Agenda item

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 and their agent opted to proceed by way of video call and Sarah Fitzgerald and Keith Shanks joined the meeting by Microsoft Teams.

 

Iain Martin, James and Patricia Crawford, and Margaret Watters, Objectors, also opted to proceed by way of video call and joined the meeting by Microsoft Teams.

 

David Townsend and Colette Lafferty McGaw, Objectors, opted to proceed by way of written submission and a copy of these objections were contained within the Agenda pack and supplementary Agenda pack for this hearing.

 

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

 

Thereafter the procedure set out in Appendix 18 of the report was followed and the Chair invited the Applicant and their Agent to speak in support for their application.

 

APPLICANT

 

The Applicant advised that a substantive response to objections raised had been submitted for the Committee’s information, and was included in the Agenda pack.

 

The Applicant advised that the property was her family home, and that the intention was for the property to only be advertised for let during periods when the family would be away from the home. She advised that they had two young children, family and friends in the immediate area, and were fully embedded in the community. She noted that she had been brought up in Helensburgh and viewed it as her home. She advised that they had invested a lot of time, money and energy into making the property their home and it was not intended to be, either now on in the future, a commercial enterprise. She emphasised that they were looking at using the property as a Short-Term Let during periods where the property would otherwise be vacant due to the work commitments of both her and her husband, who had recently undertaken a new position as Head Teacher of a school in Dunblane, which occasionally required boarding responsibilities and overnight care of pupils.

 

The Applicant advised that it was not her intention for the property to be used as a place to have parties. She noted that the property had two rooms specifically set up for toddlers, and a climbing frame in the garden for children. She noted that it was not a party house, and that this would not be the intended or advertised purpose. She highlighted that the property was fully compliant with all safety requirements, and a robust management plan was in place to address any issues which may arise.

 

The Applicant advised that they would also be using the services of a Managing Agent, BnBHost, who had been highly recommended by a local Estate Agent. She advised that this would assist in providing an extra layer of protection around the management of the property, if a licence was to be granted.

 

The Applicant advised that she was a Human Rights lawyer, who had been involved in shaping legislation around privacy laws in the UK. She advised that she took the right to privacy very seriously and would take every step possible to preserve her neighbour’s right to privacy. She highlighted that the objections outlined in relation to privacy were largely speculative and were not relevant to the application before the Committee.

 

The Applicant also advised that there had never been any previous complaints, when the family or guests were at the property, from neighbours in relation to noise. She noted that the communal areas were not adjacent to the party walls and were separated by numerous doors which assisted in reducing noise transfer.

 

The Applicant reiterated that the property was fully compliant with all requirements and was a well-managed family home. She advised that it was not the intention for the property to be used for full time letting, and that people staying in the property would be allowed to do so only in well-managed circumstances.

 

The Applicant passed to her Agent to summarise additional details in support of the application.

 

The Applicant’s Agent advised that when first discussing the potential Short-Term Let with the Applicant, respect for neighbours had been one of her main priorities. He provided details of the management plan which had been created in discussion with the Applicants, and the basis for much of this plan was to ensure mutual respect and a peaceful co-existence between parties. He outlined his companies significant experience in management, and ways in which procedures were put in place to ensure neighbours were respected and operational disruption was kept to a minimum.

 

The Applicant’s agent advised that the property’s marketing would be aimed towards families, and that the Applicant had made it clear during their meetings that the children’s rooms would remain as children’s rooms and that the outdoor play area would remain in place. He noted that this would naturally mean that the property would not be attractive to large groups of adults, and that it would be made clear in the advertising that the property was targeted towards families.

 

The Applicant’s Agent advised that they would have a robust vetting process in place for guests wishing to stay in the property, including background checks carried out by a third-party agency. He noted that this would include verification of identity documents, credit card information and additional verification by BnBHost staff trained in vetting, to request details of all guests. He advised that, where guests did not agree to take part in this vetting, or issues were raised during the vetting process, the booking would not go ahead. He advised that, in addition to the above, it is the policy of BnBHost not to allow Stag or Hen parties at any of their properties, and this would be clearly stated to any potential guests.

