Agenda item

Scrutiny of Fees and Charges Proposals

The Committee is asked to consider the proposals.

 

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance, the Deputy Cabinet Members for Finance and Performance, the Chief Financial Officer and the Head of Commissioning, Environment and Leisure have been invited to attend the meeting for this item.

Minutes:

The Chairman welcomed the Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance, the Deputy Cabinet Members for Finance and Performance, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Rural Affairs, the Cabinet Member for Housing and Safer Communities, the Chief Financial Officer and the Head of Commissioning, Environment and Leisure to the meeting. 

 

The Chairman advised that the report had been considered by Cabinet the previous week, and would be considered by Council the following week.  He suggested that the Scrutiny Committee should focus its attention on Appendix I in the report which were areas where the Council had some discretion on charges. Appendix II listed the fees and charges set by Government which Swale Borough Council had no discretion over.

 

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 2019/20. He referred to the commentary provided in Appendix I which should assist the Committee in its consideration of the proposed fees and charges.

 

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions on the fees and charges set out in Appendix I, which was considered page-by-page.

 

Page 11

 

The Chairman invited the Cabinet Member for Housing and Safer Communities to explain the rationale behind the charging regime for Bourne Place Multi-Storey Car Park.  In doing so, the Cabinet Member referred to the new technology that would be in place, and reminded the Committee that all Council car parks were free between 6pm and 8am. 

 

In response to questions:

 

·         The Cabinet Member clarified why it would not be possible to have the free concession for disabled drivers at Bourne Place, as with an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) and barrier system there was no way of validating blue badges.  However, more disabled spaces would be made available in the Forum car park to compensate for this.

 

·         Members were advised that there would be a ‘help’ system should the automatic barrier fail.

 

·         The Head of Commissioning, Environment and Leisure clarified that the charging structure proposed was to keep it in-line with other short-stay Council car parks although it was possible that real-time tariffs rather than hourly slots could be looked at in the future. 

 

·         In respect of the number of long-term parking spaces in Sittingbourne, the Cabinet Member for Housing and Safer Communities advised that in the short term there would be a surplus of spaces, referring to the current provision at Cockelshell Walk and Spring Street Car Parks.  In the long-term, Albany Road car park would be changed to a long-stay car park and there was an increase in car parking spaces at the train station.

 

Page 12

 

In response to a question regarding long-stay car park charges, the Cabinet Member for Housing and Safer Communities explained that the car park charges were cheaper in Cockleshell Walk (than in Faversham) to encourage its use.

 

Page 13

 

In response to a question regarding the charge to close parking bays for events or other activities, the Cabinet Member for Housing and Safer Communities explained that different charges applied depending on whether the use was for a community group or commercial organisation, and whether the event had income generating activities.  The charge was calculated to reflect the average use and occupancy of the car park.

 

Page 15

 

In response to a question as to whether the £10 charge to replace a residents’ parking permit (on-street) could be waived in circumstances such as the vehicle being stolen, the Head of Commissioning, Environment and Leisure agreed to report back on this.

 

Page 20

 

In response to a question regarding the travelling fairs and fetes pitch premium for days open to the public, compared with the charge for use of Council land by travelling fairs, the Head of Commissioning, Environment and Leisure explained why the percentage increase proposed was different, to reflect they would be earning income on days open to the public.

 

Page 24

 

In response to a question as to whether the Council would ever consider removing the charge for the garden waste subscription, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Rural Affairs referred to the waste partnership with Ashford and Maidstone Councils needing consistency and that the fee did not discourage use.  It was also noted that this service generated £367k per annum.

 

Page 25

 

In response to a question regarding why the cost of additional dog bins was still there now litter bins could be used for the same purpose, the Head of Commissioning, Environment and Leisure explained that it cost less to empty a dog bin, so where litter was not an issue it was still cost effective to have dog bins.

 

Page 27

 

In response to a question regarding ‘householders duty of care – lack of care in disposal of waste’, the Head of Commissioning, Environment and Leisure explained the circumstances when this charge would be levied.  The intention was to educate the public to use bona fide waste removal companies.  He drew attention to the registered waste carriers website which customers could use to check whether a company was legitimate. 

 

Page 29

 

The Head of Commissioning, Environment and Leisure referred to the ‘shake- up’ in legislation regarding Animal Welfare Licensing, and that the charges proposed were based on their interpretation of the guidance issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

 

In response to a question regarding how they identified where dogs were being bred to sell as pets in residential properties, the Head of Commissioning, Environment and Leisure referred to intelligence received from the public and agreed to report back further on this.  The Cabinet Member for Environment and Rural Affairs emphasised the good relationship that the Council had with the RSPCA (referring to the Council’s success in obtaining the gold footprint award) and the public.

 

Page 32

 

In response to a question regarding the pricing structure for pest control charges for clients on benefits, the Committee asked officers to look at whether this was necessary given it was the same fee for those clients not on benefits.

 

In respect of the £25 charge for returning a stray dog to an owner, there was some discussion as to whether this charge covered the actual cost of this service.

 

Page 36

 

In respect of the fee charged to food handlers for training in food hygiene, a Member asked that consideration be given to reducing this charge for community organisations and for small community groups.  This was agreed by the Committee.  It was noted that this service generated £500 per year, and that the training was also available from other providers.

 

Page 40

 

In respect of charges under Gambling Licensing, the Chief Financial Officer agreed to report back on why the maximum statutory charges were not being proposed for betting premises, and to provide the definition of a ‘family entertainment centre’.

 

Page 46

 

In response to a suggestion, the Chief Financial Officer agreed to report back as to why there was a charge for alleygate keys, when the income generated was £50 per year.

 

The Chairman thanked Officers and Members for attending the meeting.

 

Recommended:

 

Scrutiny makes the following recommendations to Council:

 

(1) That in respect of the fee charged to food handlers for training in food hygiene, consideration be given to reducing the charge for community organisations and small commercial organisations.

 

(2) That consideration be given to remove the separate charges under pest control for ‘clients on benefits’.

Supporting documents: