Licensing of Caravan Sites in Scotland - An Analysis of Consultation Responses

7. PROPOSAL 6 - ABILITY OF THE LICENSING AUTHORITY TO CHANRGE A FEE

7.1 The consultation document recognises that an enhanced licensing regime will have cost implications for local authorities. In response, and to bring Caravan Licensing in line with other licensing regimes, Proposal 6 suggests entitling local authorities to charge fees to cover their costs in the on-going management of licences. Fees could be charged on application for a site licence and at the renewal stage.

Question 18:

Do you agree that local authorities should be given the power to charge a fee in relation to

(a) An application for a site licence

(b) At the licence renewal stage for administration of the licence

7.2 Again, a clear majority of respondents who answered this question were in agreement with the proposal - with 90 out of 99 supporting charges on application for a licence and 85 out of 97 supporting charges at the renewal stage. Those agreeing included all Local Authority and Resident Group and Resident Action Group respondents.

Table 22

Question 18 - Total Responses

	For an application for a Site Licence			At the Renewal Stage
	Yes	No	N/A	Yes	No	N/A
Group	26	4	23	22	6	25
Individual	8	5	8	7	6	8
Standard text	55	0	0	55	0	0
Total	89	9	31	84	12	33

Table 23

Question 18 - Group Responses by Type of Respondent

	For an application for a Site Licence			At the Renewal Stage
	Yes	No	N/A	Yes	No	N/A
Industry Bodies	0	2	2	0	2	2
Local Authorities	13	0	0	13	0	0
Others	4	1	4	4	1	4
Resident Groups or Resident Action Groups	6	0	0	4	0	2
Site Owners	3	1	17	1	3	17
Total	26	4	23	22	6	25

7.3 Respondents tended to make similar arguments either in support of charging fees at both stages, or of charging fees at neither application nor renewal. Those that supported the principle of charging tended to focus their comments on similarity with other licensing regimes. Some respondents also suggested that there should be charges associated with any additional work required, for example when a local authority has to carry out an additional inspection as a result of non-compliance on the part of a licence applicant or holder.

7.4 Those that disagreed with fees being chargeable - at application, renewal or both stages - generally focussed on additional costs being imposed on reputable and well-established businesses for what was seen as an unnecessary change. In essence, the fundamental objection remained to the licensing system and hence by extension to charges being imposed. Specific further points made included that:

• Well-established and well-run parks may have been operating for years, if not decades, without causing their local authority to incur any costs associated with the park - these parks would effectively suffer a financial penalty if these proposals were to be introduced; and
• The 'polluter pays' principle should apply to site licensing - site licence charges should be on a cost-recovery basis and ring-fenced so that reputable park operators do not pay for the work to ensure licence compliance by 'rogue' operators;
• If fees are introduced they must be proportionate to the size of the park and the work the local authority has to undertake to administer the licence.

Question 19:

Do you agree that local authorities should have the power to exempt certain sites for licencing fees? If 'yes' please provide suggestions.

7.5 Most respondents (77 out of the 99 respondents who answered this question) disagreed that local authorities should have the power to exempt certain sites from licensing fees. However, a majority of group respondents, and including a majority of local authorities, thought that local authorities should be given these powers.

Table 24

Question 19 - Total Responses

	Yes	No	Not answered
Group	16	13	24
Individual	4	8	9
Standard text	0	55	0
Total	20	76	33

Table 25

Question 19 - Group Responses by Type of Respondent

	Yes	No	Not answered
Industry Bodies	2	0	2
Local Authorities	8	5	0
Others	3	1	5
Resident Groups or Resident Action Groups	2	4	0
Site Owners	1	3	17
Total	16	13	24

7.6 Limited further comments were made in response to this question, although those supporting giving local authorities the powers to exempt certain sites sometimes referred to non-commercial or small touring sites as possibly being exempt from charges. A small number of respondents suggested that local authority and/or Gypsies/Travellers sites should be exempt. Respondents who did not want local authorities to be given these powers tended to refer to consistency and fairness.

Question 20:

Do you think that site owners should be able to recover licensing costs through pitch fees? Please give reasons for your response.

7.7 Finally on the subject of licensing costs, respondents were asked if they thought site owners should be able to recover licensing costs through pitch fees. Most respondents (68 out of the 93 that answered this question) thought they should not. However, a clear majority of group respondents did think site owners should be able to recover their licensing costs.

Table 26

Question 20 - Total Responses

	Yes	No	Not answered
Group	18	7	28
Individual	7	5	9
Standard text	0	55	0
Total	25	67	37

Table 27

Question 20 - Group Responses by Type of Respondent

Industry Bodies	2	0	2
Local Authorities	9	2	2
Others	3	1	5
Resident Groups or Resident Action Groups	0	4	2
Site Owners	4	0	17
Total	18	7	28

7.8 Differences of opinion on this issue appeared to stem from how respondents viewed the relationship between running costs and pitch fees. Respondents who suggested that licensing costs should be recoverable through pitch fees often noted that licensing costs would form part of any park's legitimate running costs and hence would be eligible for consideration in the pitch fee review process. It was also noted that the proposals aim to improve standards for the benefit of residents and therefore costs can quite reasonably be passed on. However, a suggested condition was that only standard licence costs should be recoverable and additional costs should not be passed on to residents when they had been incurred as a result of no-compliance.

7.9 Those who suggested that licensing costs should not be recoverable also tended to make the same basic point that licence fees would be part of the basic running costs of a park; however these respondents suggested that this meant they should not be recoverable through pitch fees.

Summary of Views on the Ability of the Licensing Authority to Charge a Fee

• A clear majority of respondents who answered this question were in agreement with entitling local authorities to charge on application for a licence and at the renewal stage. Those that supported the principle of charging tended to focus their comments on similarity with other licensing regimes. Those that disagreed with fees being chargeable - at application, renewal or both stages - generally focused on additional costs being imposed on reputable and well-established businesses for what was seen as an unnecessary change.
• The majority of respondents thought that site owners should not be able to recover these costs through pitch fees, although a clear majority of group respondents thought they should. Differences of opinion on this issue appeared to stem from how respondents viewed the relationship between running costs and pitch fees. Respondents who suggested that licensing costs should be recoverable through pitch fees often noted that licensing costs would form part of any park's legitimate running costs and hence would be eligible for consideration in the pitch fee review process. Those who suggested that licensing costs should not be recoverable suggested that this meant they should not be recoverable through pitch fees.
• Most respondents disagreed that local authorities should have the power to exempt certain sites from licensing fees. However, a majority of group respondents, including a majority of local authorities, thought that local authorities should be given these powers.