Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Deputy Christopher Boden, Dawn Frampton, Deputy Marianne Fredericks, Caroline Haines, Andrew McMurtrie, and Glen Witney.

Shahnan Bakth, Caroline Haines, Andrew McMurtrie, Deputy Dr Giles Shilson, and Alderman Kawsar Zaman observed the meeting virtually.

There were no declarations.

To agree the public minutes and non-public summary of the meeting held on 19^th November 2024.

RESOLVED – That the public minutes and non-public summary of the previous meeting held on 19^th November 2024 be approved as an accurate record.

The Committee to note the Outstanding Actions.

The Committee received its outstanding actions. It was agreed that as the actions listed had been largely resolved, or had moved into business as usual, that they be removed from the outstanding actions list.

RESOLVED – That the Committee note the outstanding actions and agree to remove them from the list.

Joint Report of the Chamberlain and the Executive Director of Environment.

(Note: Appendix 4 is Non-Public and can be found under Agenda Item 19).

The Committee received a joint report of the Chamberlain and the Executive Director for Environment, concerning the approval of the revenue and capital budgets for the Port Health and Environmental Services Committee for 2025/26.

The Committee heard that the cleansing service, as with budgets for all local risk services, was given a 2% annual uplift. The waste collection and street collection contract had a separate mechanism for calculating the contractual price increase each year. This was often higher than 2% and therefore a bid had been submitted for the On-Street Parking Reserve to meet the difference between the 2% uplift and the contractual increase to ensure services were maintained at current levels. This required approval from the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee (RASC).

A Member asked whether the Executive Director for Environment was confident they were able to meet the given budget. The response was a confirmation that there were no current concerns that services within the Committee’s remit would not be able to operate within the allocated budget. Budgets would be managed closely, and concerns would be highlighted to the Committee if they arose.

Following a query, the Committee heard that the responsibility and ownership of closed public conveniences facilities would be incorporated into a report to be received by the Committee later in 2025. There had been public conveniences closed in various tranches over the last 30 years, for reasons such as affordability. Those structures which still existed need to be managed in conjunction with City Surveyors. This linked in with further work required on an asset management plan for the Environment Department. It was suggested that the future report includes discussion on not using the closed structures, or those structures be used free of charge. It was noted that should those structures become commercial lettings (i.e., no longer a

Report of the Executive Director of Environment.

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director for Environment, concerning the approval of the high-level Business Plan for the Environment Department for 2025-30.

A Member of the Committee raised the need to emphasise references to residents and how the high-level Business Plan would benefit residents, noting the resident reset initiative from the Chairman of Policy & Resources.

It was queried why e-bikes were not referenced in the Business Plan. The response was that e-bikes sat within the remit of the Planning and Transportation Committee, and the Committee were assured that they were referenced in that Committee’s Business Plan. Later, the Committee raised the need to reference working together and the links with other Committee’s for the business plan to succeed. It was agreed to reword the Business Plan to emphasise the links between the Committees.

On Equality, Diversity, & Inclusion (EDI), including social mobility, the Executive Director for Environment was working on an emerging piece of work with the Equalities Director, to consider the broad benefits of EDI and social mobility. This included finding ways to articulate this in terms of the Committee’s remit, and what it meant for the services overseen by the Committee.

Following a query on Walbrook Wharf, the Committee heard that several options with different funding options were being considered, and a report would be received by the Committee later in 2025, following the completion of the soft market testing. The Committee were reassured that officers would not recommend an option that could not be funded.

RESOLVED – That Members:

• Note the factors taken into consideration in compiling the Environment Department’s high-level Business Plan 2025-30; and
• Approve, subject to incorporation of any changes sought by this Committee, the elements of the departmental high-level Business Plan 2025-30 which fall within the remit of the Port Health and

Report of the Executive Director of Environment.

 The Committee received a report of the Executive Director for Environment, concerning the approval of the annual fees for those premises requiring a licence for Massage and Special Treatments (MSTs), which included premises seeking to register for acupuncture, tattooing, cosmetic piercing, or electrolysis.

Following a query, it was noted that owing to case law, fees were set on a full cost recovery basis and not on a competitive level against the fees charged by other local authorities. Similar licensing fees could vary and depend on compliance levels. The City of London had high compliance rates and low enforcement activity. Fees were set based on officer time in administering and enforcing the service, and the hourly rate, which included covering all overheads.

Officers were aware of a Private Members’ Bill in relation to cosmetic treatments, but those treatments were not scoped out in the legislation before the Committee. Officers were not aware of any such venues in the City operating non-surgical treatments provided by a medically unqualified professional.

It was queried why the fees were not increased in accordance with inflation. Officers reassured the Committee that the fees could only be based on full cost recovery, noting that not all the MST were increasing due to an over recovery of costs in prior years.

RESOLVED – That Members:

• Agree the proposed fees for 2025/26 as set out in Appendix 2 (column two).
• Delegate authority to the Executive Director for Environment to approve future annual fees on a full cost recovery basis, including adjustments for prior years’ under/over recovery where relevant, and subject to any statutory limits that may apply.

Report of the Executive Director of Environment.

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director of Environment, concerning the approval of the setting of annual fees for issuing a licence to those persons wishing to participate in Street Trading in Middlesex Street and for those persons wishing to apply for a temporary street trading licence elsewhere in the Square Mile.

