URL: https://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=5101

Decision Maker: Environmental Services and Regulation Policy Committee

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: Yes

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: 9.1 Members received a report of the Executive Director Neighbourhood Services presenting the outcome of a review of fees and charges for licensing regimes where Sheffield City Council has discretion to determine fees locally. The review had been undertaken in consultation with Finance and Legal Services and is based upon the principle of recovering the Council's reasonable costs of administering and enforcing licensing functions. The report seeks approval for the revised fees and charges set out in Appendix A.     9.2 RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Environmental Services and Regulation Policy Committee; a)    Approve the fees and charges set out in Appendix A for implementation from 1st October 2026. b)    Note that the proposed fees have been calculated in accordance with relevant legislation, case law and the principle of reasonable cost recovery. c)    Authorise the Chief Licensing Officer, in consultation with the Director of Finance and Legal Services, to make any minor amendments necessary to correct calculation errors, rounding adjustments or legislative references prior to implementation.     9.3 Reasons for Decision     9.3.1 The proposed fees and charges have been developed following a detailed review of the costs associated with administering and enforcing the relevant licensing regimes. The review has been undertaken in consultation with Finance and Legal Services and seeks to ensure that fees remain reasonable, proportionate and consistent with the Council's statutory powers and duties.     9.3.2 Approval of the proposed fees will support the Council's objective of recovering its reasonable costs in delivering licensing functions, reducing reliance on subsidy from the wider Council budget and ensuring that licensing services remain appropriately resourced to carry out their public protection responsibilities. The proposed approach is evidence-based, transparent and reflects current service costs whilst having regard to legal, financial and equality considerations.     9.4 Alternatives Considered and Rejected     9.4.1 Alternative Option 1:   Maintain existing fees at current levels   Under this option, no changes would be made to the current fees and charges. This option was rejected because it would result in continued under-recovery of the Council's reasonable costs of administering and enforcing the relevant licensing regimes. Service delivery costs, including staffing, corporate recharges and operational expenditure, have increased since the previous review and maintaining existing fees would increase the level of subsidy required from wider Council resources.   In addition, failure to undertake periodic reviews could result in larger fee increases being required in future years to address accumulated cost pressures.     9.4.2 Alternative Option 2:   Apply a standard percentage increase across all licensing regimes   Under this option, a uniform percentage increase would be applied to all locally set licensing fees, irrespective of the actual costs associated with individual licensing regimes.   This option was rejected because licensing fees must be reasonable, proportionate and reflect the costs of administering the specific licensing function. The costs associated with each licensing regime vary significantly depending on application volumes, inspection requirements, compliance activity and enforcement demand.   Applying a blanket uplift would risk some fees recovering less than the Council's reasonable costs, whilst others may exceed the costs incurred. This approach would therefore be less consistent with established fee-setting principles and relevant case law.     9.4.3 Alternative Option 3:   Set all fees at full cost recovery regardless of wider impacts   Under this option, fees would be increased to achieve full cost recovery for every licensing regime.   This option was considered but not recommended in all cases. Whilst cost recovery remains the Council's objective, consideration has also been given to proportionality, affordability and the potential impact on licence holders and applicants.   In certain low-volume licensing regimes, immediate movement to full cost recovery could result in significant fee increases which may discourage compliance or create barriers to entry. The proposed fees therefore seek to balance cost recovery, proportionality and the practical operation of the licensing regime.  

Date of Decision: September 11, 2026