 

The Applicant’s Agent advised that they would use local cleaning companies, and that there were local contacts who could be available to respond to any issues quickly. He advised that laundry and linen were cleaned and laundered off site to minimise disruption. He advised that anyone attending the property regularly for operational reasons would be familiarised with where to park, how and where to take the bins out, and would be familiar with the property.

 

The Applicant’s Agent advised that all guests would also be provided with a guidebook and a list of strict house rules, including designated quiet hours. He advised that guests would be asked to check in between 4pm-6pm to avoid disruption, and where this was not possible, they would be familiarised with the check in process in advance. He noted that guidebooks would include information such as how to use the bins appropriately, where to park, what the quiet hours would be, any other designated house rules, and how to use appliances appropriately. He advised that the second part of the guidebook would also include information in relation to the local area, contributing to an economic boost for the local community.

 

The Applicant’s Agent advised that his intention would always be to be respectful to neighbours, and he would be open to having a direct line of communication with them. He advised that, if the licence was to be granted, he would provide direct contact details to neighbours and also facilitate introductions to relevant staff. 

 

QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS

 

The Chair invited Objectors to ask questions in relation to the presentation provided by the Applicant and her Agent.

 

Iain Martin, Objector, advised that he had concerns about the vetting process. He noted that 8 strangers regularly coming to a quiet, residential street was concerning, and asked how it was possible to know that guests would not take part in anti-social behaviour? He advised that he had stayed in Airbnb properties previously which had not required additional vetting processes as outlined by the Applicant’s Agent and noted his concern that in using a Managing Agent the property was going to become a business which was not appropriate for the quiet, residential street. He noted his concerns that neighbours would be left to monitor the situation, which he did not feel they should have to do. He emphasised his concerns in relation to privacy and security and noted that he believed that this would have an impact on the wellbeing of people on the street who were retired and/or vulnerable.

 

The Chair reminded Mr Martin that this was an opportunity to ask questions in relation to the presentation provided by the Applicant and their agent, and that Objectors would have an opportunity to outline their objections at a later point in the hearing.

 

Mr Martin asked how it was possible to ensure that the vetting would be appropriate, and that the guests would be families visiting the property for good reason, and not to have parties?

 

The Applicant’s Agent responded that the property would be marketed towards families, and that the lead booker would undertake a background check process through a third-party company as he had mentioned previously. He advised that his staff would also request the names and ages of all guests staying in the property, and that if potential guests failed to provide this information, then the booking would not go ahead. He advised that the occupancy of 8 guests is a maximum, however based on other properties of a similar size across the area, it was likely that the average number of guests would be around 5. He noted that devices can be put in place to monitor things such as noise decibel levels, and that procedures can be put in place to assist with additional monitoring if required.

 

James Crawford, Objector, advised that the Applicant had commented that the objections were speculative, but that this was not the case and should not be viewed in isolation of the context and history of the property. He advised that, although there had not previously been concerns around noise levels at the property, this had been when the Applicant was a resident of the property.

 

The Chair reminded Mr Crawford that this was an opportunity to ask questions in relation to the presentation provided by the Applicant and their agent, and that Objectors would have an opportunity to outline their objections at a later point in the hearing.

 

Mr Crawford advised that in the written response provided by the Applicants, in the last two paragraphs there were references to requirements around data protection and confidentiality. He advised that he found this to be a strange inclusion, and was unsure whether this superseded the GDPR requirements set out by Argyll & Bute Council at the beginning of the process.

 

The Governance Manager advised that this question did not relate to the presentation which had been provided by the Applicant and their Agent. Mr Crawford responded that he would reserve his questions for the appropriate part of the hearing, when he was speaking to his objections. 

 

OBJECTORS

 

The Chair invited Objectors to speak to their objections.

 

Iain Martin

 

Mr Martin advised that a written submission of his objections had been provided to the Committee. He advised that his first objection was based on the fact that the property was on a quiet, residential street which was home to a number of vulnerable residents. He advised that a Short-Term Let at the scale proposed would have an impact on the noise, privacy, security, and wellbeing of residents. He noted that vulnerable people on the street, and particularly those of an advanced age and/or with health problems, should not be subjected to 8 strangers coming into the street on a regular basis.

 

Mr Martin advised that he did not believe that the vetting process outlined by the Applicant’s Agent would be successful, and that this would be left for the residents of the street to monitor, which he did not consider to be fair.

 

Mr Martin noted that the size of the property, with 5 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms and 2 public rooms, as well as a large garden area with bar, was likely to attract large groups rather than individuals or couples. He noted his concerns that this would lead to party groups booking the property, which he did not believe the outlined vetting process would prevent. He advised that this was not consistent with the quiet nature of the street, and that this would be detrimental to the neighbourhood on a large scale and in breach of Article 8 of the UK Human Rights Act and their right to privacy, safety and security.

 

Mr Martin noted his objection to the Applicant’s position that the property would not be viewed as a business, as he believed that the use of a Managing Agent for the property confirmed that the enterprise was profit-driven. He reiterated his belief that a business of this type was not suitable for the area.

 

Mr Martin advised that he did not believe that responses provided by the Applicants and their Agent had resolved or addressed his objections.

 

James Crawford

 

Mr Crawford advised that a written submission of his objections had been provided to the Committee. He noted that he would not highlight all of these objections, but would focus on the main points.

 

Mr Crawford advised that he did not feel that the responses provided by the Applicants addressed the objections submitted, and instead raised further concerns. He noted his belief that repeated references to limited rental time and children and families were misleading. He advised that the use of a Managing Agent was a clear indicator that the property would not be used infrequently, as stated, and could potentially be used for up to 46 weeks of the year for guests. He suggested that, if it were truly to be used solely occasionally, it would have been better to put signage up locally, such as in the garden, rather than advertise it through a Managing Agent.

 

Mr Crawford referred to previous issues experienced with neighbours involving noise from the garden bar, and equipment being placed in the garden including diggers, skips and scaffolding. He suggested that, if the Applicant and their Agent genuinely wished to prevent large groups, party-goers, and contractors from using the property, then it should be possible to commit these requirements to writing to avoid the possibility of them applying to stay in the property.

 

He enquired about how the property could be managed by an Agent without being profit-driven, and noted that there would be a financial motivation for BnBHost to bring in a large number of guests to maximise their profit. He advised that he did not believe that targeting the property specifically at families was sustainable financially, and that this would lead to contractors and other large groups being guests of the property.

 

Mr Crawford also reiterated his concerns around the inclusion of data protection and non-disclosure requirements in the response provided by the Applicants, and enquired about why this was included and whether it superseded the terms set out by Argyll & Bute Council.

 

The Chair advised that it would not be appropriate, or within the scope of the Committee’s remit, to investigate or comment on contractual agreements between the Applicant and their Agent.

 

QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT

 

The Chair invited the Applicant and their Agent to ask questions in relation to the objections outlined by the Objectors.

 

The Applicant and their Agent advised that they appreciated the concerns raised by the Objectors, but had no questions at this time.

 

MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS

 

The Chair invited Members to ask questions to the Applicant, their Agent, or the Objectors.

 

Councillor Kain advised that the submissions indicated that the property was the primary residence of the Applicants, however it was evident that both Applicants work circumstances required them to regularly be away from Helensburgh. He asked for clarification that the property was used as a primary residence of the Applicants.

 

The Applicant confirmed that the property was her main residence, noting that the responsibilities of her husband involved him residing in tied accommodation at times due to overnight boarding duties. She confirmed that this, alongside work commitments, required them to live between different locations. She confirmed that the property was her primary residence and was registered as such, and that she had no other tenancies.

 

Councillor Kain sought and received confirmation from the Applicant that she had insurance in place to cover the change of use for the property.

 

Councillor Kennedy sought and received confirmation from the Applicant that it was the intention of the Applicant and their family to return to the property in the future as their permanent residence. The Applicant advised that she viewed the property as their forever home, and that it was always their intention to live there, however they were navigating a change in work circumstances which had led to them looking for options for the property during periods of vacancy.

