Agenda item

1.

Question from Councillor Andrew Chard to Cabinet Member Finance, Councillor John Rawson

Can the Cabinet Member for Finance tell me what he expects to raise in the next Financial Year from the Late Night Levy in view of the number of licensed premises which are seeking minor variations in their license to avoid the Levy, compared to the figure he originally budgeted for?

Response from Cabinet Member

I have heard it said several times by members of the public that the Late Night Levy is a device to balance the Borough Council’s budget, but it is disappointing that a member of the Council, especially a member of the Licensing Committee, should believe this, or affect to do so.  The amount of Late Night Levy income factored into the Borough Council budget for 2014/15 is precisely nil.  This is because the proceeds of the Levy will be paid into a freestanding, ring-fenced fund that will be spent specifically on alleviating the problems associated with the night-time economy.

The levy payments will be collected over a 12 month period starting on the 1^st of April.  Currently, all licensed premises pay an annual fee due on the anniversary of the issue of the licence. The levy will be due at the same time as the annual fee. 

The gross annual income from the Levy (taking into account the New Year’s Eve exemption) is estimated to be £170,313.  Deducting £23,000 for premises eligible for the 30 per cent reduction, £20,204 for variation applications received to date, and £3,153 for likely permitted costs, the net income is likely to be in the region of £124.000, though this is subject to any variation applications yet to be submitted.  I would re-emphasise that this money was not included in the budget I presented on 14th February

In terms of arrangements for spending the money, officers are currently working on a Memorandum of Understanding between Cheltenham Borough Council and the Police and Crime Commissioner.  The Memorandum is likely to set up a joint advisory group to advise on how the money should be spent.  The money will be spent retrospectively, so there is no possibility that we will spend or budget for money that we cannot collect.

It was anticipated from the outset that some enterprises would vary the terms of their licences in order to cease serving alcohol after midnight and avoid the Late Night Levy.  This is a generally positive outcome, as it contributes to reducing the problems associated with late night drinking.  As I have already explained, there is no way that this could create a gap in the Borough Council budget or indeed affect it in any way at all.

In a supplementary question Councillor Chard asked what the cost of administering all requested variations had been.

In response the Cabinet Member Finance undertook to provide the information to the member in detail by email. He explained that 22 establishments had applied for variations in their licence to avoid the Late Night Levy and highlighted that the third paragraph of his response incorporated the figures for the reduction in premises varying their licences.

2.

Question from Councillor Andrew Chard to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

Will the Leader of the Council urgently review the implementation of the Late Night Levy in Cheltenham?

Response from Cabinet Member

Councillor Chard may be prone to panicking, but I’m not sure why he expects everyone to join in. The implementation of the Late Night Levy is progressing as anticipated so I’m not clear why he thinks it should be reviewed now before it has actually started.

In a supplementary question Councillor Chard asked whether a non Cabinet member would have a seat on the joint advisory group.

In response the Leader explained that the process for establishing the group was underway but he undertook to respond to the member in due course.

3.

Question from Councillor Garnham to Cabinet Member Sustainability, Councillor Roger Whyborn

During his budget speech on the 14th February the Cabinet Member for Finance spoke of incurring a fine of £50,000.00 (fifty thousand pounds) for not having a workable abatement system at the Crematorium.  This was the first time many Councillors were aware of this penalty being imposed on this Council.  Can Cllr Whyborn, tell this council how much has actually been paid in fines (or due to be paid) since the new Cremators were installed and when he envisages this Council no longer having to pay this fine?

Response from Cabinet Member

The Council is not liable to incur fines. Cremators may be operated legally and safely without abatement, indeed the previous system did not have abatement. What the cabinet member for Finance actually said was that once immediate priorities were achieved “it would be important to look at the abatement system so that the council could avoid paying the £50,000 contribution for not abating mercury.”

It is however the case that costs will be incurred by the Council of the order of magnitude which you cite, if we do not re-instate abatement. The situation is that DEFRA provides guidance to the cremation industry on abating cremations to have mercury removed. Legislation requires the abatement of 50% of all cremation per annum carried out in this country by end of December 2012 or if crematoria are unable to abate, they can purchase abated cremation through the CAMEO burden sharing scheme. The Council had installed abatement equipment with the view to abating 100% of its cremations. This would have netted an income for the council from selling the additional 50% of abated cremation above the legal requirement. However, as the system has not been commissioned fully the council cannot confirm any abated cremation since the requirement came into force in December 2012. Therefore, the council is required to contribute to the burden sharing scheme by purchasing its required 50% abated cremations. The abatement system bequeathed to the council by the now bankrupt contractor, Crawfords is either not fit for purpose, or requires substantial expenditure to make it effective.

This is matter of high priority investigation by officers, and is closely allied to the current evaluation as to whether or not to replace the cremators themselves; in other words it may not be cost-effective or sensible to retrofit a new abatement system. I have issued a member briefing note on this subject, and intend to make a definitive statement to members in the late Spring as to the intended way forward. In the meantime, officers are closely monitoring the refurbishment programme with a Crawfords abatement system at another very large crematorium, and proceeding with other necessary works on the main cremator plant.

In a supplementary question Councillor Garnham suggested that the cost of approximately £2500 per week based on 50 cremations was a result of the inability of the Cabinet Member to manage his own portfolio. He asked whether it was time for the Cabinet Member Sustainability to apologise over this state of affairs.

In response the Cabinet Member Sustainability stated that the assumption with regard to the figures expressed by the member was incorrect. He made reference to his recent briefing note circulated to members and stated that the cost was approximately £70 000 per year based on 1000 funerals per year out of a total of 2000 for which £45 was paid per unabated cremation. He did not believe that an apology was necessary. The situation was beyond the control of both officers and members and he paid tribute to the efforts of officers to recover the situation.

4.

Question from Councillor Garnham to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

This year sees the centenary of the start of the Great War.  Will the Leader please ensure that some money gained from the capital receipts of the sale of North Place be ring fenced to provide for the refurbishment of the Cenotaph in the front of the Municipal offices, and that consideration be given to extending this work to other war memorials in the town.

Response from Cabinet Member

The refurbishment of the Cenotaph is already scheduled to take place this year with a tendering process under way.  The intention is to complete this work without any need to use the capital receipts from North Place/Portland Street.  So far as other war memorials are concerned, we are happy to look at these as part of either the planned maintenance programme or the capital programme.  Proposals for an expanded capital programme, using capital from the North Place/Portland Street sale, are intended to come to Council in July.