Minutes of Area Panel 11 May 2006

BROOMHILL, CENTRAL AND NETHER EDGE AREA PANEL


Meeting held 11th May, 2006, at St. Mark’s Church, Broomfield Road


PRESENT:		Councillors Ali Qadar (Chair), Jillian Creasy, Shaffaq Mohammad, Andrew Sangar, Paul Scriven and Pat White.

		Also in attendance:-

		Councillor Alan Whitehouse

		Dave Whitfield	-	Area Co-ordinator

		Chris Galley	)
		Paul Rotherham	)	Private Sector Housing
		Gerald Myers	)

		Carrie Warr	)
		Pat McGrath	)	University of Sheffield

		Gary Finney	-	Bovis Lend Lease

		Toni Price	-	Miller Homes

		Marie May	-	Sheffield Hallam University

		Amanda Stokes	-	Parks and Countryside

		John Turner	-	Committee Secretariat

		There were approximately 30 local residents and representatives from local community groups in attendance.

……….

1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
	Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jean Cromar and Andrew White.

2.	HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION – NEW LICENSING LEGISLATION
	Chris Galley reported on the new provisions introduced under the Housing Act 2004, which involved the introduction of a national Mandatory Licensing Scheme for those Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) having more than two storeys and occupied by five or more tenants living in two or more single households.
	The Act, supported by regulations, provided that certain HMOs must be licensed with the relevant local authority and each local authority was required to make arrangements to licence such properties. The relevant parts of the Act and the regulations dealing with the national scheme had come into force on 6th April, 2006 and dealt with the Council’s licensing arrangements, including the introduction of national minimum and local standards, licensing fees and the measures to be taken to ensure compliance. It was reported that the proposals were designed to be self-financing.
	Chris Galley gave a presentation on the implications of the provisions introduced under the Act, referring to its main provisions, the new definition of HMOs, the numbers of HMOs both in this area and across the City and the role of the Council in managing the requirements under the new legislation. He also reported on the Private Rented Standards Toolkit, which included Mandatory Licensing, the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, HMO Management Regulations, the Responsible Landlord Scheme and other associated legislation.
	HMOs having more than two storeys and occupied by five or more persons in two or more households were required to be licensed with the Authority. There were over 920 HMOs in the Broomhill Ward, of which an estimated 750 would be subject to mandatory licensing under the legislation and 137 of these properties had already been registered and would passport through to Licensing. There were approximately 1,600 HMOs in other core Wards in the City.
	With regard to the Council’s role, Mr. Galley reported that officers would be proactive in relation to higher risk HMOs, respond to complaints about disrepair in all rented accommodation and undertake effective engagement with the community and landlords. He stressed that the level of work undertaken in respect of the above would be subject to available resources. All properties must receive a Housing Health and Safety Rating System inspection at least once in five years. The system identified 29 hazards and the severity and extent of the hazards would result in either informal or formal enforcement action against the landlord.
	In terms of the mandatory licensing, the owner/agent must be a fit and proper person, the property must comply with physical standards and conditions would be attached, requiring effective and proper management.
	Mr. Galley made brief reference to the existing Responsible Landlord Scheme operated jointly by the City Council and the Universities, and which set minimum physical and management standards, with a specific requirement that landlords, as well as being fit and proper persons, must keep their properties’ gardens free of rubbish and properly managed. The Universities made membership to the Scheme a condition for all of their registered landlords.
	Mr. Galley referred to some of the benefits of the Mandatory Licensing Scheme, which would result in the Council having a comprehensive HMO database and assist the Council in determining the suitability of accommodation. It would also ensure that HMOs were managed by fit and proper persons and the Council would have powers to refuse or vary licences. It would also enable the Council to monitor conditions over a specified period and would place obligations on both the landlord and tenants.
	The HMO Management Regulations would require landlords to keep common parts of their properties in good repair, safe and well managed, place obligations on landlords to ensure adequate arrangements for rubbish disposal, require that gardens, forecourts and yards were kept in a safe and tidy condition and require tenants to co-operate with the landlords’ arrangements for dealing with rubbish. The maximum fine, upon conviction, for breach of any of the above conditions was £5,000.
	Mr. Galley concluded by referring to the Council’s proposed strategy, which would involve officers dealing with all applications submitted to the Council, focusing their efforts in high density areas, on a street by street basis, in order to identify and deal with HMOs, subject to licensing where landlords have not applied, monitoring and ensuring compliance with the licence conditions and monitoring and recording any other HMO related problems to help inform future policy. Officers would also monitor the type, severity and frequency of all complaints over the next five years.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. How was it envisaged that the new legislation would be policed, particularly regarding the requirement to maintain the properties to a good standard and to ensure that household waste was discarded in the correct manner?

