Agenda item

To consider the details of scoping for the proposed review of licensing policy.

The Environmental Health Officer (Commercial) read out the report.

In relation to paragraph 18, the Chairman said he didn’t want members to take up more time than necessary. He would look to arrange a date that as many members as possible could make.

In response to a question from Councillor Sell asking if the driver of the review was the aim to prevent licenses being issued to companies based outside of Uttlesford, the Chairman said the review was driven by a need to have a policy which was up to date, effective and more similar to other districts nationally. The main aim was to make sure drivers were fit and proper people in order to ensure public safety.

In response to questions about charges for licensing in the district, the Licensing Team Leader said she would not be surprised if their charges were some of the lowest in the country. The Solicitor said it would not be appropriate to discriminate between those applying for licenses who live in the district and those who live outside the district. Companies based outside the district would not be issued with licenses.

In response to questions from Councillor Barker, the Environmental Health Officer (Commercial) said Mr Rawlings had been identified by peer review, and that between 15-20 days’ worth of his salary would be back paid to him. The wording ‘full autonomy’ on paragraph 16 would be changed to reflect that Mr Rawlings would not have complete autonomy during his review.

In response to a question from Councillor Barker, the Environmental Health Officer (Commercial) said it would not be an officer review, but one of policy. No judgement would be made on staff, and the review would only look at present actions. He would change the wording to reflect this.

In response to a question from Councillor Gerard regarding a comparison with other districts with operating airports, the Environmental Health Officer (Commercial) said the review would not look specifically at this because Stansted Airport was not problematic for licensing. The growth of Uber was probably the biggest challenge for the Licensing Team. He said Uttlesford was a cheap district to be registered in, and at the moment the Council did not require prospective drivers to take a knowledge test. The team was looking to raise standards of drivers, and there was the possibility to raise fees.

The Chairman said any fees raised from Licensing charges would be used in for other Licensing matters in the future. The Council’s fees were cheap because the department was efficient and because it was right not to charge more than was necessary.

Members asked that the review incorporate a comparison between what Uttlesford District Council did for the £50 it charged for licensing fees, and what other councils that were charging more did for their licensing fees. The Environmental Health Officer (Commercial) said this was covered by the mention of benchmarking in paragraph 20.

In response to a question from Councillor Sell, the Environmental Health Officer (Commercial) said he believed the high number of taxi drivers licensed in the district did not negatively impact on the Licensing Team’s focus on premises licenses.

In response to a question from Councillor Morris regarding where the money for the review was coming from, the Chairman said the committee did not have its own budget, but the funds were coming from the department.

The committee noted the report.