Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Isse and Councillor Knight.

Apologies for lateness were received from Councillor Benton, and he joined the meeting during item 6 – Performance Monitoring Report.

No declarations of interest were made.

It was requested that the word “premise” be corrected to “premises” on page 4 of the minutes. Governance presented an amended version to the Chair with this correction, and the minutes of the meeting held on 19 September 2024 were then signed by the Chair as a correct record of the meeting.

Mr James McCool introduced the report. He explained that the first part of the report related to pavement licensing fees.  These were regulated by the Business and Planning Act 2020. This Act had been modified through the Levelling and Regeneration Act 2023, which brought in new fees, a modified application process, longer maximum term for pavement licences, and provided clarifications on enforcement procedures. The Director of Highways and Regulatory Services at RBKC decided last year to change the fees to align with the maximum permitted under the modifications to the Business and Planning Act 2020, and this had been done in consultation with the Chair to be retrospectively approved by the Committee. The maximum fees allowed for new pavement licences was £500, and for renewing licences was £350. This was explained in Table 1 of the officer’s report. The second section of the report related to British summertime licensing, and the scheme the council had put in place to enable summertime terraces to be licenced during daylight savings time. In 2024, there had been approximately 100 sites in the borough with summertime terraces, and since beginning charging two years prior, roughly 90% of sites originally permitted during the pandemic (at zero cost) were continuing to apply for licences and were willing to pay the fee set out in Table 2 of the officer’s report. A new addition to the charges had been proposed, with a late payment fee included to begin to recover costs incurred by chasing late payments. Mr McCool explained that the late payment charge should be amended to read “Late payment charge if monitoring fee invoice is not paid within 30 days of the due date stated on the invoice”. It was confirmed that invoices were sent to licensees by email.

Mr McCool added that the fees and charges in Table 2 would be applicable from the date of the Licensing Committee meeting, as a guidance note would be sent to all previous licensees the following day by email to inform them of the changes. Hospitality businesses would be invited to apply for their summertime licence 2025, and this would be a two-step process – first, the request would be considered, and a suspension of traffic and parking would be arranged, then the pavement licence would be applied for.

Mr McCool concluded his summary of the report be explaining that under the Business and Planning Act, the tables and chairs licences of the borough could not be licenced under the Highways Act if they could be licenced under the Business and Planning Act instead. The Business and Planning Act related to hospitality, so only businesses who wanted a Tables and Chairs Licence without hospitality could apply for them under the Highways Act instead. Only a small number of businesses in the borough had this apply to them, including an estate agent and some salons. The proposed fees and charges were calculated d to bring the cost in line with inflation.

In response to a question about sending  ...  view the full minutes text for item iv

Ms Sharon Dyball presented the report. She explained that before the fees and charges working group meeting in December 2024, the animal welfare licensing fees, for inspections undertaken by the City of London on the council’s behalf had not been known, These had been received in January 2025 however, and the fees had increased approximately 40% or 50% on previous years. This increase was largely due to higher costs being levied by the City of London for inspections and more accurately reflect the amount of time involved in the inspection and writing the report. These costs are recharged in full to licensing applicants as part of the application fee. A qualified animal health inspector is required to undertake inspections under The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018, which is outsourced to the City of London as the council does not have a qualified officer in-house.

In response to a question regarding the qualification required to carry out inspections, Ms Dyball explained that a recognised qualification was needed, and that the City of London carried out most of the London boroughs’ inspections, as most councils did not have their own in-house experienced team. The fees they charged for inspections were the same as for the other London boroughs.

In response to a question regarding the number of animal premises in the borough that required a licence, Ms Dyball responded by saying that there were six premises in the borough, with eight licences, as two premises had a “pet a pooch” licence as well as the standard daycare licence. She also explained that there were no premises in the borough licensed for hiring out horses.

The Committee RESOLVED that the proposed fees set out in Tables 1-5 in Appendix A of the officer’s report for the period commencing 1 April 2025 be approved.

