Agenda item

To set out the Fees and Charges to be introduced for the financial year 2026/2027.

Members considered a range of fees and charges for 2026/2027. These had previously been considered at the Budget Joint OSC on 13 January 2026, and there were two changes made to the proposals presented at that meeting:

·       House in Multiple Occupancy (HMO) licences – a ‘sliding scale’ for HMOs was discussed at Budget Joint OSC, linked to the number of bedrooms within each HMO.

·       Green waste service – a possible reduction in service was discussed at Environment OSC on 13 January 2026. Whilst this reduction was supported through a vote, having considered the feedback from this committee this proposal was dropped. Therefore, the increase for the green waste service would be £2 per household for the first bin, and £1 for each subsequent bin.

The Fees and Charges report was split into different sections to allow as many members as possible to take part in decision making, as several of them may declare pecuniary interests and leave the Council Chamber at different points. Page 114 of the reports pack (taxi licence fees) were considered first.

Note:  Councillors Tim Harrison, Habib Rahman, Nick Robins, and Penny Robins left the Council Chamber. Councillor Jane Kingman joined the meeting.

Having been moved and seconded and following a vote the taxi licencing fees were AGREED.

Note:  Councillors Tim Harrison and Habib Rahman rejoined the Council Chamber.

Debate ensued on HMOs specifically, and an amendment to the printed fees and charges was proposed by the Conservative group and circulated:

To adopt the South Holland fee structure for HMO licencing. Application fee to be £300 + (number of rooms * £150). For example, a five-bedroom HMO would be £300 + (5*£150) = £1,050.

This proposal was seconded.

The following points were highlighted during the debate on this topic:

·       The Cabinet Member for Housing had attended a meeting with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Governance and Licensing, the Assistant Director (Leisure, Culture and Place) and the Head of Service (Public Protection). In that meeting, officers outlined that the HMO fee structure had been compared against neighbouring councils. To place SKDC in the best possible position for their fee structure, similar sized councils were also used to benchmark against.

·       On first glance, the fees at South Holland District Council were at a level that would discourage the creation of HMOs.

·       The proposed SKDC fees were already a considerable increase on current levels.

·       There have been a tremendous number of HMO applications in SKDC, particularly in Grantham. It was pointed out that South Holland District Council was a close neighbour, which was why it had been included in the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) bid along with North Kesteven District Council and SKDC.

·       A deterrent could be useful in those wards that encountered high numbers of HMOs.

·       Any fees attached to HMOs had to be for cost recovery purposes only, the income as a result of licence fees must not exceed the cost of the provision of the service. SKDC was roughly in line with NKDC on its fees.

·       NKDC’s biggest town was Sleaford - Grantham had different demographics. Towns such as Boston had similar demographics to Grantham, and experienced similar issues with HMOs as those seen at SKDC.

·       Some of these HMOs will change the character of the centre of Grantham. In some cases, companies were approaching landlords with a view to managing their properties.

·       SKDC were required to have regard to the provisions of the Equalities Act 2010. When considering fees for HMOs, consideration needed to be given as to whether this would affect those with protected status. Any variation should also have regard to those considerations.

·       It would be wrong for any local authority to use fees and charges to try and impose moral judgements about any legitimate business. There was nothing illegal about being a tenant of an HMO. The Council should not impose a charge because some may have a negative view overall of HMOs.

·       It was unclear whether the printed HMO fees included cost recovery for waste fly tipping that was created by some HMOs.

·       An increase in resource in the Licensing team would be welcomed to aid enforcement and to follow up on any complaints.

·       People that can afford to pay inflated licence fees would not necessarily have the residents’ best interests at heart.

·       The background research carried out on 2026/2027 HMO fees and charges was completed based on cost recovery. Officers could carry out further research on HMO fees based on other workstreams generated by HMOs; for example, enforcement.

·       Annual inspections for all HMOs were not currently taking place.  

A recorded vote was requested on the amended proposal – the results of the recorded vote were as follows:

For:              Councillors Kyle Abel, David Bellamy, Pam Bosworth, Helen Crawford, Steven Cunnington, Ben Green, Tim Harrison, Graham Jeal, Gloria Johnson, Jane Kingman, Gareth Knight, Zoe Lane, Robert Leadenham, Nikki Manterfield, Paul Martin, Charmaine Morgan, Susan Sandall, Max Sawyer, Peter Stephens, Sarah Trotter, Mark Whittington, Sue Woolley (22)

Against:        Councillors Emma Baker, Rhys Baker, Ashley Baxter, Harrish Bisnauthsing, Pam Byrd, Richard Cleaver, James Denniston, Phil Dilks, Barry Dobson, Patsy Ellis, Anna Kelly, Philip Knowles, Bridget Ley, Virginia Moran, Chris Noon, Habib Rahman, Lee Steptoe, Paul Stokes, Elvis Stooke, Murray Turner (20)

Abstentions:  Councillors Paul Fellows, Penny Milnes, Rhea Rayside, Ian Selby, Rosemary Trollope-Bellew, Paul Wood (6)

Therefore, the amendment to the motion was AGREED, and it became the substantive motion.

An amendment to the substantive issue of HMO licence fees and charges was proposed and seconded:

It is recommended that a decision on the fees of HMOs be deferred, with a request that a report on this issue, as amended, be brought back to the next meeting of Full Council.

Members were cautioned that there was only 14 working days for officers to complete a report on this issue.

Having been moved and seconded and following a vote the HMO licence fees, as amended were DEFERRED to the next meeting of Council.

Note:  Councillor Patsy Ellis and Robert Leadenham left the Council Chamber

Debate ensued on the remainder of the Fees and Charges report. Further information was highlighted during debate:

• One member felt that they did not have enough clarity over how fees and charges had been arrived at.
• Section 2.14 of the report was highlighted, as there was no plan to increase parking charges this year, and there was no pressure to increase the overall revenue in parking charges.

Having been moved and seconded, and following a vote the recommendations in full were AGREED as follows:

DECISION

That Full Council:

1.        Approve the discretionary Fees and Charges for 2026/27 set out at Appendix A (Part A).

2.        Approve the discretionary Fees and Charges for 2026/27 set out at Appendix A (Part B), with the exception of fees related to HMOs.

3.        Defer a decision on HMO fees (as amended), with a report to be brought back to Full Council on 26 February 2026.

4.        Note the statutory Fees and Charges for 2026/27 set out at Appendix B.

5.        Approve the Charging Policy set out in Appendix C of the report.

6.        Delegate authority to the Deputy Chief Executive and s151 Officer in consultation with Leader of the Council, Cabinet member for Finance, HR and Economic Development to set the commercial charges for Building Control.

Note:  The meeting adjourned at 4:25pm and reconvened at 4:43pm.