Agenda item - Public Involvement

To consider the following items raised by members of the public:

(a)       Petitions: To receive any petitions presented by members of the public to the full Council or to the meeting itself;

(b)       Written Questions: To receive any questions submitted by the due date of 10am on 14^th March 2025

(c)        Deputations: To receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 10am on 14^th March 2025

41.1 Catherine Lane, a local resident and owner of “My holiday let” presented her deputation as follows:

Dear Members of the Committee,

I appreciate the opportunity to address you today following my review of the Short Term Let report, which I found to be comprehensive and balanced. However, I wish to raise two concerns that I believe warrant your attention.

Firstly, concerning the definition of short-term lets, the report distinguishes these as properties that are not classified as main residences that are let out for brief periods. However, most cases of Short Term Lets are let on this basis and estate agents are actively suggesting this is how people can circumvent any planning rules. For instance there are many four and five-bedroom properties in Kemptown, that operate solely on weekends and accommodate up to 20 guests. These properties assert that they are their owners' main residences to circumvent paying business rates, reduce capital gains tax on a sale and potentially so they can get cheaper finance on these properties. In Brunswick Square although all properties would qualify for small business rates relief there are only three properties listed as holiday lets at the valuation office and I know of about 50 such properties. 

The law stipulates that if a property is let out—whether as a main residence or otherwise—there are business operational standards that must be adhered to, including fire precautions and insurance liabilities. I urge that any recommendations encompass all properties advertised for short-term lets, irrespective of their claimed status as main residences.

Secondly, I take issue with the recommendation to lobby for no permitted development rights. This approach appears inequitable, particularly for those of us who have operated lawfully for many years. It is unreasonable to equate established operators, who may have been in business for up to 20 years and would qualify for a certificate of lawfulness after over 10 years of trading, with new entrants who may begin operations tomorrow. The need for existing businesses to secure bookings often two years in advance highlights the importance of recognising our long-standing compliance with the law.

Thank you for considering these points, and for your time today.

4.2 Cllr Evans gave the following response to the deputation:

Thank you for your deputation, Catherine. I’ll address each point separately.

The definition used in the report is the one the Task & Finish Group is working to, rather than the council’s official definition. With limited time available to us, we wanted to focus on properties clearly operating as businesses rather than those being occasionally let to guests. However, I acknowledge your point that the distinction between short-term let businesses and individuals earning extra income is not always clear. You are correct that the law does not differentiate between these properties in terms of safety standards and fire regulations—all guest accommodations must comply, and we are aware that there are some who, whether knowingly or not, are in breach of current legislation, even without any new rules coming down the track If a registration or licensing scheme were introduced, the definition would be reviewed and determined by central government.

Regarding your second point, my understanding is that any legal change involving a change of use without permitted development rights cannot be applied retrospectively. Instead, it would focus on regulating the future expansion of short-term lets in areas where their concentration is already high. Existing properties would not be affected by the change, particularly in the case of responsible owners like yourself, already complying with all current legislation.

The Task & Finish Group recognises STLs as valuable to the city's economy, but we are concerned that in certain areas, the high numbers are causing issues, and may additionally have an impact on housing supply and cost Lobbying for the removal of permitted development rights would give the council the authority to manage STL numbers in these areas, helping to mitigate their negative impact on the local community, and potentially helping to ensure that certain areas don’t become so saturated that we create the worst of all possible worlds – ie, that not only is community cohesion damaged, but that we are over-supplying the tourist market, with short-term let properties (that could be housing residents) lying empty for much of the time.