Agenda item - Public Involvement

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

 

(a)          Petitions: To receive any petitions presented by members of the public;

 

(b)         Written Questions: To receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 20 September 2019;

 

(i)           BH2017/02805 (Pavilion Tea House) Hove Park cafe

 

(c)          Deputations: To receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 20 September 2019.

 

(i)           Taking action on large-scale AirBnBs (party houses) in residential areas

4a        Petitions

 

4.1       There were none.

 

4b       Written Questions

 

4.2       It was noted that two written questions had been received and these were considered in the order in which they had been received.

 

4b(i)    (Pavilion Tea House), Hove Park Café

 

4.3       Mr Hall was invited forward to present his question (set out at page 7 of the circulated agenda) and below:

 

4.4       “The ombudsman has ruled that whilst no planning rules were broken concerning this application it was proven that the applicant’s representatives collected objections and support at a public meeting for the application but did not upload any objections from the public despite committing in writing to doing so.

The residents of Brighton and Hove deserve better than this. The council need to put measures in place to ensure that this malpractice is never allowed to happen again.

What is the council going to do to ensure that the shoddy actions of the applicants’ representatives are not repeated in future?”

 

4.5       The Chair, Councillor Robins responded in the following terms:

 

            “The outcome of the Ombudsman’s investigation was that there was no fault, or malpractice, in the way the Council had considered this application. This includes in consultation and handling of comments received.

 

            The Ombudsman commented that the Council could have made more enquiries of the agent when the submissions were made but was satisfied that the decision on the planning application was based upon the planning merits of the case not the level of support for the scheme.

            It is national and local policy and good practice to encourage with local people on their development proposals which is what was undertaken in this case. I acknowledge your concerns that developers might not include objections alongside letters of support. In response the Planning Service is proposing the following:

 

·         To add this point to the local consultation policy (Statement of Community Involvement) when it is reviewed; and

·         To work with local planning agents to address this.

 

4.6       The Chair invited Mr Hall to put a supplementary question if he had one, but he did not.

 

4b(ii)   DA6, City Plan Part One

 

4.7       Ms Paynter was invited forward to present her question (set out at page 7 of the addenda Mr Hall was invited forward to present his question (set out at page 7 of the addenda to the circulated agenda) and below:

 

            “Does the Chair agree that, events having overtaken policy DA6 of the City Plan Part One and the Plan’s seafront policy and planning brief for the King Alfred and RNR sites, revision is now required to keep them relevant.”

 

4.8       The Chair, Councillor Robins responded in the following terms:

 

            “Thank you for your question. No, I do not agree that events have overtaken these policies. The City Plan policies for Hove Station and the Seafront remain very relevant – the reason is that new development proposals will need to be assessed against statutory local plan policies.

 

            The aim of Hove Station Development policy (DA6) is to secure the long-term regeneration of the Area for mixed development including business space and residential units. The “local priorities” sought in the policy include improved public realm, essential community services and better accessibility.

 

            A Masterplan for the Hove Station area is also being prepared and this will provide more detailed guidance on issues like urban design, biodiversity and transport matters. The Seafront policy (SA1) sets out priorities for the length of the city’s seafront and covers matters such as better public realm, protecting coastal habitats and ensuring the er priorities remain very relevant for the future development of the site – it seeks to ensure that, as part of new development, sports facilities are replaced to serve the local Hove area. In terms of the King Alfred Planning Brief, this was prepared in 2002. Although it is dated be assured it is secondary to the local plan and still provides helpful guidance.”

 

4.9       The Chair invited Ms Paynter to put a supplementary question if she had one.

 

4.10    The Chair responded in the following terms:

 

4c(i)    Deputations – Taking Action on Large-Scale Air BnBs (party houses) in Residential Areas

 

4.11    The Chair explained that as this deputation and the letter received from Councillor Wares covered the same matter, he intended to hear the deputation, then the letter and then to provide a joint response. Mr Elton was invited forward to put his deputation (this was set out at page 9 of the circulated agenda) and below:

 

4.12    “The residents of Patcham Village, Court Close wish to make a deputation request to Brighton and Hove Council to put in place, with immediate effect, effective rules and regulations to restrict the use of ‘entire house’ large scale AirBnB (party) houses within residential areas. In April 2019, a resident of Court Close turned their 3-4 bedroom dwelling into an18-person entire house AirBnB rental with a hot-tub:

https://bit.ly/2lYWPNN

 

Court Close is located at the foot of the South Downs, and opposite the  Conservation area.  It is a privately owned Close, on the edge of Brighton. Residents are mostly older adults and young families. Residents consciously chose to live here due to the peace and quiet offered by its rural location, and the strong sense of community generated from the residents in the Close.  However, the continual stream of problems from this AirBnB has significantly impacted this community of people; the problems include:

 

1.Anti-Social Behaviour – which regularly wakes-up residents, including children as young as 2 years old. 

2. Rubbish – piled up next to the bins, which is then ripped open by foxes and seagulls and strewn over neighbouring properties and the Close.

