Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gordon Blair, Audrey Forrest, Amanda Hampsey, Daniel Hampsey, Mark Irvine, Andrew Kain, Paul Kennedy and Liz McCabe.

There were no declarations of interest.

Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.  In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today.  The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission.  For this hearing the Applicants opted to proceed by way of video call and Ann Zurn and John Hemmerlee joined the meeting by MS Teams.  They were joined by the Manager of the Property, Natalie Welsh, and their Solicitor, Jamie Yule, also by video call.

Clifford Maughan and Darren Painter, Objectors, also opted to proceed by way of video call and they joined the meeting by MS Teams.

One other Objector, Nicola Whittleton, was unable to attend.

The Chair invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms of the report.

Thereafter he outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of her application. 

APPLICANT

The Committee heard from Mr Yule on behalf of the Applicants.  He advised that the property in question had been let in the last financial year for 231 days out of a total of 365 days.  He also noted the objections which had been submitted by Mr Maughan and Mr Painter, but contended that the objection which had been submitted by Ms Whittleton should not be taken into consideration as there was no address supplied and in terms of the legislation anonymous objectors could not be considered.

Mr Yule provided detail in terms of the Police attendance at the property and advised that this could not be attributed to the short term let premises.  He advised that there had been minor issues in regard to the wearing of the carpet in the communal areas and although this wearing could not be attributed to one property it was hoped that there could be resolution to this through dialogue.  He noted that the Applicants had advised that they would be willing to pay towards the costs of a replacement carpet if this was shared by all of the residents.

It was noted that issues which had been raised around noise and cleaning had been responsibly responded to and he advised that the Applicants had engaged with their neighbours.

He advised that the Applicants had demonstrated that they were fit and proper persons to hold a short-term let licence and that the property was also suitable with no evidence of public disorder or public nuisance.  He advised that the Applicants had confirmed that they would be keen to work with neighbours to put systems in place to resolve issues.  He submitted to the Committee that this application should be granted.

QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS

Mr Maughan referred to the cleanliness of the close and said that it had not been cleaned since the owners of the property left 3 months ago.  He noted that they had advised that they had cleaners who cleaned it and he said this was not true.  He sought comment on this.  Ms Zurn advised that they had a cleaner that would clean the close when requested to do so.  She advised that the close had been cleaned about 6 weeks ago and the cleaner had been asked to clean it again at the end of the month when the current guests left.  She advised that she and John had personally washed the walls and vacuumed the stairs when they were last there.

Ms Welsh advised that during the regular change overs the close would not be left in a condition that was not tidy or unclean.  She commented that there was not a formal cleaning agreement in place in respect of the close but it was not in their interest for the close to be dirty.  She said they would not want that impression for their guests and that if the close was dirty the cleaners would fix that.

Mr Painter advised that he had no questions and thanked Mr Yule for reading out the email he had circulated before the meeting.

Mr Maughan asked where the key box was.  Ms Welsh advised that she was not comfortable with providing this information to Mr Maughan.  She said it was not marked up.  Ms Zurn said that guests were advised of the location of the key box and how to access it upon arrival.  She added that the address was not marked on the key safe.

OBJECTORS

Clifford Maughan

Mr Maughan said that the close was not kept clean and that there was no agreement in place of any kind to say who would clean what and when.  He advised that there was a lot of disturbance and that they heard every noise and footstep.  He pointed out that the building was not built to modern standards with the soundproofing between floors being old asphalt.  He advised that this was a residential building with 4 flats and was over 100 years old.

He advised that he and his wife were pensioners over 71 years old and that they had moved here to get peace and quiet.  He commented that his wife was quite ill and could not walk.  He referred to complaints made to the Police.  He advised that 2 Police vans came out but they could not locate the person he had complained about.  He also referred to one of the other neighbours being prevented from putting a complaint in about this application.  He referred to contacting Councillor Amanda Hampsey to try and find out who they could complain to in the Council. 

He advised that the current tenants were workmen and he commented that the owners had previously indicated that they would not let the property to workmen.  He said that the workmen made a lot of noise in the close and that one of them had been sick and had dropped a sick cloth out of the window.  He also advised that the workmen had urinated against their window.  He said that the close had never been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.