Agenda item

Cllr L Shires, Portfolio Holder for Finance & Assets, introduced this item. She explained that the fees and charges were broken down by service area and the tables set out whether charges were statutory or discretionary and if they were set by Government or NNDC. She asked members to suggest services where additional income could be generated.

The Chairman invited members to speak:

Cllr R Macdonald referred to page 93 and the section on commercial services. He asked why the fee for officers’ time per hour was projected to be £4 less an hour in 2024/2025. The DFR said that she would look into this and provide a written response.

Cllr N Housden referred to page 83 and the fees for filming on Cromer Pier. He said that as someone with experience of working in the film industry, the Council could charge considerably more, adding that local wildlife parks charged three times the amount. The Chief Executive provided a brief history of the use of the pier for television programmes and filming. He said on those occasions the publicity and interest in Cromer and the wider district outweighed any income that would have been received from charging a fee. That said, he agreed it was a good example of where there was a competitive market and he would ask the Communications team to check that the charges were high enough. Cllr Housden asked about copyrighting images so that the Council could retain the rights to screen anything that was shot within the district. The CE confirmed that there were some licences in place for this. He added that there were several locations for filming and television production in the district and any demand had to be weighed against the loss of car park income and the impact on access for residents and tourists. The Chairman asked how advertising revenue came back to the Council and whether any ‘latent’ value from a production could be quantified in any way. The CE replied that it depended on whether it was a long-term series which was repeated over a period of time then it could have an impact in encouraging people to visit the district. Everything had to be weighed up and balanced. He added that there had been consideration at county level around operating a film office as it was felt that Norfolk locations could be a source of income stream. However, that was not what the current market indicated as many film companies were actually seeking payments to film in certain locations as they realised it had considerable benefits for the area.

Cllr Housden suggested that hosting a stage of the Tour de France could be a very lucrative way to bring money into the district. Any opportunity to host a race should be taken as the economic benefits, television revenue and spin offs could be huge.

Cllr Penfold said that the charges for filming on the pier did seem low and he asked whether the Council was proactive in promoting the pier as a location or whether it waited to be approached. He also asked whether any benchmarking had been undertaken. The CE replied that the district was the largest recipient of film and television enquiries in the county but the idea of having a shared film office was to promote Norfolk more widely as a filming destination and pool resources to actively engage and promote locations.

Cllr A Brown referred to page 77, paragraph 3.9 of the agenda and the reference to planning fees. He said that he could inform members that the Levelling Up & Regeneration Ac had allowed the Planning Service to increase fees for major applications by 35% and for domestic applications by 25% from 6^th December 2023. From 1 April 2025 they would be index-linked subject to a 10% cap and reviewed every 3 years. He concluded by saying that no increase in fees would cover the cost of service provision.

Cllr J Boyle referred to car parking charges at Holt Country Park (page 87) were low, compared to the nearby National Trust properties, Sheringham Park and Felbrigg Hall. She felt that there was scope to increase this. The DFR informed members that car parking fees and charges had not been fully reviewed yet and this was a larger piece of work that would be done separately in the coming months.

Cllr L Withington commented on the 8% increase in charges to cover the additional costs in staffing inflation and she was satisfied that additional resourcing costs were being taken into account. She then referred to page 101, which set out statutory charges set by Government for licensing fees and said that although the Council was increasing charges to cover costs where possible, this was not an option for these statutory charges and she asked if there was any indication of these being likely to increase in other sectors of the Council or was there anything NNDC could do to try and push for this. The DFR replied that where fees and charges were set by the Government they either prescribed how much should be charged for a service or provided guidance as to how the Council should calculate that amount. For certain services the Council could only charge an amount that covered the cost of the service or a set amount. Cllr Withington asked for those services where it was a prescribed amount whether the Council was covering its costs.  The DFR replied that in the cases where the Council was able to cover its costs it always ensured that it never undercharged by set the fee at the maximum level it could.

Cllr V Holliday sought clarification that members were agreeing to the fees and charges for 2024/2025 minus the car parking charges. Cllr L Shires replied that members could make any recommendations now regarding the fees and charges as they had not been agreed by Cabinet and Full Council yet. Cllr Holliday then asked about planning fees and said where they were being increased in line with inflation whether there was scope to increase by more than this. She referred to page 108, which covered additional meetings and plans and said that there was no proposed increase in future years and suggested that this could be considered. The DFR replied that for some discretionary charges, they were rounded up to the nearest pound and had in fact been gradually increasing over the years, although this was not always apparent. She added that officers also considered the market that they were operating in and whether it was a competitive arena or if the Council was the only service provider and who it was provided to and whether an increase would be affordable to the end user. She concluded by saying that officers would review the fees and charges again at the end of the budget process to ensure that the Council was maximising income through the level of fees that were being charged.

Cllr N Housden referred to page 97 and the fees for betting premises. He asked whether the annual fees were based on the industry standard or whether there was any room for manoeuvre. The DFR replied that these fees and charges could be set by the district but there may be some restrictions linked to size of premises and location. She said that she would look into this and seek clarification from the Licensing team.

The Chairman thanked members for their input. In summary, he said that members had discussed a commercial approach, benchmarking and market forces. He said that the committee would like assurance that all of the above were being applied where the Council had the discretion to set fees and charges.

It was proposed by Cllr P Fisher, seconded by Cllr M Hankins and

RESOLVED

To recommend that Cabinet supports the following recommendations to Full Council

1.     The Fees & Charges from 1^st April 2024 as included in Appendix A

2.     That delegated authority be given to the Section 151 Officer, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Finance and relevant Directors/Assistant Director to agree the fees and charges not included within Appendix A as required (outlined within the report).

In addition, the Committee resolved to recommend that for those charges where the Council has the discretion to vary fees, Cabinet ensures they are reviewed with the following three key issues in mind -

·         a commercial approach

·         benchmarking

·         market forces