Apologies were received from Councillor Knight.

It was confirmed that Councillor McVeigh was no longer appointed to the Committee.

No declarations of interest were made.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 October 2025 were confirmed as a correct record for the Chair’s signature.

Mr James McCool introduced the report. He explained the report recommended fee schedules for the new financial year covering fees for pavement licences with durations of two years, the increased charge for placing amenities on the highway for non-hospitality sector businesses, and changes to the implementation fee and the monitoring fee for temporary footway extensions (for which invoices would now only be issued for the full monitoring fee in June each year). Businesses would be forewarned of this at the start of the British Summer Time season. If the Committee were to agree to the recommendations set out in the report, the proposed changes would be introduced for applications received from 13 February 2026.

In response to questions asked by the Committee in relation to the justification for extending the pavement licence duration from one year to two years, officers explained that:

-       Up until now, the Council’s pavement licences were issued for one year.  However, the Business and Planning Act 2020 has since been amended and now allowed for two-year licences to be issued.

-       The cost to the Council of processing a one-year licence as opposed to a two-year licence was negligible.

-       The cost difference to the Council of processing two one-year licences across the two years compared to one two-year licence was great enough to justify the change in regime in order to have officers completing less work.

-       Invoices for pavement licences would be sent out and if a payment plan was needed by a licensee, it could be set up, but it was typically not needed.

-       Once a parking bay was suspended and a pavement licence issued, a licensee was able to begin operating, but to delay applying for the licence in time would mean the licensee could not operate for the whole season.

-       The Licensing process had already been automated as much as possible, including pulling the data in applications onto the database and generating invoices for businesses, therefore this would be an additional measure to support the Council in innovating its services.

In response to questions asked by the Committee in relation to the justification for the fees presented in the recommendation, officers explained that:

-       Pavement licences were statutory fees that were capped by law, set to be £500 for new licences and £350 for renewals.

-       The intention was to reduce the amount of bureaucracy required to obtain a pavement licence whilst also making the cost an incentive for business owners.

-       The revenue generated for the forthcoming financial year was projected to be approximately £263,000.

-       The estimated shortfall of £116,000 in future financial years (from 2027/28) could not be recuperated by raising fees elsewhere, and did not take into account the time saved by officers in providing the service.

-       With pavement licensing the fee was only an application fee. Unlike for temporary footway extensions, the Council could not levy a fee for monitoring and enforcement.

In response to questions asked by the Committee in relation  ...  view the full minutes text for item iv

Ms Sharon Dyball presented the report. She explained that there was a methodology for calculating the fees under review, based on licence type and the amount of officer work required to provide the licence, along with maintaining the database. The fees were based on the initial processing cost, then the ongoing cost of maintaining the licence to the Council. The costs were then apportioned across the number of premises within the borough. Licences with higher fees were normally types that received a lot of complaints or where specialised training for officers was needed. As the direct result of the cyber-attack on the Council, there was at the time of the meeting no access to the databases needed to calculate these figures accurately. As a result, the team had chosen to use the previous year’s figures as a guideline. The fees presented to the Committee for decision were assessed as being suitable enough to justify if ever challenged, as most licences only had modest increases in fees. Ms Dyball explained that animal licence fees had increased due to the inspections completed by the City of London. They carried out inspections for most other London boroughs too, as a qualified animal health inspector was required and RBKC did not have enough animal licences to justify the cost of hiring someone specifically to conduct the inspections in-house. Many licences’ fee-settings were paper exercises as they did not have premises in the borough, but the team had made educated assumptions of the resource required to process and maintain those licences too. The fees and charges were reviewed every year and would continue to be assessed.

In response to questions regarding the amount able to charge for a licence fee, officers explained that the Gambling Act set out a maximum permitted fee which could not be exceeded, and this had not been reviewed by the Government since the Act came into force in 2007. As the licence fees were based on a cost-recovery exercise, the Council needed to ensure the fees made the Council as cost-neutral as possible. The Lead Member for Finance had recommended a 5% increase in fees, but the actual cost to the Council could be higher or lower than 5%. Premises licences also had statutory fees that could not be increased and had not been reviewed since the Licensing Act came into effect in 2005. If a direct loss was made as a result, then the cost of the loss could not be recovered from other areas.

In response to questions regarding casinos and adult gaming centres, officers explained that:

-       No new casino licences could be granted in the borough. A variation to relocate a casino could take place, and the cost to the Council was significant enough due to the likelihood of objections being submitted that the department could charge the maximum fee, £2000. A variation to alter the internal layout of a casino’s permitted areas for gambling to take place was far less likely to generate objections and  ...  view the full minutes text for item v

There were none.