	R. Private Sector Housing would work closely with the local community, the Universities and other Council officers in Waste Management, Street Force, Environmental Health and the Anti-Social Behaviour Team to ensure that tenants of HMOs dispose their rubbish in the correct manner. The landlords of such properties will also be requested to ensure their tenants undertake this duty.

	Q. Will similar pressure be put on landlords to ensure their tenants keep noise levels to a minimum, particularly late at night?

	R. Environmental Health would investigate complaints of noise nuisance in the normal manner. Whilst complaints of a general nature would be dealt with using standard practices, cases of serious noise pollution could be dealt with under the new legislation in the Housing Act 2004.

	Q. Does the definition of a licensable HMO under the Act mean that there has to be five tenants in the property or that there is provision for five tenants?

	R. The definition of a licensable HMO, for the purposes of the new legislation, means that there has to be five people living in the property.

	Q. Would the new legislation apply to flats on a single level?

	R. No. Whilst it was unlikely that self-contained flats would require licensing under the new legislation, officers were to check with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on when such properties became classed as HMOs.

	Q. A number of residents were interested in establishing a group to assist the Council in connection with the new legislation – were there any guidelines the Council could provide for the group to follow?

	R. Due to the difficulties associated with implementing the new legislation, the Council would be relying on the assistance of local residents, particularly those living in neighbourhoods with high student populations. Officers would keep contact details for residents wishing to assist the Council and work closely with them.

	Q. Will the Council continue to log information on its database in terms of all HMOs or just those licensed under the new legislation?

	R. Whilst all mandatory licensed HMOs will be logged on the database, records would continue to be made in terms of any other HMOs the Council become aware of.

	Q. Was there any possibility of the two Universities contributing financially in terms of staffing support regarding the management of the scheme?

	R. No approach has been made to the Universities for financial assistance as it was envisaged that the scheme would be self-financing. All landlords of HMOs who apply for a licence would be required to pay a fee of £620 and as there were approximately 3,000 such properties, it was deemed that there would be sufficient income to enable the Council to administer the scheme. Also, University Halls of Residence were exempt from the mandatory licensing regulations.

	Q. As the Council would be starting from a low base in terms of information regarding the HMOs, there was a likelihood that it would take some time to complete the database. Does the Council have any idea of the time period in which action could start being taken against landlords not meeting the guidelines under the new legislation?

	R. Considerable work was required in obtaining all the relevant information and as part of this work, there were proposals to establish a Task Group, which would comprise a number of community representatives, and it was possible that information could be obtained from such people. Consideration also had to be given to how the Council would obtain the information, particularly in terms of which areas would be targeted first. Whilst it was very difficult to provide a time limit at this stage, it was likely to be at least six months before any action was taken.

	Q. Would it be possible, under the new legislation, for the Council to restrict the further proliferation of HMOs?

	R. No, any such restriction could only be made through planning legislation.

	Q. As part of the audit of HMOs, would the Council be counting the number of occupants in each property?

	R. The audit in terms of the HMOs would predominantly be a desktop exercise whereby officers would check the information provided by the landlords on the application form, which, along with several other questions, would request them to provide details of the number of occupants in the property. It was envisaged that there would not be any problems with the majority of properties, but in those circumstances where there were known to be problems, either with the landlord of, or tenants in a particular property, or where the information provided on an application form suggests that there may be a problem, officers would either visit the property or impose conditions on the licence granted. There was a requirement, under the legislation, for the Council to visit each licensed HMO within five years of the granting of the licence. The Council would also take information provided by local residents into consideration, which could include prioritising visits to properties where problems had been identified.

	Q. Was it true that the Council had leeway, under the Act, to hold off licensing properties?

	R. Officers were not aware of this and would not be holding off licensing properties. However, officers would be considerate in the timescales applied.

	Q. Was there a telephone number residents could contact to report instances of anti-social behaviour?

	R. Any reports of noise nuisance should be reported to the Council’s Environmental Health Section. In terms of Sheffield Hallam University, residents could ring its Control Room on 225 3856 or the Residential Support Co-ordinator on 225 5598. Hallam University security staff do not react to out of hours incidents off campus. Residents could also contact the Police, but there had been indications from the Police that they could only guarantee to visit the property within 24 hours. The University of Sheffield Campus Control Centre can be called 24 hours a day on 222 4085.

	Q. Would it be a condition of the mandatory licence for a landlord to fulfil his obligations?

	R. The conditions to be applied would be appropriate to the circumstances of awarding a licence on a particular property and to a particular person.

	Q. Will there be scope, under the new legislation, for the Council to take action against those landlords displaying signs advertising their properties for rent?

	R. No, but steps are being taken to tackle this particular problem at a local level.

	Q. Who would be responsible if there was a deficit in terms of funding under the new arrangements?

	R. Ultimately, the Council would be responsible for any deficit. There was a need to ensure that staffing resources were apportioned correctly in terms of the income received from the scheme.

	Q. Will there be any obligations, under the terms of the licence, on the tenants to behave in a particular manner?

	R. Ultimately, the landlord will be responsible for the actions of his tenants. There will be a number of obligations placed on the landlord, under the terms of the licence, which would include the tenants complying with health and safety regulations, disposing of refuse in a correct manner and being responsible tenants in terms of noise and anti-social behaviour. The landlord will have to make it clear to his tenants that they should adhere to his/her instructions.

	Q. Were there any safeguards in terms of ensuring that the person responsible for the management of the property was the person named on the licence?

	R. Officers were aware that some landlords, who were either known to the Council for past misdemeanours, or who had received convictions for various offences, therefore not deemed a fit and proper person, could get someone else, such as a friend or relative to complete the application form. The Council therefore needs to ensure that the person signing the form as the landlord was to be the person responsible for managing the property and also a fit and proper person.

	The following comments were also made:-

	· It was considered that there should not be any obligation on the Universities to contribute financially in terms of the management of the scheme as it was considered that they had contributed considerably in kind, over the years, in terms of staff time in providing help and advice to residents living in areas of high student population and providing training for landlords. Whilst the Universities’ Halls of Residence were exempt from the mandatory licensing legislation, the accommodation did have to meet other requirements in terms of their management and operation.

	· A number of residents in the area had information on HMOs, which they would be willing to share with the Council.

	· A meeting had been held earlier in the day to discuss the various issues connected with areas of high student population in the Panel’s area, to which representatives from various Council services and other key stakeholders had been invited. A number of positive outcomes had resulted from the meeting.

	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported, together with the responses given to the questions and the comments now made, be noted; and
	(b) the thanks of the Area Panel be conveyed to Chris Galley for the presentation now made, and to Mr. Galley and Paul Rotherham for responding to the questions.

3.	STUDENT RESIDENCES STRATEGY – UPDATE
	Student Village
	Carrie Warr, Pat McGrath and Gary Finney reported on the progress of the development of the Student Village, referring to the construction activities, key construction milestones, safety and security, highway improvements and communications.
	Gary Finney referred to the aerial plan displayed at the meeting which highlighted the boundary of the development, and referred briefly to the progress in terms of the preparation works on each of the sites.
	Pat McGrath referred to the construction works which had commenced, reporting that the site offices and welfare facilities had been established, the Hub foundations had been completed, the existing buildings on the Wolfson site had been demolished and the foundations were now under construction, the ground works and foundation works were under way on the Earnshaw car park, the refurbishment of the Crewe flats was in progress and ground works and foundation works were under way on the site of the Stephenson tennis courts, with new courts being provided south of the Crewe site. A series of photographs were displayed showing the progress of the works.
	In terms of safety and security issues, Carrie Warr reported that there was 24-hour security on all construction sites, there continued to be close liaison between the University’s security, Bovis Lend Lease security and the Police and there was a strong focus on health and safety issues on all the sites. Bovis Lend Lease staff were arranging briefings with local schoolchildren on the dangers of construction sites, regular checks continued to be made in terms of noise levels and the roads on and off the construction sites continued to be swept on a regular basis.
	Ms. Warr reported on the University’s Communications Strategy, which included the holding of regular meetings of the Construction Interface Groups attended by University staff, Bovis Lend Lease, local schools and local residents’ groups and a construction hotline that residents could contact if they wanted to report any problems or had any queries. Bovis Lend Lease had appointed a dedicated member of staff responsible for community liaison, the University had a dedicated member of staff responsible for student liaison and a weekly newsletter was produced containing progress on the construction works and which was sent to students, staff, local residents and other interested parties.
	In terms of the key construction milestones, it was reported that the Sorby and Earnshaw Halls of Residence would be vacated in mid-June, 2006, and demolished during Summer/Autumn that year, the flats on Endcliffe Vale Road and Endcliffe Crescent would be refurbished during Summer 2006, the refurbishment of the Crewe flats would be completed by September, 2006 and the Endcliffe Hub was planned to be complete by late Spring, 2007.
	Pat McGrath referred to the photographs displayed of the “mock-up” accommodation to be provided in the new development, indicating that the designs had been developed based on comments received from students. The photos showed the proposed designs in respect of a typical bedroom, bathroom and kitchen/living/dining room areas.
	In terms of the proposed highways improvements, the University was liaising with the Council’s Highways Management Services on a range of proposals, which included a new pedestrian crossing on Fulwood Road, improvements to the zebra crossing on Clarkehouse Road (near the Botanical Gardens), the introduction of traffic-calming measures on Endcliffe Vale Road, the provision of improved cycle facilities at the Glossop Road/Newbould Lane junction, dropped kerbs at either end of the new cycle routes and yellow lines at the junction of Red Lane and Oakholme Road. The improvements will be phased accordingly in order to coincide with each phase of the Student Village construction to which they relate.

	Disposals Strategy
	Carrie Warr reported that with regard to the street properties, 40 of the original 60 properties released to the market had now been sold, 14 were under offer and progressing to completion and six properties remained on the market. The remaining 70 properties would be phased onto the market starting in Summer, 2006 and as with the other properties, all would be sold with the restrictive covenant preventing them being used as a student residence or a HMO in the future. With regard to the development sites, it was reported that planning permission had been granted for the Riverdale and Victoria House sites, Miller Homes were continuing discussions with Development Services in terms of the Tapton site, the Taptonville site was in the process of being sold, and was due to be vacated in 2007/2008 and Merlin were continuing discussions with Development Services with regard to the future of Crookesmoor House.


	Toni Price reported that Miller Homes were in the process of appointing an external architect to draw up revised plans in terms of the development on the Tapton site, and that it was hoped that a number of open evenings would be arranged whereby residents could view and comment on the revised plans.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. Was the University looking at an alternative approach in terms of the design of the development on the Tapton site? Residents living near the site were still concerned at the over emphasis being placed on two-bedroomed flats and considered that more emphasis should be given to providing more family accommodation as part of the development. There were also concerns at the lack of car parking provision and recreational facilities for younger children.

	R. There had been some problems in terms of the original design and Planning Officers had expressed a number of concerns with regard to the design. There would still be a strong emphasis on two-bedroomed properties as part of the scheme, but Miller Homes were proposing more three-four bedroomed units for families.

	Q. Had the architects been informed of the views of the Sheffield Conservation Advisory Group with regard to the design of the development on the Tapton site?

	R. Yes.

	Q. Had there been any breaches of the terms of the restrictive covenants in connection with the disposal of the street properties, and if so, what action had been taken?

	R. If the University was aware of any breaches of the terms, appropriate legal action would be taken. There had been two breaches to date and the relevant action had been taken. Checks were regularly made using the Universities’ databases.

	The following comments were also made:-

	· As requested at the Panel’s last meeting, representations were made to the West and North Planning and Highways Area Board, highlighting the Panel’s concerns regarding population imbalances in the neighbourhoods within the Panel’s area, referring particularly to the need to increase the number of family dwellings on the Tapton site.

	· Residents in Broomhill were very concerned at the level of residential development in the neighbourhood, which included the Student Village development and the proposed development of the Tapton site and the former Hallam Towers Hotel site. These type of developments would not only cause further imbalances in the population in that there was an over emphasis on one and two-bedroomed flats, but would also place serious pressure on the infrastructure in the area.

	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported, together with the responses given to the questions and the comments now made, be noted; and
	(b) the thanks of the Area Panel be conveyed to Carrie Warr, Pat McGrath, Gary Finney and Toni Price for the presentations now made and for responding to the questions.

4.	PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. What were the Area Panel’s views on Neighbourhood Management? Sharrow had been nominated as a Neighbourhood Management Pilot Area, and local residents and community organisations in that area would welcome the Area Panel’s comments on this.

	R. The Area Panel had not discussed this yet, but planned to raise the issue at its next briefing meeting to be held on 25th May, 2006.

	Q. Was there any possibility of Section 106 funding being available for improvements in Endcliffe Park, Bingham Park and Whiteley Woods? If so, the Friends of Porter Valley were willing to work with the Area Panel to identify how such funding could be allocated.

	R. There was some funding available for improvements in Endcliffe Park and Whiteley Woods following the works undertaken by Yorkshire Water in Endcliffe Park. The funding would be targeted towards improvements to the playground and improving the stepping stones across the river in Endcliffe Park and the refurbishment of Shepherd’s Wheel. As a result of a review of potential Section 106 funding for the whole Panel area, approximately £80,000 had been identified for improvements in the Porter Valley.

	Q. What action was the Area Panel taking in connection with the proposed closure of the post office on Sharrow Vale Road? Where were the many pensioners who lived in that area expected to get their pension money. The recent closure of the Yorkshire Bank at Hunters Bar had made things worse.

	R. Whilst it could not be confirmed, it was believed that the post office facility would be relocated on the opposite side of Sharrow Vale Road.

	RESOLVED: That in connection with the proposed closure of the Sharrow Vale Road Post Office, the Chair of the Area Panel be requested to write to Post Office Counters Limited, (a) expressing the concerns of the Panel at the proposed closure, highlighting particular concerns with regard to the confusion caused by the lack of clarity in terms of the proposal, (b) seeking clarification as to when the post office would be closing, where the Post Office was to be relocated and when it would be opening and (c) requesting that the Post Office does not close until the new facility is in operation.

5.	AREA CO-ORDINATOR’S REPORT
	The Area Co-ordinator submitted a report containing (a) an update on the progress of the implementation of the Area Plan and (b) information on a number of issues of interest in the Panel’s area, relating to (i) the establishment of Safer Neighbourhood Teams, (ii) the potential closure of the Sharrow Vale Road Post Office, (iii) the opening, by the Lord Mayor, of the refurbished Montague Street play area, (iv) the proposed refurbishment of Highfields Adventure Playground as part of the Sharrow Project, which was due to commence in June, 2006 and (v) a