This report was considered by Cabinet in November and they agreed to the early adoption of increases to a range of fees and charges (F&C’s) for the financial year 2024/25 as set out in Appendix A. It is proposed to increase fees and charges to the levels detailed in Appendix A from 1 January 2024, in order to assist with ameliorating the council’s overall financial position and to help close the budget gap for the 2023/24 financial year.

The proposed changes in parking fees and charges are set out in Appendix B, and Cabinet agreed for these to go out to public consultation in December, for implementation in February 2024, following consideration of consultation feedback. Overview and Scrutiny forms part of this consultation.

The Place Overview and Scrutiny Panel and People Overview and Scrutiny Panel will consider the changes to fees and charges in their areas and any comments from the Panels will be published as a supplement to the agenda.

Councillor Howard commented on the parking charges and asked why there were so many different levels of charge. He felt that some of the charges were not realistic, as it seemed a percentage charge had just been added each year.

Andrew Durrant said that there were different rates at different locations. In future, the rates could be rationalised. There had been a standardised increase in parking charges while maintaining a free residents discount. A sensible approach had been applied to maximise revenue but there was further work to do to rationalise this going forward.

Stephen Evans said that some fees were discretionary and some were non-discretionary. This meant that some were set by central government while others were set at a level where the council could only recover its costs.

Councillor Jones added that parking income was a driver in balancing the budget, particularly with the low council tax base. Charges had been increased each year without a full review, each of the borough’s towns were different and a standardised approach was difficult. Councillor Jones suggested that she would like to see a parking charges strategy come forward to serve the residents better.

Councillor Howard supported this suggestion, it was good to reconsider parking charges using a proper review rather than just increasing by a certain percentage each year.

Councillor Price said that in previous years the Panel had seen the percentage increase for each fee but this had not been included. She requested that this was added for future years. Councillor Price asked for reassurance that a drop in demand had been factored in when parking charges were increased. On charging for use of parks, a discretionary charge for local charities was very open and this could put off charities from running events at an early stage. Councillor Price had noted that for charges on fines and anti-social behaviour, the council was not charging the maximum amount.

The Chair added that enforcement was needed for fines, he asked for further information on the relationship between the level of the fine and the amount of resource for enforcement.

Andrew Durrant said that there was an application process which would be considered by the Parks team, this discretion would allow the team to charge a smaller fee for certain groups and events. The Safety Advisory Group would consider applications for larger events. The Communities team would work in partnership with any events and could look to support with the event fee through the Community Lottery, for example. On enforcement, price points had been considered and a new enforcement contract had recently been agreed. A higher charge could be tabled but this would not necessarily lead to a behaviour change.

Councillor Wilson considered charges for betting shops, he asked if this was a national charge level.

Andrew Durrant explained that many of these charges had not changed, they were reviewed on a regular basis but not annually. These were mostly around cost recovery rather than generating further income.

The Chair noted that there was a 3% increase in the budget to cover pay inflation but there was not a 3% rise in fees being charged, which could be needed to ensure that costs were recovered.

Stephen Evans said that he was unsure of when the cost recovery fees were last reviewed, they could significantly increase to cover the gap once they were next reviewed. The Assistant Director of Housing, Environmental Services and Trading Standards would be looking at the level needed for cost recovery in due course.

Councillor Reeves considered the cost for funeral memorials and why there was an additional charge for an inscription.

Andrew Durrant explained that the plot was purchased at a specific point in time to co-bear two people. The further cost was paid at the point in time when the individual passes away and would be buried, as there was no way of knowing when this would be.

Councillor Reeves mentioned the discretionary charges for events in parks. He asked how the council was planning to promote this application form and ensure that groups were not discouraged from applying.

ACTION – Andrew Durrant to confirm what the application process would look like and how this would be communicated out to local charities and community groups.

Councillor Jones confirmed that the council would be in contact with groups and organisations which ran existing events to make them aware of the change.

Councillor Reeves noted the increased charges to the hiring of the Desborough Suite at the Town Hall for both commercial and non-commercial uses. He asked why this had been increased for non-commercial events as the council should be supporting community groups.

Stephen Evans said that the Desborough Suite was currently being used as a vaccination centre but charges could be looked at.

Councillor Hunt supported Councillor Price’s suggestion to include the percentage increase from the previous year. She understood that charges needed to be raised but this needed to be balanced. There was a new charge on CCTV but this was listed as three separate lines. There were also new charges on pre-applications and enforcement, she asked who was charged with planning enforcement.

Stephen Evans said that the budget needed to balance from the main sources of income, which was council tax, business rates and fees and charges. Income needed to be maximised from fees and charges and they played a significant role in ensuring that sufficient income was raised by the council.

Councillor Howard felt that there was a lack of parking enforcement and this could impact on maximising revenue. He felt that there should be better communication between enforcement and the local community.

Andrew Durrant said that there would be a mixture of days and times where enforcement officers would visit different areas of the borough. There was capacity for mobile surveillance too as part of the new enforcement contract.

Councillor J Tisi agreed with the point made by Councillor Howard on parking enforcement. The council had little choice but to raise fees and charges as there were no credible other options. He asked if there was a material cost difference on car parking permits between one, two and three permits. Councillor J Tisi asked how the council compared to other local authorities on the cost of parking permits.

Andrew Durrant said that the consultation was live until 1^st January 2024. The comments and feedback would be reviewed and the planned implementation was 1^st February 2024.

ACTION – Andrew Durrant to check the detail on the cost difference on the number of vehicles in relation to parking permits.

The Chair asked how benchmarking was done and whether it was left to each service area or if there was a formalised approach.

Stephen Evans confirmed it was largely down to each individual service area and benchmarking was normally done against neighbouring and similar authorities.

Councillor Reeves felt that charges on CCTV were largely commercial in nature and would help the council to maximise its income. It would be good to reassure residents who had to pay for parking permits that the council would provide appropriate enforcement measures.

Stephen Evans confirmed that Councillor Reeves was correct with his comments on CCTV.

Councillor Price said that there was little choice for residents as bus services were not being improved to help encourage them to not use or have a car.

The Chair summarised the discussion, particularly that communication was a key piece on fees and charges and that a review structure for all fees and charges had been suggested.

Stephen Evans said that if there was a service change as a result of proposals in the budget, this would require a consultation from the service area.

Councillor Price felt that the budget consultation was very well presented.

Stephen Evans thanked Councillor Price for her comments and said that her positive feedback would be passed on to the team.

AGREED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel noted the proposed changes to fees and charges and:

i)             Provided comments on the proposed fees and charges to be considered as part of the consultation period.