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 opted to proceed by way of video call and Mrs Halo and her Agent, Ms
Peet joined the meeting by MS Teams.
The Objector had advised that he did not wish to attend the hearing.
The Chair invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms
of the report.
Thereafter the procedure set out in Appendix 6 of the report was
followed and the Chair invited the Applicant to speak in support of her
application.
APPLICANT
Ms Peet spoke on behalf of the Applicant. She advised that it was their understanding
that using a car to access the property would be ruled out. She pointed out that there were other bed and
breakfast establishments in place which stated that there was no parking
available which did not necessarily rule out visitors staying. She advised that Mrs Halo’s property was
close to the ferry and that there were also bus services at the bottom on the
hill on Marine Parade and that the property was close enough for visitors to
walk into town and walk to and from the ferry.
She said that Dunoon was a high profile tourist destination with a big
emphasis on outdoor pursuits. She
advised that Mrs Halo proposed promoting the area as a place to visit for
outdoor pursuits such as cycling, wild water swimming and walking. She advised that people could come by ferry
with their bicycles and arrive at the property that way. She advised that Mrs Halo also proposed a
minimum stay so there were less people coming every week.
She advised that there may be room to allow this licence with these
plans in place which would bypass the issue of traffic. Recognising that it would be difficult to
police, she also suggested the installation of CCTV to monitor traffic coming
up and down the lane.
Ms Peet advised that Mrs Halo had been all around the town taking
photographs of where cars had to come out of the same sort of junctions and it
had been noted that this happened quite a lot around the town and as far as
they were aware there have been no accidents.
She asked the Committee to consider granting the application on
condition that the property not be accessed by car and for Mrs Halo to make it
clear on her website that parking was not available. It could also be pointed out that there was
plenty of parking available on Marine Parade and Alexandra Parade so that those
who were physically fit could walk to the property in order to minimise traffic
on the narrow lane.
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS
Councillor Howard asked how many residents
had cars that used the lane on a regular basis.
Ms Peet advised that there were 6 or 7 residents but not all used
cars. The property at the bottom of the
lane did not use the lane as access to their property was straight off the main
road. She said there were 4 properties
accessed by car via the lane.
Councillor Howard sought and received
confirmation from Ms Peet that the property could be accessed from the top road
via a footpath. Ms Peet said she
regularly used that footpath rather than walk up from Marine Parade.
Councillor Howard sought and received
confirmation from Ms Peet that there was a road and parking at the top of this
footpath.
Councillor Wallace sought and received
confirmation from Ms Peet that this was a public road with no restrictions and
that it was used by local bus services.
Councillor Wallace sought and received
confirmation from Ms Peet that the property was approximately 120 metres from
parking at Marine Parade and Alexandra Parade.
It was noted that access from the top road down the foot path would be
shorter. Mrs Halo presented a map on
screen to show the location of the property, the access road and the footpath
down from George Street.
Councillor Howard asked if there were any
statistics of accidents in addition to the one mentioned by the Objector in the
paperwork before the Committee. Ms Peet
advised that she was not aware of any accidents in the 3.5 years she has lived
here, with the exception of the accident mentioned in the objection. She advised that she frequently turned left
and sometimes right to access the lane and has had no issues. She said that from personal experience she
has had no issues and that as long as you positioned yourself on the road and
signalled, people would wait. She said
she had not experienced anyone undertaking her.
Councillor Blair sought and received
confirmation from Ms Peet that the speed limit on Marine Parade and Alexandra
Parade was 30 mph.
Councillor Wallace sought and received
confirmation from Ms Peet that Mrs Halo did not own the access lane but had
shared right of access.
Councillor Blair commented that he was aware
that there was a lot of parking available on Marine Parade. He asked the Applicant if any thought had
been given to installing lighting on the access road to assist people walking
up and down. Ms Peet advised that Mrs
Halo’s husband was an electrician and would happy to install some sort of
lighting if this was deemed necessary.
Councillor Blair asked if other lane users
would have any difficulty with lighting being installed. Ms Halo advised that the other residents had
been approached about this and while they did not think it would be necessary,
they would not have any issue with lighting being installed.
Councillor Howard asked if there was a
pavement at the bottom of the lane beside the main road, as it did not look
like there was from the aerial view provided in the Agenda Pack. Mrs Halo presented a photograph on screen and
pointed out that there was a footpath there.
Ms Peet advised of the pavement being wide enough for walkers to use it
with a pram.
SUMMING UP
Applicant
Ms Peet advised that Mrs Halo has sought to address road safety
concerns including providing photographic evidence of the proposed entrance and
suggesting that parking at the property be restricted. She advised that she would be committed to
making it clear to guests that there would be no parking. She also suggested the installation of a
convex mirror to help and the cutting back of the high hedge.
Ms Peet asked the Committee to consider granting the licence with
permission for people to use cars and failing that to give consideration to
allowing people to come without their cars.
At this point Councillor Blair sought comment from the Council’s
Solicitor in respect of what the Committee could and could not do.
Ms Clanahan advised that she would like to make it clear that if this
licence was granted today it could not be used and bookings could not be
accepted until planning permission has been granted.
Ms Clanahan advised that in terms of property law the lane was
privately owned by each property which adjoined the lane. She said it would not be possible to impose a
condition on the licence regarding installation of a convex mirror or lighting
as you could not impose conditions that would affect third parties.
In regard to any condition applied about not being able to use cars on
the lane, she advised that it was unlikely that the Committee could do this as
it could be seen considered as overreaching.
She pointed out that it would also be difficult for the Applicant to
police.
In terms of the safety aspect as highlighted in the report and raised
by the Agent, it would not only be an issue of safety for cars using the lane
but also a safety issue for pedestrians using the lane when cars might be on
the lane. Ms Clanahan highlighted that
it would be for Committee Members to determine the risk to safety of both car
users and pedestrians on the basis of the information before the Committee
today.
She advised that the Applicant could have it stated on the website that
cars could not park at the property and that they could not traverse the lane
by car with an explanation why. She said
the Applicant could have difficulty policing that and Committee should consider
whether this should just be a recommendation from the Committee, rather than a
condition on the licence as there was a risk of overreaching.
She referred to the suggestion of installing CCTV and advised that care
would need to be taken to ensure the CCTV was only directed at the Applicant’s
property. She said this was a condition
that would be open to Members to place on the licence.
Councillor Wallace sought and received confirmation from Ms Clanahan
that it would not be possible to condition where visitors should park as it was
her opinion that would be overreaching.
She said the property had a right of access to the lane so could be used
and the Applicant had a right to park at the property. She said it was a legal grey area.
Mrs Halo and Ms Peet confirmed that they had received a fair hearing.
DEBATE
Councillor Howard said that she was having trouble coming to a decision
on this. She said she really could not
picture what the problem was and asked if it would be possible to arrange a
site visit. Ms Clanahan advised that if
a decision was not made on this application today it would become a deemed
grant.
Councillor Armour said he did not have any issue with the problems
raised by the Roads Officer. He said he
did not think it would be feasible to allow any vehicle to come to the property
via the lane other than those already using it.
He said that if there was a way to grant this licence without any
parking or any vehicle using the lane he could support that. He advised that as the application stood at
the moment he could not support it.
Councillor Hardie said he agreed with Councillor Armour that as the
application stood now he could not support it being granted but if it was
feasible to have some sort of condition that no vehicles could use the lane
that would be good.
Councillor Wallace advised that he agreed with colleagues. He said he could not see a way for the
licence to be granted using the lane at the front. He said he would like to see if a condition
could be added that stated access should be via the foot path at the back.
Councillor Blair asked the Council’s Solicitor if there were any
conditions or restrictions the Committee could put on this licence. Ms Clanahan said that there might be a
possible in terms of parking at the property but it was a grey area. She confirmed that no condition could be
placed on the property that specified which route people should use to access
the property. She said that would be
ultra vires.
Councillor Blair asked the Council’s Solicitor if the Applicant could
make it a condition herself on her website and highlight in her advertising
materials where car parking was available elsewhere in the town. Ms Clanahan advised that the Applicant could
make this request and it may go some way to addressing the issue but the
Applicant would have difficulty policing that.
She questioned what the Applicant would do if people arrived in their
cars and parked at the property or came with their car to drop off
luggage. She advised that it was open
to the Members to grant the licence on the basis of the assurances given by the
Applicant but this was not a condition the Committee could put in place as it
would be overreaching in terms of where to allow people to drive their cars.
Councillor Hardie advised that he would like to move a Motion to reject
the application on the basis of what was said in the report and the roads
issues. He said it was too complex at
this stage.
It was established that there was no seconder to this Motion and Mrs
Barton advised that it was for the Members to decide if they wished to
formulate a Motion to grant the licence.
Councillor Howard said she would like to grant the application with
conditions attached that no road access was available for cars and that guests
should arrive on foot. Ms Clanahan said
the Committee could not do that. She
advised that they may be able to require that there is no parking at the
property but that is as far as the Committee could go. She said the Committee could not ask people
not to drive there.
Councillor Armour asked if it would be possible to place a condition on
the Applicant to put on her website that the lane cannot be used by car to
access the property.
The Chair ruled, and the Committee agreed, to adjourn the meeting at 10.55
am so that the Council’s Solicitor could seek advice on Councillor Armour’s
question.
The Committee reconvened at 11.00 am.
Ms Clanahan it was a grey area and would be for the Members to make a
decision on. She said an option open to
Members would be to make this a recommendation rather than condition but there
would be no guarantee that a vehicle would not drive up to the property. It would not be possible to bring this back
to a future hearing solely on the basis that the recommendation had not been
followed. A further hearing could only
be triggered if, for example, complaints were received.
Ms Clanahan stressed again that if this licence was granted Mrs Halo
would not be able to operate without planning permission being in place and if
she did operate without this permission she could be seen by the Committee as
not a fit and proper person.
Councillor Howard sought and received confirmation from Ms Clanahan
that if this licence was refused today and the Applicant was subsequently
granted planning permission she would need to wait one year before applying
again for a short-term let licence. Ms
Clanahan advised that Mrs Halo had been advised of this and that she had also
been advised that if she had withdrawn this application before it was refused
she could have re-applied at any time when, and if, planning permission was
granted.
Councillor Wallace asked if the Committee could impose a condition that
nothing happens until planning permission is granted. Ms Clanahan advised that as the planning
process was a separate regime that would likely be overreaching and would also
not be necessary as the licence could not be used until planning permission was
in place. She advised that if the
licence was granted and then operated before planning permission was in place,
then enforcement action would likely be taken by planning and they would inform
the licensing team if this happened. A
decision would then be taken on whether or not to convene a hearing to revoke
or vary the licence.
Further discussion took place on how to proceed.
The Chair ruled, and the Committee agreed, to adjourn the Committee at
11.15 am to seek advice on a competent Motion to approve the application.
The Committee reconvened at 11.30 am.
The Chair read out a Motion which was unanimously agreed to and became
the decision of the Committee.
Decision
The Committee:
1. Agreed to grant the Short-term Let Licence, subject to
the following condition:-
The Licence Holder takes reasonable steps to prevent
parking within the property or otherwise accessing the property via motor
vehicle; and
2. Noted that the Council’s Solicitor had sought and received
confirmation from the Applicant that she understood that this licence could not
be used until planning permission was granted.
The Applicant also confirmed she understood that if the licence was used
without planning permission she would likely be subject to enforcement action
and that would be taken into consideration by the Committee in terms of
determining whether or not she was a fit and proper person to hold such a
licence if a decision was taken to hold a hearing to revoke or vary the licence.
(Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted)