Agenda item - Licence fees 2015/2016

Report of the Director of Public Health (copy attached)

16.1    The Committee considered a report of the Director of Public Health setting out the proposed licence fees and charges for 2015/16 relating to street trading, sex establishments and sex entertainment Licences, gambling premises, taxi licensing and other licensing functions.

16.2    The Head of Regulatory Services, Tim Nichols explained that In order to ensure that council tax payers were not subsidising work concerning licensing administration, income was raised by licence fees which aimed to cover the cost of administration of each regime within constraints of regulation. Licence fees should not be used to raise revenue. The way in which charges were calculated had been reviewed and was now based on a recent detailed analysis of officer time. The regulation of setting fees was detailed and changes which were considered necessary as a result of legislation and the outcome of recent case law were set out in the report.

16.3    Councillor Rufus sought clarification regarding the rationale for lowering some/ raising some of the fees by the levels indicated in the current year. He understood the need to bring the accounts into balance and the rationale for this, but as some were well above the level of inflation this could be considered hard to justify. He queried whether it would be possible to bring the level of fees charged into line over several years. The Head of Regulatory Services, Tim Nichols explained that it was intended to bring the accounts into balance by the close of the current financial year, as this was recognised a fiduciary best practice. It was also not possible to roll budgets forward from one year to the next in view of the requirement to cover costs, but not to raise revenue. The Accountant to the Committee, Steven Bedford, confirmed that this was so and explained the precise rationale for each of the levels of charge proposed to be levied.

16.4    Councillor Kennedy understood all that had been said and the case law which stood behind it but stated that she was unable to support the recommended reductions to the levels due by sex entertainment venues and sex establishments. Such levels sent the wrong message given the privations of many who considered themselves “trapped” within the sex industry; It was regrettable that money raised could not be used towards supporting those who wished to leave the trade. Therefore she would abstain when the vote was taken, notwithstanding that she did not object to the other report recommendations.

16.5    Councillor Randall concurred with all that had been said by Councillor Kennedy confirming that he would abstain from voting for the same reason. Councillor Randall also referred to the level of fee increases proposed for hackney carriage and private hire drivers, both of which seemed very high given the current fragile condition of the local economy and the fact a number of businesses/operators continued to struggle.

16.6    Councillor C Theobald also considered that the suggested levels of increases for hackney carriage and private hire drivers seemed very high and sought clarification of how this figure had been arrived at and whether the trade had been consulted.

16.7    Councillor Robins referred to paragraph 3.5 which needed to be corrected as it contained a double negative.

16.8    Councillor Cobb referred to paragraph 3.10 requesting clarification whether the proposed reduction of 5% was correct.

16.9    Councillor A Kitcat referred to the case law referred to in the report, particularly in relation to the level at which fees were set for licensed sex establishments and whether those set in Brighton and Hove could be subject to challenge. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Rebecca Sidell explained that any decisions taken were always subject to challenge and if costs were successfully applied for could be very expensive. If set in line with prevailing legislation and case law however, an authority would be able to evidence their decision making process and the rationale for the level of fees and charges set.

16.10  Councillor Wealls sought clarification of how sex establishments were defined for levying of fees. He also sought clarification of whether the proposed fees for hackney carriage and private hire drivers had been notified to the Taxi Forum and whether a response had been received from them.

16.11- A vote was taken and of the 13 Members present when the vote was taken the recommendations in the Officer’s report were agreed on a vote of 8 with 5 abstentions.

16.12  RESOLVED - That the committee approves the following variation to licence fees:

·         Hackney carriage driver fee +58.7%, hackney carriage vehicle fee +5.1%, private hire driver fee +25.6% and private hire vehicle fee -51.5%.

·         Sex entertainment venues and sex establishments are decreased by -38.5%.

·         Street trading fees - decreased by -5% (street artists & misc. short term -6.3%).

·         All Gambling Act 2005 fees remain the same.