To consider the progress made against the two outstanding actions within the Licensing Audit Action Plan arising from the licensing audit.

15.1          The report of the Head of Community Services, circulated at Pages No. 16-19, provided an update on the two outstanding actions within the Licensing Audit Action Plan arising from the licensing audit.  Members were asked to consider the report.

15.2          The Senior Licensing Officer advised that the two items outstanding were a review of the fees for licensing under the Animal Welfare Regulations 2018 and a programme of inspections for licensed premises.  As Members would be aware, the Environmental Health Manager had recently left the authority so the Senior Licensing Officer had inherited these outstanding actions.  He explained that a Business Transformation team was currently being recruited by the Council and one of its initial priorities would be streamlining the licensing service with the adoption of new technological solutions such as online applications, releasing Officer time to be able to carry out activities such as inspections, compliance, enforcement and reviewing fee structures.  In terms of animal licensing fees, work was underway to determine the cost of providing the service under the new regulations introduced at the end of 2018; Officers were recording the time expended on this activity and, once sufficient data had been gathered, the existing fees would be revised accordingly to ensure the Council was recovering its costs.  A Member expressed concern that the fees would not cover the costs of any additional staff which may be identified as necessary.  In response, the Senior Licensing Officer clarified that licensing authorities were not allowed to make a profit from licensing but, equally, they should not make a loss as that would effectively mean that the service was being subsidised by the taxpayer.  All Officers needed to ensure they accurately recorded their time spent on animal licensing in order to identify the true cost of providing the service; however, budget and recruitment was the responsibility of the Head of Community Services.

15.3           A Member queried how many animal licenses were granted each year and how frequently they needed to be reviewed and pointed out that, if Officers were not up to speed with issuing licences, there was a risk of complaints from animal welfare groups etc.  In response, the Senior Licensing Officer confirmed there were 65 animal premises with licences which had transferred from the old to the new regime and all had been inspected in 2019.  The government had issued guidelines to licensing authorities which set out that applications should be dealt with within 10 weeks of receipt and he was pleased to report that Tewkesbury Borough Council was easily achieving that.  Premises were given a rating, similar to the food hygiene rating system, and they were granted a licence for a period of one, two or three years on that basis – as inspections were undertaken on renewal, this meant that not all premises would need to be re-inspected during the current year, although they could be re-inspected at any time.  In response to a query as to the type of premises inspected, Members were advised that the regulations included dog and cat breeders, kennels, catteries, riding establishments and pet shops – which covered exotic animals if they were sold; it was noted that the regulations did not apply to people who were just keeping animals, for instance, private stables.  A Member questioned whether dog walkers were included under the regulations and was advised that the regime only applied if they were taking dogs to their own homes – if they were picking them up from other people’s houses then they did not require a licence.  Notwithstanding this, some other authorities had introduced a recommended dog walkers’ scheme which meant that people volunteered to adhere to certain standards in exchange for appearing on the Council’s website and that was something which Tewkesbury Borough Council could consider introducing in future.

15.4           With regard to the template for the risk rating of premises, attached at Appendix A to the report, a Member sought clarification as to how private members’ clubs were rated given that people needed to be signed in etc.  The Senior Licensing Officer explained that they would be awarded four points on the basis of being classed as a public house/bar but would be given zero points for being open to the public as members of the public could not just turn up and be served alcohol.

15.5           A Member questioned whether the outstanding actions would be implemented prior to the next Committee meeting and the Senior Licensing Officer indicated that, whilst he could certainly bring an update, he was unable to confirm that they would be completed.  A Member queried whether the animal licensing fees needed to be consulted upon and the Senior Licensing Officer undertook to check this with One Legal following the meeting.

15.6           It was

RESOLVED          That the progress made against the two outstanding actions within the Licensing Audit Action Plan be NOTED.