Licensing fees cost-recovery review
Some locally-set licensing fees may not have been reviewed against current process costs; a structured cost model could show under-recovery — while respecting any limits on what fees may cover.
Explore through a lens
Lenses are non-hierarchical. Not every opportunity needs all four.
Fees, charges, leases, lettings, licences, invoicing, arrears, billing, contractual income, pricing and cost recovery.
- Which fees are locally set, and which are fixed nationally? (requires researched source per regime)
- What costs may lawfully be included in each fee, and is surplus permitted?
Cross-service connections
Licensing → Digital & ICT Shared capacity
Online applications could lower the cost base, changing the cost-recovery calculation.
Related: Digital administrative efficiencyLicensing → Customer services Demand link
Fee changes may increase enquiries in the short term.
Rationale
Under-recovery means general fund subsidy of a regulatory regime; transparent costing supports fair, defensible fees.
Inappropriate when…
- The fee is nationally fixed
- Fee rules restrict charges to cost recovery and costs are already met
- Higher fees would disproportionately affect small operators without mitigation
Evidence required
- Time-recording or activity sampling
- Overhead allocation method
- Fee history
- Consultation requirements
Potential public impacts
- Fairer allocation of regulatory cost to applicants
- Potential affordability impact on small businesses
Statutory & governance checks
Shown for England. No clearance is implied.- Requires validation
Legal power to set each licensing fee locally and what it may include — no researched source yet
- Requires validation
Equality impact assessment
- Requires validation
Best Value / value-for-money implications