3. Parking – guests arrive with an average of 6-8 cars; however, the property only has a driveway for 2 cars, possibly 3 cars at a push; the remaining cars are parked inconsiderately – blocking the road, driveways and restricting access for emergency vehicles if needed.

4.Unsettling - the types of people staying at the property are un-characteristic of local residents i.e. large groups of young people, who are engaging in activities uncharacteristic of local residents, i.e. drinking and partying late into the night. 

 

Since May 2019, a total of x12 households have raised these issues with both the Council (Planning and Environmental Health) and the Police; however, there appears to be little action that can/is willing to be taken against these issues. The only reported issue, which is being actively investigated, is through Environmental Protection (Noise), but this has taken several months and is still on going.

 

The apparent lack of enforceable regulations creates a free-for-all system, which allows homeowners, particularly in residential areas, to transform their homes into large-scale commercial guest-houses.  The blatant conversion of a residential dwelling into commercial premises, under the guise of Airbnb, seems void of any enforceable planning regulations, or charges. The safety of such properties, in terms of compliance with fire safety law, again appears unregulated and un-monitored; thus placing the guests, the property and neighbouring properties at risk. Overall, there appears a lack of parity in the current system, which has resulted in local residents having their valued communities significantly disrupted, houses devalued and put at risk, and their peace and wellbeing significantly impacted. We therefore formally request, with immediate effect, that enforceable regulations are put in place to protect local communities from this gross commercialisation of residential dwellings”

 

4.13    Councillor Wares was then invited to speak to his letter (set out at page 19 of the agenda) and below:

 

“I fully support the deputation request submitted by residents of Court Close and am sure there are many others in the City who would like greater controls introduced. The issue is not about the ad-hoc renting of homes per se. It is about the wholesale conversion of a family home to a full-time guesthouse that can accommodate large groups of individuals. In this case a four-bedroom home being used to sleep 18 guests.

 

In addition, we need a far greater joined-up approach by the council and other authorities to deal with these hugely disruptive changes of use. This is the second time I have experienced a situation whereby an issue at one property has had an enormous impact on everybody else in the vicinity. Last time we were told that in future, these sorts of community impact problems would be dealt with by field officers who would act as the single point of contact. It was also advised that Community Protection Notices could be used.

 

Regretfully we seem to have not learnt the lesson. Residents and I are having to work out who to speak to, do the chasing up and making sure everybody is talking with each other.

 

I would be grateful therefore if this Committee would investigate and act on the request in the deputation. Please could the council also provide residents with a single point of contact on the specific matter of Court Close who will, inter alia, check progress on enforcement and regularisation by the council and others and regularly communicate to residents.”

 

4.14    The Chair, Councillor Robins responded in the following terms:

 

            “Thank you for your deputation and your letter Councillor Wares. This Council is aware of residents’ concerned and the issue of the growth in short term holiday lets including Airbnb. Particularly its potential impact on the amenity of residential areas and the loss of family homes. It is a matter that the council has been looking into as part of preparing the City Plan Part 2

 

“At the moment the ability of the local planning authority to regulate sort term holiday accommodation is constrained s they are considered by the government as a residential (C3 Use Class) therefore planning permission is not needed. London authorities, through specific government legislation, are the only local authorities in England able to limit property owners letting out their homes on short term lets to under 90 days per year. The government are looking at options to broaden this through the Tourism All Party Parliamentary Group. In some circumstances a short-term holiday lets can be considered a change of use but this has to be tested on a case by case basis.

 

            I can confirm there is an existing enforcement case for a property at Court Close. The case is on-going and information is being sought to establish whether a change of use has happened.

 

In terms of noise concerns, since May 2019 eight residents have contacted the Environmental Protection Team in relation to noise from an address in Court Close. This includes noise from music and noise from people using the hot tub and garden. The Council has a duty under legislation to investigate all noise complaints. Statutory noise nuisance can include noise from people, music and plant and machinery. It is not a defined decibel level, instead it is assessed having regard to the character, duration and frequency of the noise. One resident provided evidence, and this was assessed this week. A statutory noise nuisance has been established and a noise abatement notice will now be served on the owner. A breach of such a notice is a criminal offence.

 

East Sussex Fire and Rescue has been contacted in relation to the alleged use and also has an ongoing investigation into this property.”

 

4.15    The Chair added that additionally in response to these complaints discussions had been sought in order to work with Air BnB in order to address these problems and to put a system of registration into place. A letter had been received that morning from Maria Lorrimer of Air BnB requesting a meeting with council representatives in order to discuss how that could be put into operation. Although Ms Lorrimer had proved elusive when meetings had been sought in the past he would continue to pursue this matter.

 

4.16    Following further discussion it was agreed that a report would be brought forward to Committee as soon as it was expedient to do so looking at the city as a whole, Councillor Evans explained that she was aware of issues of concern in her own ward and was sure was sure that was the case elsewhere in the city too. The report would include details relating to the city as whole and, detail measures taken and updates on actions taken to date.

 

4.17    RESOLVED – That the position be noted.