Council and democracy

The Finance Officer introduced the report to the Committee explaining that the fee and charges for the Council were received on an annual basis and were broken down to be presented at the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committees.

He continued to notify Members that the report highlighted the proposed new fees and charges for the Public Protection and Environment directorates.  It was mentioned that when reviewing the fees and charges for 2016/2017 benchmarking against neighbouring authorises was undertaken.

The Finance Officer explained the difference between statutory and discretionary charges; in that statutory charges were predetermined by the government and discretionary charges meant that the Council had a say in the amount that was charged. Members were advised that given the nature of some public protection fees such as licences, such fees would be agreed by the Licensing Committee.

Members commented they felt that certain fees had not been increased adequately such as the flyposting and dog fouling. Clarification was sought as to the fee setting for abandoned vehicles; Members further commented that vehicles were left in laybys and on roundabouts seeking sales.

The Environmental Health and Trading Standards Manager explained with vehicles which were left to be sold on the highway, unfortunately there was a weakness within the legislation; as councils would have to prove that a seller had sold two vehicles. He continued to advise the committee that officers undertook a lot of work in relation to abandoned vehicles. Members were further advised that if a vehicle was to be reclaimed the council could charge a storage fee.

It was commented that the discretionary fees allowed the Council to make a profit as these were set by the Council; however Members were informed that the Council could be open for challenge if it was deemed the Council was over charging.

Members were advised court cases had been taken against Local Authorises and fees had been paid back.

The Committee enquired as to fees being part of a comparison with other Local Authorities within the area. The Environmental Health and Trading Standards Manager confirmed that the fees and charges were subject to a benchmarking exercise with other authorises in the area, he explained that this kept the fees concede and sought that the Council received the best income.

Councillor Jones, Chair of the Committee stated he felt the charges for Burial grounds was a steep raise, he queried if the Council was on target with other Local Authorises.

The Finance Officer clarified the Council’s fees had been significantly lower than other authorises in the local area; he confirmed the Council was now in the same boundary as its neighbours.

It was queried as to how many officers the Public Protection department had to deal with the fineable offences such as dog fouling. Officers informed the committee that there were 2 full time officers; however this would shortly become one.  It was commented that it was hoped the post would be refilled accordingly; however budget savings over the last 3 years had affected staffing levels.

The Chair of the Committee commented upon the filming sponsorship, the Finance Officer explained that if an area was deemed to be available then the Council could charge for filming to take place an example of this was Coal House Fort.

RESOLVED:

That the committee consider the proposed charges as detailed in

Appendix 1.