 

Councillor Kennedy sought and received confirmation from the Applicant that they would not object to a similar application made on the street, if they were residents of a neighbouring property. The Applicant advised that she had a respectful relationship with neighbours, and was saddened that it had come to this point but understood their objections. She noted that she would have been open to having conversations with neighbours prior to this point, to better understand and alleviate their concerns.

 

Councillor Philand sought clarification from the Applicant’s Agent in relation to the vetting process, and what this would involve. The Applicant’s Agent confirmed that the vetting process involved questions asked by trained members of BnBHost staff in relation to the use of the property and guests names and ages, as well as a third-party company who would undertake background checks of prospective guests, including criminal record checks. He advised that this was subject to guests agreeing to provide this information, however if they did not agree to provide it then the booking would not proceed.

 

Councillor Philand asked who would deal with any noise complaints arising, from a local perspective? The Applicant’s Agent advised that a member of staff based in Dumbarton would be the first point of contact for this. The Applicant advised that they also had family and close friends who would be able to, and were prepared to, attend if required.

 

Councillor Kennedy-Boyle requested an update on works to be carried out on an adjoining fire wall, as highlighted in the report. The Applicant confirmed that these works had been instructed, and would be completed shortly. She noted that there had been slippage to the timescales for this work, due to the overrun of a job currently being undertaken by the builders.

 

The Chair asked how regularly the Applicant’s Agent had experienced issues with managed properties across the area. The Applicant’s Agent advised that they were experienced and comfortable with the management plan that they had in place for their properties, noting that they had only previously had one issue with a party at a Glasgow property during Covid restrictions, and that this was resolved very quickly. He reiterated that this property was unlikely to attract party goers, but rather families looking to experience the local area. He advised that, if the licence was to be granted, he would introduce relevant parties to the neighbours and ensure that they were provided with appropriate contact details to highlight any concerns.

 

SUMMING UP

 

Objectors

 

The Chair invited the Objectors to sum up their objections.

 

Iain Martin

 

Mr Martin advised that this main objection was in relation to privacy, and highlighted his concerns that up to 8 people would be coming to stay in the neighbouring property who were strangers. He advised that he was concerned that he did not know them, or where they would be coming from, and was concerned about people looking into the windows and gardens of neighbouring properties. He reiterated his concerns in relation to noise, security and privacy.

 

Mr Martin advised that, as a long-term resident of the street, he did not feel that it was appropriate and that it would affect the wellbeing and health of other residents.

 

James Crawford

 

Mr Crawford reiterated his concerns in relation to the GDPR information provided by the Applicants. He also advised that, although commitments were made verbally by the Applicant and their Agent, there was nothing written down to provide reassurance in relation to this. He advised that the type of people who the property could attract was concerning, and he believed it was perfectly reasonable for the request for only families to be allowed to stay to be put in writing.

 

Mr Crawford advised that if it was likely that all guests would be respectful, then there would be no requirement for vetting procedures. He advised that it was fine to have a management plan in place, but he felt that the burden of highlighting concerns in relation to guests was being unfairly left to elderly and frail neighbours.

 

Mr Crawford noted that he was concerned about the duration of the property being used for Short-Term Letting, given that the careers of the Applicants could see them not using the property as their full time home for the foreseeable future.

 

Kathleen Watters

 

Ms Watters advised that all of the objections highlighted in her written submission still stood, and she agreed with Mr Martin and Mr Crawford that the commitments made by the Applicant and their Agent should be committed to writing. She noted that she did not believe that the objections highlighted had been sufficiently addressed.

 

Applicant

 

The Chair invited the Applicant and their Agent to sum up their position.

 

The Applicant advised that the property had CCTV at the front and rear, which is monitored regularly. She advised that this would continue to be the case going forward, and that she would also be in Helensburgh every week to monitor the property. She noted that she would ensure any disturbances were dealt with promptly, and reiterated that she was invested in avoiding disruption to neighbouring properties.