RESOLVED – That Members:

·       Agree the proposed fees for 2025/26 as set out in Appendix 2 (column two).

·       Delegate authority to the Executive Director for Environment to approve future annual fees on a full cost recovery basis, including adjustments for prior years’ under/over recovery where relevant, and subject to any statutory limits that may apply.

Report of the Executive Director of Environment.

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director for Environment, concerning the annual setting of fees and charges for the services provided at the City of London Cemetery and Crematorium for 2025/26.

RESOLVED – That Members agree the fees and charges as set out in the report and shown in Appendix 1 for implementation with effect from 1 April 2025.

Report of the Executive Director of Environment.

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director for Environment, concerning the approval of a contract award for the administration system to be used at the City of London Cemetery and Crematorium. Following the procurement tender exercise, all bidders, including the preferred bidder and the current supplier, had failed the financial assessment. The Service was therefore unable to proceed without the Committee’s approval.

It was confirmed that the system used by the preferred bidder would be cloud based. The cost of the annual licensing fees were in line with expectations, noting that approximately £33,000 would be saved per annum in posting, packaging and franking costs when the system was fully implemented.

The Committee raised concerns on the preferred bidder having failed the financial assessment. The basis of this failure was queried. The response was that the response to this specific query would have to be held in non-public session. The Committee agreed that it could not approve the contract award until it had heard and were satisfied with the explanation for the failure of the financial assessment. It was agreed to Delegate Authority to the Town Clerk, in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, to approve the contract award subject to the Committee’s satisfaction on the explanation for the failure of the City Corporation’s standard financial appraisal.

RESOLVED – That the Committee agree to Delegate Authority to the Town Clerk, in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Port Health & Environmental Services Committee, to agree to approve the awarding of the contract to the preferred bidder, subject to the Committee’s satisfaction on the explanation for the failure of the Corporation’s standard financial appraisal.

Report of the Executive Director of Environment.

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director for Environment, concerning the results of the 52^nd City of London Thames Fishery Research Experiment, and the options for the 53^rd Experiment in 2025 for the Committee’s consideration.

It was confirmed that the report and results of the Experiment were shared as widely as possible, including with the Port of London Authority, relevant environmental agencies, and The Fishmongers’ Company.

A Member raised that the Hampstead Heath Consultative Committee had received a report on a study which had linked dogs swimming in Heath ponds being the likely source of pesticides that could be harmful to the natural environment in those ponds. It was suggested that measuring pesticides could be an aspect of future Fishery Experiments.

A Member noted comments following the previous year’s report in seeking funding and queried what funding had been sought for the 52^nd Experiment and if funding would be secured for the 53^rd Experiment. The response was that following the approval of the 52^nd Experiment, connections for potential funding were made but few resulted in additional funding. Officers would endeavour to continue to seek funding from multiple sources. It was requested that Members submit any suggestions or contacts for potential funding sources.

RESOLVED – That Members agree:

·       To proceed with the 53^rd City of London Thames Fishery Research Experiment in 2025 in the existing format.

·       To review and approve the grant of £4,800 from the City’s Estate to partially fund the 2025 Experiment.

·       Approve delegated authority to the Town Clerk, in conjunction with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, to determine the details of the proposed Research Project in conjunction with suitable academic institutions.

Report of the City Remembrancer.

The Committee received a report of the City Remembrancer, concerning the provisions of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, also known as “Martyn’s Law” and any implications for the City of London Corporation, City of London Police and the Police Authority Board.

A Member sought reassurance that the security of the Lord Mayor’s Show was proportionate and well considered, given that it was not qualified as an event under the Bill, and in the context of recent events in New Orleans. The response was that the legislation was defining locations and venues as a defined ticketed area, which the Lord Mayor’s Show was not. However, this was not to say that the Lord Mayor’s Show would not be reviewed within the lens of the Bill.

RESOLVED – That the report be received, and its contents noted.

Report of the Executive Director of Environment.

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director for Environment, concerning the new Port Health Order, which had been made with the Central Government Legal Department and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and was now in force.

RESOLVED – That the report be received, and its contents noted.

There were no public questions.

Any items of business that the Chairman may decide are urgent.

There were no public items of urgent business.

MOTION – That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of the Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

RESOLVED – That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Scheduled 12A of the Local Government Act.

To agree the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 19^th November 2024.

RESOLVED – That the non-public minutes of the previous meeting held on 19^th November 2024 be approved as an accurate record.

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director for Environment, concerning the approval of a contract award for the administration system used at the City of London Cemetery and Crematorium. It heard an explanation for the failure of the City Corporation’s standard financial appraisal, as referenced in Minute Item 10.

Joint Report of the Chamberlain and the Executive Director of Environment (Non-Public Appendix 4, to be read in conjunction with Agenda Item 5).

The Committee received Appendix 4 to Item 5, Revenue and Capital Budgets 2025/26.

Report of Executive Director of Environment.

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director of Environment, concerning the London-wide Hazardous Waste Collection and Disposal Service Contract.

Report of the Executive Director of Environment.

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director for Environment, concerning an update on the implementation of the new United Kingdom Border Target Operating Model for checks on imported food and feed from the European Union and Rest of World.

Report of the Executive Director of Environment.

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director of Environment, concerning an update on the Animal Health and Welfare Service’s New Service Delivery Plan.

There were no non-public questions.

There were no non-public items of urgent business.