Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager
Minutes:
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 Applicant, Roderick Scott,
opted to proceed by way of video call and he joined the meeting by Microsoft
Teams.
George Turner, Objector also joined the meeting by
Microsoft Teams
Gaynor Wotherspoon,
Objector was unable to attend the hearing and provided a written response which
was contained in Supplementary Pack 1.
It was noted that one other Objector, Mr
McKerracher, was not in attendance.
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 Objector to speak in
support of his Objection.
OBJECTOR
Mr Turner advised that he only became aware of this application when he
was near the garden of the property and had seen a notice displayed in the
window. He said the window was some
distance from the road. He noted that on
the Council website it stated that notices had to be displayed where they could
be publically viewed. He commented that
he did not think it could be considered that this notice was in public view due
to the distance away from the kerb. He
advised that he has since spoken to others in the street who were not aware of
this application. He suggested that if
they had seen the notice there would have been more objections to this
application.
Mr Turner said that he did not think the Applicant had tried to
alleviate the concerns of neighbours and had shown little care for the residents
in the street. He advised that he was a
Paramedic in town and that he had moved to Oban in 2019 to raise his family in
a safe and caring community. He said he
found Nant Drive to be a respectful neighbourhood with a sense of community
spirit. He advised that he did not
choose to live next to a hotel or guest house and that he moved to a purely
residential area to live and bring up his children. He advised that the previous tenants were
always respectful to other neighbours and that he was still friends with
them. He commented that many short term
let properties had people coming to party and they would not want neighbours
telling them what to do and not do.
He said that the property was directly next to his property and that
the application was for 7 people. He
said that suggested to him that this would be more than the average size family
and possibly could be multiple groups.
He said he was concerned about anti-social behaviour which may be
exacerbated by the use of the hot tub.
He advised that the driveway was shared with a small kerb stone and
commented that for 7 people, car parking for 2 would not be sufficient and may
lead to parking on the main road which would bring its own set of
problems. He advised that it would
obscure his exit and entrance to his driveway.
He commented that mitigation was offered but said it was difficult to
understand how that would be policed and adhered to.
He advised that his property, with garden and driveway, mirrored the
Applicant’s property. He said it was
completely open except for a mid-body high fence to the rear. He referred to multiple strangers arriving at
all times. He commented that he had
asked for the direct number of the owner in case he needed to be contacted if
there were any issues and that this was refused and that the number was for
someone from the management company. He said this removed the personal touch
and respect for others that lived in the area.
He advised that there was the potential for anti-social behaviour and
noise at all times of the night which would probably lead to disturbance for
his family, including loss of sleep, which would affect learning at school and
functioning at work. He referred to
mitigation of a £1,000 deposit for damage or disturbance and questioned who would
benefit from that money.
He referred to moving to a residential area and commented that
encouragement should be given to properties being occupied by people that
needed accommodation. He said that the
town had multiple short term lets and no accommodation for teachers, NHS
workers and key workers. He said the
introduction of multiple Airbnbs would destroy the
town. He commented that hotel businesses
could not get staff due to the town being too expensive to live in and there
being nowhere else to live. He
questioned why this residential area could not be encouraged to remain as a
residential area and that the property be used for a longer term let as it was
before.
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS
Councillor Martin sought and received confirmation from Mr Turner as to
where the notice was displayed.
APPLICANT
Mr Scott advised that he ran a number of Airbnbs
and long term lets in Oban and that he had been running these for a number of
years in Oban and Argyll. He said that
he tried to supply a selection of accommodation at different levels. He said that the property had previously been
a long term let and that the previous occupants had been employed by him.
He advised that the property would be large enough to accommodate a
minimum of 7 people and that quite often they got requests for more than
that. He advised that for this property
they wanted to keep it to 7 people, maybe for a family or a family with friends. He said he was trying to have a high quality
residence for family occupation, with no intention of parties. He referred to having other residences of a
similar size with hot tubs and commented that there had been no parties at
these locations. He advised that if
there was ever any noise they would attend and try to resolve any
problems. He said that he quite
understood that this was a residential area that would need to be kept an eye
on. He said that he had space for
parking cars and if space for more than 2 cars were required he could
accommodate that. He also advised that
they would be able to vet people as they applied to book and they would be able
to refuse anyone they were concerned about.
He said that he liked to operate with great efficiency and that this was
a lovely opportunity for people to come to Oban.
QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS
Mr Turner asked what the vetting process was. Ms Griggs explained that she spoke to people
directly. She said that instead of
booking direct online, people had to enquire so that there could be a
discussion about the potential holiday makers that would be coming and what
they would be using the accommodation for.
The rules to be followed would be explained from the outset and they
would be advised that the accommodation would be within a residential
area. She advised that if she did not
like what she heard the booking would not go ahead. She explained that she has been doing this
for some time now and that she trusted her opinion and feelings on how someone
came across.
Councillor Green referred to the written submission by Ms Wotherspoon and read out the following questions on her
behalf.
1. In respect of the management company that will be
looking after the property. Can you
confirm if this is the management property owned by the home owner?
Mr Scott
said that he managed the bookings himself and that the cleaning etc was under his control.
2. In regards to the £1,000 deposit for disruption or
rule breaking, who benefits from this?
Mr Scott
advised that he did not think he could do this anymore as it would not be
permitted for an Airbnb establishment.
3. In regards to the contact number, if any disruptions
should occur. My previous experience
with the homeowner, when contacted before for previous tenants in regard to
noise. We were met with
obstruction. He advised us that as long
as the money (mortgage/rent) was being paid, he couldn’t care less about the
noise. Can I have assurances that this
will not be the case with Short term lets?
Mr Scott
said he had not spoken to anyone about this and that these comments had nothing
to do with him.
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS
Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Mr Scott that he
lived in Oban.
Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from Mr Scott that he
had one short term let of a similar size and another with one bedroom and that
he had experienced no issues with either.
He advised that he had also just received another licence for a 2
bedroom property. He referred to one
occasion when someone was talking loudly on the phone in a hot tub and that he
had gone round to stop that. He advised
that it was his intention that there would be no late night use of the hot tub
and that he expected that this would be monitored by neighbours. He said that he would have no objection to
anyone contacting him directly. He
explained that he was not always around and that was why he gave the number of
the person in charge of laundry to be the main contact.
Councillor Kain sought and received confirmation from Mr Scott that the
hot tub had been there for a number of years.
Councillor Kain sought and received confirmation that Mr Scott would
like the limit of guests staying to be 7.
He advised that it was a 4 bedroomed house. He said it would not be easy to let if the
numbers were limited to less than 7.
Councillor Hardie sought and received confirmation from Mr Scott that
the risk assessment for legionella was lodged with the application form.
Councillor Armour sought and received confirmation from Mr Scott that
at the time of submitting his application he had checked where he should
display the notice advising of his application and that he had displayed it
where he was told to.
Councillor Martin sought and received confirmation from Mr Scott that the
notice was A4 size and in the window next to the door.
Councillor Martin asked how close the hot tub was to the fence of the
property next door. Mr Scott said that
the section of fence where the hot tub was located was not near a public area. He said there were no windows and that the
fence backed onto a blank wall.
Councillor Martin referred to concerns about noise from the hot tub and
asked how Mr Scott planned to mitigate against that. Mr Scott said that it
would be written into the contract that would be signed by anyone taking up the
tenancy. He said there would be rules
regarding parking and the use of the hot tub.
He said the hot tub could not be used before 11 am and not after 10
pm. He advised that people should not
use the outside area at all after that time.
Ms Griggs advised that if anyone did not comply with the rules of use of
the hot tub they had the ability to lock it up for the remainder of the
holiday.
Councillor Kennedy sought and received confirmation from Mr Scott that
someone from the Council advised him where he should display the notice.
Councillor Kennedy sought and received confirmation from Mr Scott that
he was satisfied the vetting procedure would limit any problems from occurring.
Councillor Kennedy asked Mr Scott if the hot tub was necessary. Mr Scott explained that the previous tenants
did not want it removed but he could do so if required. He advised that it was a great addition to
his property.
Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Mr Scott that
many of his visitors were British with a lot from Glasgow and Scotland
generally.
Councillor Blair asked if any of his customers had issues with
neighbours. Mr Scott advised that there
had been issues with noisy dogs.
SUMMING UP
Objectors
Mr Turner advised that the hot tub was not next to a blank wall and
that there was a bedroom window next to the hot tub.
He also commented that within Appendix 2 of report it was stated that
the hot tub could only be used between the hours of 11 am and 9 pm. He noted that Mr Scott was now saying the
hours would be 11 am to 10 pm. He said
the situation was getting worse. He said
that he still wanted to object to this application as he had a young family
with his children’s bedrooms to the back of the house. He said he did not want a constant stream of
strangers coming each week. He said that
he really hoped Mr Scott would revert back to maintaining this property as a
long term let.
Applicant
Mr Scott said he thought he had done his best to placate the situation and
that he would like to go ahead with his application.
When asked, both parties confirmed that they were satisfied they had
said all they wished to.
At this point the Committee agreed to retire and deliberate in private.
DEBATE
The Committee debated the merits of the application and objections
submitted.
Thereafter the Applicant and Objectors were invited back into the
meeting.
Motion
To agree to grant a short term let licence to Mr Scott subject to the conditions
as recommended in the report and to the inclusion of an additional condition
limiting the use of the hot tub to the hours of 11 am – 8 pm.
Moved by Councillor John Armour, seconded by Councillor Gordon Blair.
Amendment
To agree to refuse the application for a short term let on the grounds that
the premises was not suitable for the conduct of the activity having regard to
the location, character or condition of the premises and the possibility of
undue public nuisance, public order, or public safety.
Moved by Councillor Luna Martin, seconded by Councillor Graham Hardie.
A vote was taken by calling the roll.
Motion Amendment
Councillor Armour Councillor
Hardie
Councillor Blair Councillor
Kennedy
Councillor Brown Councillor
Martin
Councillor Forrest
Councillor Green
Councillor A Hampsey
Councillor D Hampsey
Councillor Howard
Councillor Kain
Councillor Wallace
The Motion was carried by 10 votes to 3 and the Committee resolved
accordingly.
DECISION
The Committee agreed to grant a short term let licence to Mr Scott
subject to the conditions as recommended in the report and to the inclusion of
an additional condition limiting the use of the hot tub to the hours of 11 am –
8 pm.
(Reference: Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards
Manager, submitted)