 

The Applicant noted that she had not engaged the services of BnBHost due to profit, but due to their reputation and professionalism. She advised that this was also done to provide an additional layer of protection, and that no minimum terms for leasing or amounts had been agreed. She advised that the property would not be leased full time, and that the suggestion that it could be leased for up to 46 weeks of the year was not in line with her expectations for the property. She advised that she was also happy for BnBHost to ensure that guests were appropriately vetted, and that the property was cleaned and maintained to a high standard. She reiterated that the decision to use BnBHost was not in relation to profit, but due to the services that they could provide and their reputation.

 

The Applicant advised that the garden bar area had been implemented by the previous owners of the property, and would be removed in due course. She noted that guests would not have access to the garden bar.

 

The Applicant advised that her family frequently travelled together as a multi-generational family, and the size of the property did not necessarily indicate that it would be suitable for large party groups. She advised that it was their family home, and that they were invested in making the process work in a way that was respectful to all parties, including taking the opinions of neighbours into account. She noted that this was solely an option being taken forward during periods when the house would otherwise be empty.

 

The Applicant’s Agent reiterated that, when he had first discussed the potential lease of the property with the Applicant, she had emphasised the importance of respecting neighbours and ensuring that the property was well looked after by guests. He noted that he was open to working with the Applicant and neighbours to provide additional comfort in the process. He advised that the management of a property was not a one-size fits all process, and emphasised that the company had years of experience in navigating best practice. He reiterated that the property would be clearly listed as not accepting stag or hen parties, and that it would be clear through the listing that the property was not suitable for parties.

 

When asked, Iain Martin, Objector, and the Applicant and Applicant’s Agent confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. John and Patricia Crawford and Kathleen Watters, Objectors, advised that they did not feel that they had received a fair hearing.

 

Councillor Kennedy left the meeting at this point, and did not return.

 

DEBATE

 

Councillor Kain advised that he generally had concerns around applications for Short-Term Let Licences in populated areas. He noted his opinion that the leasing of the property had the potential to cause further dissent in the community. He advised that he was concerned that the property would not be used as a permanent home for the Applicants for some time, due to work circumstances.

 

The Chair advised that he understood the angst that this had caused within the community, especially given the close proximity to their premises, but noted that his own personal experiences of Airbnbs in his local area had been very positive. He noted that the properties could be very well managed, and open opportunities to interact with people from around the world. He emphasised that he understood that this did not prevent things from going wrong at times, but he was satisfied with the suggested conditions included in the report, as well as the commitments outlined by the Applicant and their Agent.

 

The Chair advised that he believed that the checks and balances suggested were likely to be sufficient to address the concerns raised, and noted that he did not believe that everyone using Airbnb would be doing so to have parties. He advised that he would be happy to support the recommendation to approve the licence, subject to the inclusion of additional conditions relating to anti-social behaviour, privacy and security, littering and waste disposal, and damage to property outlined in the report.

 

Councillor Kennedy-Boyle advised that she had listened closely to the Applicant and Agent in terms of the proposed management of the property, as well as the concerns raised by Objectors. She advised that she believed some assumptions were being made which may not reflect the reality of experience. She advised that she believed that the Licensing Standards Officer had addressed concerns raised with the recommendation of additional conditions outlined in the report, as well as the mandatory conditions set out for all properties as standard. She advised that, while the concerns raised by Objectors were expressed well, she did feel that Officers had addressed these appropriately.

 

Councillor Green advised that he concurred that the concerns raised by neighbours were often naturally shared, but felt that these concerns could be appropriately addressed by the recommended additional conditions outlined in the report. He noted that substantial reassurance had been received from the Applicant and their Agent, and noted his belief that, subject to the additional recommended conditions, the Licence would be appropriate to grant.

 

DECISION

 

The Committee agreed to grant a short-term let licence to Sarah and Dominic Fitzgerald subject to the inclusion of additional conditions set out in the report in respect of anti-social behaviour, privacy and security, littering and waste disposal, and damage to property.

 

The Applicant would be notified in writing of the above decision within 7 days.

 

(Reference: Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager and Written Submissions by Objectors, submitted)