LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee held at 10.00 am on 2
April 2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer.
Members Present:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs A Green
Mr B J Hannah
Mr P W High
Mr B Jarvis
Miss B Palmer
Mr R Price (Chairman)
Mr R Reynolds
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs H Thompson
Mr J Wyatt
Officers in attendance:
The Licensing Manager, the Legal Advisor, and the Democratic
Services Team Leader (MMH).
37
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mrs P Grove-Jones.
38
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
39
40
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member(s)
Minute
No.
Item
Interest
Mr R C Price
40
Licensing Fees for 2012/13 –
Animal Welfare Licences
Personal and nonprejudicial –is a dog
owner and patronises
kennels in North
Norfolk.
Mrs H
Thompson
40
Licensing Fees for 2012/13 –
Animal Welfare Licences
Personal and nonprejudicial –
patronises a horse
riding establishment in
North Norfolk.
LICENSING FEES FOR 2012/13 – ANIMAL WELFARE LICENCES
On 26 March 2012 Members had agreed fee revisions for Taxi Driver, Vehicle and
Operator Licences but had not reached consensus about revised fees for Animal
Welfare Licences, Members considering that the proposed increases were too great.
The meeting had, therefore, been adjourned and re-convened on 2 April 2012.
Since the meeting of 26 March 2012 the Licensing Manager had produced a
breakdown of costs which had been attributed to animal welfare licences in 2011/12.
This had been provided to Members. A table showing the current fees in other
councils in Norfolk had also been provided.
Licensing and Appeals Committee
2 April 2012
LICENSING FEES FOR 2012/13 – ANIMAL WELFARE LICENCES (Continued)
The NNDC breakdown included the significant cost of 2 Hearings concerning Animal
Establishments. This had a bearing on the proposed fees, if cost neutrality was to be
achieved. Although it could be argued that 2011/12 had not been a typical year there
could be similar circumstances in the future.
The Licensing Manager advised Members that they might wish to recommend
incremental increases to Full Council, but this would mean that the Council’s costs
would not be covered.
Members discussed the proposed fees:
a) There was a legal requirement that Animal Establishments should be licensed
annually but there were different regulations for zoos.
b) A question was asked regarding home boarding. The Licensing Manager
explained that, unlike a kennels, a home boarding arrangement meant that a dog
was being looked after in a dwelling. Officers inspected the home to ensure that it
was a suitable environment. Registration was necessary if home boarding was
being offered as a business.
c) Charity establishments: these did not need to be licensed as the animals were
owned by the charity.
d) In response to a Member’s question the Licensing Manager explained that he
had only been able to ascertain the fee for Animal Boarding at Great Yarmouth
Borough Council. He had been unable to find out the fees for the other types of
licence. Breckland had done a similar exercise to NNDC to establish the whole
cost of Animal Welfare licensing. That was why their fees were uniform and
significantly higher.
e) In response to a question the Licensing Manager explained that a Dog Breeding
Establishment was defined by the nature of its operation. Officers regularly
investigated queries from the public regarding this issue.
f) Garden centres which sold mammals and birds required a Pet Shop licence.
Some pet shops had a licence although they rarely needed one and might reflect
before renewing it in the future.
g) It was not possible to vire money from an underspend on street signs to subsidise
Animal Welfare Licensing. To avoid challenge the Council needed to demonstrate
that its activities were profitable.
h) In response to a question the Licensing Manager said that there were more
overheads from other types of Licensing than from Animal Welfare. This was
because of paperwork, telephone calls etc. In previous years there had been little
legal input into Animal Welfare licensing but this had changed recently because
of the two Hearings. The only aspect of Animal Licensing which was not provided
in-house was the veterinary inspection, but this was re-charged to the applicant.
i) Mr P W High said that he would not support the fees proposed in the officer’s
report of 26 March 2012. He asked Members to consider having a uniform, but
reasonable, fee for all types.
j) Mr R Reynolds agreed that the activity should not be subsidised and suggested
banding the fees. Mrs H Thompson agreed with this and suggested that the
increase should be incremental over a number of years. Mr B J Hannah
suggested a uniform fee of £125 with review next year when the Licensing
Manager would have had more opportunity to prepare a breakdown. Mr P W High
seconded this.
k) The Chairman said that he thought there was a consensus that the activity should
be cost neutral but that the proposed increase was too high, especially as some
businesses would have lower levels of occupancy during the winter months. He
advised Members, when making their decision, to recommend that cost neutrality
Licensing and Appeals Committee
2 April 2012
LICENSING FEES FOR 2012/13 – ANIMAL WELFARE LICENCES (Continued)
l)
m)
n)
o)
p)
q)
would be achieved, if not now then within the lifetime of the present Licensing
and Appeals Committee.
Banding was further discussed at this stage and the following groupings were
suggested:
• Animal Boarding, Dog Breeding Establishments and Pet Shops: businesses
which were potentially profitable but with unknown returns.
• Zoos and Riding Establishments: businesses which were potentially profitable
with a specified charge to the customer.
• Dangerous Wild Animals: could be part of a business or could be a pet.
Mr B Jarvis, seconded by Mr R Reynolds, suggested doubling the existing fees,
but Mr B Smith urged that there should be one charge across each band to avoid
complicating matters and increasing administration charges.
The Licensing Manager would discuss a suggestion regarding payment by Direct
Debit with the Finance team. He believed that legislation required licensing fees
to be paid in advance.
Members voted on the proposals regarding methods of charging. The proposal to
retain the banding was agreed but the proposal to have a flat fee of £125 was
lost. The fees for each band were voted on one by one and agreed unanimously.
When the revised fees were notified to applicants a sentence should be included
to explain that the increase was regretted but was necessary to cover costs, to
explain that this was subject to review and that the eventual aim was to achieve
cost neutrality.
The Licensing Manager would draft a letter to central government advocating the
return of dog licences and urging compulsory chipping.
RESOLVED
To recommend to Full Council:
1. To retain a banding system for Animal Welfare Licences for a period of one year,
after which time it will be reviewed.
2. That the three bands and charges are as follows:
a) Animal Boarding, Dog Breeding Establishments and Pet Shops £110.00 per
annum.
b) Dangerous Wild Animals £145.00 per annum.
c) Zoos and Riding Establishments £155.00 per annum
3. To increase the cost of Animal Welfare Licences annually by increments with the
aim of achieving cost neutrality within the lifetime of the present Licensing and
Appeals Committee.
41
TO RECEIVE UPDATES ON MEMBERS’ TASK AND FINISH GROUPS
The work on Taxi Licensing had taken a significant amount of time. The other 2
groups had met. Progress had been slower but now could move forward. Members
agreed that the work was important and should proceed. Some charity collections, in
particular, were currently causing concern to residents and reflection was needed on
public protection, especially for the vulnerable. Licensing administrators would reagenda the meetings and notify the schedule to Members.
The meeting closed at 11.30 am.
_____________________
Chairman
Licensing and Appeals Committee
2 April 2012