Venue: By Microsoft Teams
Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from
Councillors Gordon Blair, Audrey Forrest, Amanda Hampsey,
Daniel Hampsey, Mark Irvine, Andrew Kain, Paul
Kennedy and Liz McCabe.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982, THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 (LICENSING OF SHORT-TERM LETS) ORDER 2022: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A SHORT-TERM LET LICENCE (A ZURN AND J HEMMERLEE, OBAN)
Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager
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.
Maughan and Darren Painter, Objectors, also opted to
proceed by way of video call and they joined the meeting by MS Teams.
other Objector, Nicola Whittleton, was unable to
Chair invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms of the
he outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to
speak in support of her application.
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.
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
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.
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
Painter advised that he had no questions and thanked Mr Yule for reading out
the email he had circulated before the meeting.
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.
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.
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.