Action: Director of Transport and Regulatory Services

Ms Dyball presented the report. She explained that the council now had as many applications submitted on average as was received pre-Covid, which was shown on pages 39 and 40 of the agenda pack. The TENs were at the highest number the council had ever received, bar when the 2012 Olympics was hosted in London. Approximately 100 come in for Notting Hill Carnival alone, and these were largely within the footprint of Carnival. The number of special treatment licences had also increased by one hundred percent in the previous 10-15 years.

In response to questions regarding special treatment licences, the officers explained that:

-       Nail bars were regulated, but at the present time injectables weren’t.

-       There had been discussions about injectables being regulated by licensing authorities previously, but this had been spoken about for a while and no definitive change had taken place.

-       At the time when special treatments were required to be licenced, there were approximately 70 premises in the borough, and these were mostly pedicures, manicures and electrical treatments, but the number of such premises needing licences had grown in number significantly.

-       The definition of special treatments under the act was broad in scope, and it was the responsibility of the licensing authorities to decide what should fit under this umbrella term. The term “special treatments” included saunas, sunbeds, tattoos, acupuncture under special treatments, but officers spent a large amount of time undertaking research into different treatments, and it was a judgement call for the council to make.

-       Healthcare practitioners registered with a recognised body of health practitioners are exempt from needing a special treatments licence.

-       IV drips were considered to be medical but had only begun in the last 10 years.

In response to questions regarding Temporary Event Notices (TENs), officers explained that:

-       Premises could submit a total of 15 TENs in a year, for up to a total of 21 days. One TEN could last up to a maximum of seven days.

-       Very few premises attempted to breach the number of TENs they were allowed per year, and most premises used TENs for events around the Christmas period.

-       If a premises received complaints, then the Police and Environmental Health could object to TENs submitted, in which case the application would have to be determined by the Licensing Sub-Committee.

-       Premises could submit TENs, and the Licensing Authorities could not prevent them from taking place unless an objection was raised by the Police or Environmental Health.  However, weekly meetings took place with Noise and Nuisance, and the Police to keep track of problem premises.

-       The Licensing Authority could issue a counter-notice to a TEN if the premises had exceeded the amount it was allowed within a year, but an automated system was in place to reject them automatically if this happened. They could also submit a counter-notice to a late TEN (between nine- and five-days prior to the event taking place), where the police or noise and nuisance  ...  view the full minutes text for item vi

Ms Heidi Titcombe presented the report and explained that the council had dealt with two appeals in the previous calendar year. The first was regarding a review for the Pelican which had been requested by residents.  The Council had been able to reach a settlement whereby the operators had agreed to add a few more conditions to the licence to address issues raised by the residents by allowing 20 customers to sit outside each side of the premises as opposed to having 40 customers in All Saints Road. The Chair clarified that had there been better diagrams for the premises at the hearing it could have resolved at the hearing. Ms Titcombe concluded by informing the Committee that £31,000 had been paid to the council in costs by the operator.

It was explained that the other appeal was ongoing and related to Ricco Lounge which had been sought by the police. The Committee were told that there had been at least one and potentially four shots, and this had led to the request for the review of the licence. At the interim steps hearing, the licence was suspended with the consent of the premises, and this had not been appealed by the operator, but the decision in the full review hearing had been to revoke the licence and continue the suspension agreed at the interim steps hearing, and it was the revocation that had been appealed. The directions for the appeal hearing had been given a week prior, and in October the appeal hearing would take place where evidence would be provided by all parties. The police had applied to be added as a party to that hearing given the serious nature of the review, which emphasised the importance of the revocation. The decision of the appeal court would typically be given to the parties a month after the hearing.

The Committee noted the report for information.

Ms Johnson informed the Committee that the Licensing Policy for the council was being updated, and as such a committee meeting would likely take place later in the year to consult the Members on the proposed updates.

The Chair asked officers to circulate the complaints policy to all Councillors, so they could be reminded how to report issues for premises in the borough to the council.