session to pay the fee.  If the company was larger, they would pay an increased fee.

Question: Why had the replacement of a paper licence certificate (taxi licensing) been reduced by 50p, to £10?

Answer:  This was an across the board charge, i.e. dual driver badge replacement was £9.50, it was now £10.

Question:  at last year’s equivalent meeting, the Cabinet Member had advised that fitness sessions for 1 – 4 people should have no charge made against them, why had this changed?

Recommended: 

(1)          That the re-introduced charge for once a week outdoor fitness licence fees (1 – 4 people) be deleted.

Page 19

Question:  who paid for additional litter bins?

Answer:  SBC would pay for additional bins if they considered a new one was required and that it made a positive impact upon street cleansing.

In response to a question on additional litter bins, the Chief Financial Officer agreed to amend the schedule so that it included the wording ‘where levied’ instead of ‘where needed’.

Question:  Would community events be adversely effected by the charges?

Answer:  A full review had not been carried out on every event, but events that might be impacted had been advised.

Question:  Had there been an adverse reaction to the charges?

Answer:  Yes.

Page 22

Question:  who paid the costs of Traffic Regulation Order consultations?

Answer: the answer would be forwarded to Members.

Page 23

Question:  should more be charged for harbour mooring fees?

Answer:  this fee had existed for years and operated on an honesty box approach.  It would cost more if staff oversaw this.

Question:  if someone paid for a disabled bay, and it was not theirs, could this be changed so it became that person’s space?

Answer:  No, cannot stop someone else using the space.

Members spoke on the new charge for disabled parking bay applications.  The Head of Commissioning and Customer Contact advised that the charge did not cover the full cost, but was for processing the application.  This process was delegated by Kent County Council to SBC. 

Councillor Mike Henderson moved a motion that the Disabled Parking Bay Applications be removed from the schedule.  This was seconded by Councillor Roger Truelove.  Following a vote, the motion was carried.

Recommended:

(1)          That the new charge for Disabled Parking Bay Applications be deleted.

Page 25

A Member considered the charge for a scrap metal license should be increased to at least £500.  The Chief Financial Officer stated that more work could be carried out to get comparisons on costs from other authorities.

Question:  why had VAT been added to the CIEH Level 2 Award Training in Food Safety in Catering?

Answer:  the answer would be forwarded to Members.

Page 26

Question:  Could the Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for fly posting be increased, as disappointed with the £80 charge?

Answer:  This was the maximum that could be set.

Question:  why had the FPN for ‘refuse left out inappropriately’ gone down?

Answer:  Government had reduced the charge so the Council had to reduce accordingly, but this was the top level of charge.

Page 27

Question:  what were the breakdown of costs for the Stray Dog Collection?

Answer:  the answer would be forwarded to Members.

Page 28

Question:  why were the charges the same for pest control for residents both on and not on benefits?

Answer: the answer would be forwarded to Members.

Page 31

Question: concerned that Pre-Application Planning Advice charges had doubled. Could there be concessions for residents starting up for the first time?

Answer:  the answer would be forwarded to Members.

A Member noted that there was no charge for ‘householders’ under the ‘meetings section’.  He considered the charges for pre-application advice was too high, particularly for modest schemes.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved a motion to add a new line under ‘Meetings’ for ‘Householders’, and the charge to be £50, and letters to householders should be £25, not £50.  This was seconded by Councillor Roger Truelove.  Following a vote, the motion was carried.

Recommended:

(1)          That a new line be added under ‘Meetings’ for ‘Householders’, and the charge to be £50, and letters to householders should be £25, not £50. 

Post Meeting Note:  Pre application charges meetings with householders - the reason there was not a line for it was that SBC did not offer pre-application meetings on householder proposals and only offered a letter review service. 

Page 33

Question: what was the lower/higher FPN rates and what were the dispensations?

Answer:  the answer would be forwarded to Members.

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance, the Chief Financial Officer and the Head of Commissioning and Customer Contact for attending the meeting.