No, actually, we know that's *not* what they did.
If you refer, for instance, to the Beeb article on the topic at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-17350103, for example, you'll see the following statement:
"A letter from SZC asked it to remove all references to the characters."
If they wanted a nominal licence fee on an annual basis, they could've easily added "alternatively if you wish to licence the usage of these characters for your premises, you can do so at a fee of $100 per annum, as per the enclosed contract".
IMO, this is a case where they thought they could quietly strong-arm someone into either very expensive renovations or a heavily one-sided legal battle. The unexpected publicity has caused them to reconsider, since they know that they look like money-grabbing parasites. (I'm not saying they *are*, necessarily, since apparently they've held the rights since way back when the animated feature film came out, but I'm betting that comparatively few people will have bothered to do some research into other news stories, the background of the company concerned, or the areas for which they've registered the relevant trademarks...and to those folks who don't do that extra research, it looks more clear-cut.)