Agenda item

The Committee considered the proposed licensing fees and charges for 2025/26.

The Service Manager for Environmental and Regulation reported that an annual review of charges had been carried out of non-statutory services and new charges for 2025/26 were proposed.  All charges were to recover costs of providing the service and were not to generate a profit.  The services with revised charges included animal welfare, skin piercing, caravan licensing and pavement licensing. 

A number of new charges were proposed to be introduced for new licenses which would have a higher initial charge, than that of renewal, which was to recognise that any new service required more officer time in order to assess the new business and therefore this would reflect the actual cost.  A new area of charging was proposed for pavement licenses.  It was explained that during the covid pandemic local authorities had been given authority to issue temporary pavement licenses to encourage a pavement culture supporting local businesses.  The District Council had made a decision not to charge for temporary licenses but as they were now permanent, it was proposed that fees be introduced to recover the costs of delivering the service.

The report did not propose any increase to taxi licences, but officers would undertake a review of these charges and carry out a consultation exercise prior to seeking approval for any changes.  The recommendation in the report was highlighted, which sought Full Council approval for a delegation to the General Purposes and Licensing Committee to approve the taxi licence charges following a public consultation.

Cllr Harrison addressed the Committee questioning the need to charge for pavement licenses recognising that business were struggling to survive following the covid pandemic and that there were benefits of outside seating for both the business and its customers.  Cllr Harrison put forward a motion to remove the proposed charge in order to support local businesses.  The cost of providing this service at no change to the business would therefore be taken from reserves.  Cllr J Davies seconded this motion.

The Licensing Manager provided some background and context to the licensing regime for pavements, recognising that temporary arrangements had been arranged during the pandemic.  No charge had been made to businesses for these temporary pavement licenses, to help businesses operate at a difficult time.  There was, however, a cost to the District Council for the administration of licensing of pavements which included, site visits, checks to ensure that the area was designated highway, that the tables and chairs did not cause an obstruction to pedestrians, etc.

The motion from Cllr Harrison was clarified in that the proposal was to provide pavement licenses at no charge to businesses but that they would continue to be regulated. 

During the debate some members spoke in support of the motion expressing the view that local businesses should be supported in the current economic climate, particularly as the hospitality industry was still experiencing the negative impact of the covid pandemic.  An opposing view was expressed by some members of the Committee that this would support one type of business over other businesses and would set a precedent.   It was felt that this would be unfair, as well as inconsistent with the fees and charges approach for cost recovery.  It was further highlighted that the charges were not profit generating.  Members recognised that ultimately the cost of the charges would be paid for by the customer, and that the alternative of not charging, would be met by the taxpayer.

The Chairman clarified that there were currently six pavement licenses across the District and therefore the number of businesses affected was low.

The proposal from Cllr Harrison to remove the charges from the report for pavement licences was put to the vote and lost.

The issue of skin piercing was raised and the qualifications of the practitioner.  The Food and Safety Manager reported that there were no recognised qualifications for the industry.  Officers, when determining any application, would make a professional balanced judgement on the skills of the practitioner and their working practices.   

RECOMMENDED:

That the General Purposes and Licensing Committee recommend to Council the following:

1.     Approval of the proposed fees and charges for the financial year 2025-25, as set out in Appendix 1; and

2.     That power to set the scale of fees and charges for Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licences, including to consider any objections made in respect of the proposed fees, be delegated to the General Purposes and Licensing Committee