Agenda item
Fees and Charges
The reason for the call-in is:-
· To give full consideration to the impact on services of increases in fees an charges.
The Executive report is attached. The Lead Member and Lead Officer are invited to the meeting to respond to Members’ questions.
Minutes:
The reason for the call-in is:-
· To give full consideration to the impact on services of increases in fees and charges.
Councillor Lorber, one of the councillors who had called in the item, commented that he felt the proposals had been drafted over a relatively short period of time which included some substantial fee increases in some cases, whilst other fee changes were being proposed to start earlier, from January or February as opposed to the beginning of the new financial year. He felt that fee and charges increases would have major implications in some areas, such as sports activities and in shopping areas.
Members then discussed the item. Councillor Denselow asked what the impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) was with regard to consideration of fees and charges and he requested information on fees and charges in comparison with other local authorities prior to the savings required by local authorities. He commented that costs for pest treatment such as rats may be unaffordable for poorer households and enquired whether this would be means tested. Councillor Mashari suggested that the introduction of a free service to remove bulky waste would reduce fly tipping and therefore reduce the risk of pests. She asked whether any other measures were being considered to tackle pest infection, including working with other relevant agencies. Councillor Mashari also enquired whether more information could be provided to businesses to advise them in respect of making waste disposal arrangements. Councillor B M Patel sought reasons for the large increase in charges in respect of illegal deposits.
Councillor Lorber stated that the service to address rat infestation had been free because of environmental health reasons and he enquired what the consequences would be of introducing a £95 charge. He felt that rat infestation was a big problem in the borough, especially near shopping centres and that this represented a retrograde step. He asked what fees and charges changes required consultation with users, such as for allotments. In respect of the timing of the decision, he felt that as the council had been planning savings and had known about the VAT rise for some time, it was surprising that the proposals had been put to the December Executive. He felt that the VAT increase would not incur any additional costs to the council in any case. Councillor Lorber commented that the loss of take up in using services because of the increased charges could mean a fall in income and he asked whether this had been taken into consideration when devising the proposals. He queried the reasons for the difference in charges between on and off-street parking and asked when a review of the proposed fees and charges would take place to assess the impact both financially and on services.
The Chair asked if an exception to remove the charge to deal with rat infestation could be considered if there was a marked increased in rat-related diseases.
In reply to the issues raised, Councillor Butt (Deputy Leader of the Council and Lead Member for Resources) advised that £7m savings were required following the Government announcement in the summer of 2010 and this had increased to £37 million since the Local Government Finance Settlement made in light of the CSR. Re-consideration of how all services were being provided was being undertaken in view of the additional savings required and the increase from 17.5% to 20% in VAT. Councillor Butt explained that the changes to the fees and charges were being completed at the same time as the VAT increase in order to prevent the undesirable situation of having to change fees and charges twice. The deeper and front-loaded savings required as a result of the CSR had necessitated the need to increase some fees and charges in order to help fund operating of services. Councillor Butt advised that some service fees would continue to be means tested, such as allotments, however this would not include pest control. Should there be a significant increase in rat-related diseases, then the council would work with relevant partners such as the Environmental Agency to tackle this and a more holistic approach was being taken to address this issue. Members heard that the on-street parking charges were in line with neighbouring boroughs, whilst the off-street parking charges were designed to encourage motorists to use these facilities as opposed to parking in streets. The one hour parking fee had remained the same to encourage quicker turnover of parking spaces used and increase the number of visitors to shopping areas, thus boosting local businesses.
With regard to the introduction of the free bulky waste collection service, Councillor Butt advised that this had proven successful and had reduced incidences of fly tipping. A review of all businesses would take place to ensure that that they had waste collections and Councillor Butt agreed to provide more information to Councillor Mashari in respect of this. Members heard that comparative studies with other local authorities in London had identified Brent as charging considerably less for illegal deposits and therefore increases to bring the charges in line with other boroughs were made.
Clive Heaphy (Director of Finance and Corporate Services) advised that Environmental Health had indicated that there were inefficient resource implications in respect of rat services as there would be a number of occasions when call-outs would conclude that there were no rats on the premises. It was also felt that the charge would dissuade unnecessary visits and result in a greater percentage of genuine call-outs. Members were advised that there was not a requirement to consult with specific groups with regard to the fees and charges increases, however information would be given on these at the Area Consultative Forums. Clive Heaphy advised that the timescale to change fees and charges was due to the timing of the CSR and the Local Government Finance Settlement, however it was felt that one as opposed to two increases would be preferable to service users. Although the council had been planning savings for some time, the new Government’s cuts were deeper and more front loaded than the previous Government’s. The grant loss for the Council for 2011/12 was 11.3% and the council had to consider all options to address this, including raising some fees and charges. Such increases included a built-in assumption in reduction in demand for some services and the fees and charges set were as a result of bench marking exercises with other local authorities. With regard to on-street and off-street parking charges, these were based on the same principals as previously. Clive Heaphy advised that 7% of the savings needed would come from raised revenue, whilst the vast majority, 93%, would be achieved through reducing expenditure. Members noted that fees and charges changes would be reviewed through the budget monitoring process.
RESOLVED:-
that upon considering the report from the Director of Finance and Corporate Services on Fees and Charges, the decisions made by the Executive be noted.
Supporting documents: