Agenda item

To consider the decision made by the Executive at a meeting held on 15 March 2018 in relation to the above item, which has been called in by Councillors Wells, Pavlovic and Funnell in accordance with the Council’s Constitution. A cover report is attached setting out the reasons for the call-in and the remit and powers of the Corporate and Scrutiny Management Policy and Scrutiny Committee (Calling-In) in relation to the call-in, together with the original report and the decision of the Executive.

Members considered a report which set out the reasons for the call-in and the role of the Committee, together with options available to it under the agreed pre-decision call-in arrangements. In accordance with those arrangements three Members (Councillors Wells, Pavlovic and Funnell) had called in the above item for the following reasons:

·        The extension of mandatory licensing under the Government’s planned changes (effective 1 October 2018) will only extendlicensing to a limited number of HMOs, leaving fewer than 1000licensed, and thousands unlicensed.

·        By signalling a review in three years, the Executive has effectively dismissed poor private sector housing standards as an issue for York; contrary to the Council’s responsibilities under the Housing Act 2004 to act on category 1 hazards

·        The Executive has taken a decision in conflict with the council’s own Private Sector Housing Strategy commitment to regulateprivate landlords and agents to provide safe and well managedproperties, free from category 1 hazards

·        The Executive report did not consider the financial implications of a comprehensive HMO licensing scheme, including how over time it could be a cost neutral solution to addressing poor standards in the sector, in informing its decision.

Councillor Pavolvic spoke, on behalf of the Call-In Members, to state that the current system in York was not meeting the needs of tenants, good landlords or the wider community and asked that the Executive reconsider and simultaneously implement the government proposals, while consulting on the need for a local additional licensing scheme for smaller HMOs.  In York there was a major issue with the proliferation of HMOs and breaches of limits. Additionally, if the scheme was self financing, this would cover administration costs and enforcement.

In response to Member questions he stated:

·        The PRS strategy in 2016 called for the consideration of an additional licensing scheme, and this had not moved forward in two years, meaning that if this was not considered within the next three years, starting a consultation would have taken five years, which was too long given the existing evidence base and the standards of privately rented accommodation in the City;

·        The current mandatory scheme was due for amendment and the amended scheme would have a minimum room size criteria;

·        Unless there were adequate levels of enforcement officers any scheme, mandatory or additional, would fail; and

·        If all HMOs were made to register (approx. 3000-4000 properties), the fee would allow the scheme to be self financing.

The Executive Member for Transport and Planning attended the meeting to represent the Executive Member for Housing and Safer Neighbourhoods. He responded to Member questions along with the Housing Standards and Adaptations Manager. In response to Member questions they stated:

·        Executive had made their decision based on the resources available. To simultaneously implement both the provisions outline in the Government proposals and build the evidence base/ consult on the case as to whether to introduce a local Additional Licensing Scheme would make it difficult to do either task in a robust way. This did not mean the idea of an additional scheme would not be brought back to Executive;

·        It would take around 18 months to effectively implement the mandatory scheme;

·        Regulations had now been laid in Parliament but the debate is till to happen;

·        The current scheme was self financing, the extension of the mandatory scheme would also be self financing;

·        Training staff would take time and that was another reason Officers were suggesting a phased approach;

·        There was a national shortage of Enforcement Officers;

·        It was certain that CYC were underestimated the level of HMOs in the City. There was also confusion surrounding the definition of HMOs;

·        There was still confusion between the standard of HMOs and the Article 4 directive controlling numbers of HMOs; and

·        It was important to remember that shared housing was the first option for a significant amount of residents and it was important to implement the mandatory scheme effectively.

Members then debated the ‘call-in’ fully and considered the options outlined in the report, namely whether to make any formal comments to the Executive or not.

Some Members felt that, whilst they understood the reasoning for not trying to implement the new scheme at the same time as consulting on a new scheme, it was disappointing that an additional scheme may not be consulted on for up to three years as they felt this was failing residents. However, other Members agreed with Officers that it was important not to do too much too soon, and that the focus for Officers should be to implement the mandatory scheme effectively and robustly. It was also highlighted that Officers were committed to taking forward an additional scheme if that is what the Executive eventually decided.

Councillor Looker moved Option B - to make specific recommendations to the Executive on the report, in light of the reasons given for the post decision call-in, namely that they reconsider Option 2 in the Executive report (Introduction of an Additional Licensing Scheme for HMOs occupied by five or more unrelated people across the area designated for Article 4 Planning Directive). Councillor K Taylor seconded this motion. On being put to the vote this motion fell.

Resolved:   That there were no grounds to make specific recommendations to the Executive in respect of the report. The original decision taken on the item by the Executive on 15 March 2018 will be confirmed and will take effect from the date of the CSMC (Calling-In) meeting.

Reason:     To enable the called-in matter to be dealt with efficiently and in accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution.