Venue: Council Chamber, Brighton Town Hall. View directions
\n\t\tContact: Kath Vlcek, Scrutiny Support Officer \n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t\tItems\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\tNo.\n\t\t\tItem\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tProcedural Business (copy attached) PDF 61 KB
\nMinutes:
\n16a Declarations of\nInterest
\n\n
\n\n16.1 \nThere were none.
\n\n
16b Exclusion of\nPress and Public
\n\n
\n\n16.2 \nIn accordance with section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act\n1972, it was\nconsidered whether the press and public should be excluded from the\nmeeting during the consideration of any items contained in the\nagenda, having regard to the nature of the business to be\ntransacted and the nature of the proceedings and the likelihood as\nto whether, if members of the press and public were present, there\nwould be disclosure to them of confidential or exempt information\nas defined in section 100I (1) of the said Act.
\n\n
\n\n16.3 \nRESOLVED- That the press and public be not\nexcluded from the meeting.
\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Minutes of Previous Meeting (held on 21 November 2008) PDF 89 KB
\nMinutes:
\n\n\n17 \nMinutes of Previous Meeting\n(held on 21 November 2008)
\n\n
\n\n17.1The minutes of the meeting held on 21.11.08 were\napproved as an accurate record.
\n\n
\n
\nChairman's Communications
\nMinutes:
\n\n\n18 \nChairman’s\nCommunications
\n\n
\n\n18.1 \nThe Chairman informed members that this was the final ad hoc Panel\nmeeting on the subject of students in the community. The Chairman\nexplained that the next stage would be for the Panel to meet and\nconsider the evidence that had been gathered, in order to make\nrecommendations. The draft report would then go to full Council in\norder for the recommendations to be considered and ratified.
\n\n
The Chairman\nanticipated that the report would be available by the end of\nJanuary 2009 and suggested that any interested parties should email\ntheir contact details to the Overview and Scrutiny Team at that\ntime.
\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Evidence Gathering
\nWitnesses include:
\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Minutes:
\n\n\n19.1 \nThe Panel heard evidence from a number of witnesses:
\n\n
\n\n19.2 \nMark Ireland, Head of\nStrategic Finance and Procurement, and Valerie Pearce, Assistant\nDirector, Customer Services, Brighton & Hove City\nCouncil
\n\n
\n\na) \nMr Ireland and Ms Pearce introduced themselves and explained their\nremit with regard to Council Tax.
\n\n
\n\nb) \nThe Panel heard that students were exempt from paying Council Tax\n(CT) under two exemption codes, one which applied to halls of\nresidence and one for properties occupied only by students.
\n\n
\n\nThere can be problems in identifying student households. Student\nhouseholds might assume that they were exempt automatically and\nmight not inform the council that they were students; they might\nignore letters from the council. The council must chase up each of\nthe households until contact is made; this incurs costs that would\nbe avoided if the student households informed the council of their\nstatus more promptly.
\n\n
\n\nMs Pearce explained that Council Tax officers attended Freshers’ fairs at both universities in order\nto complete exemption certificates and advise students of what they needed to do, but it\nwas felt that more action might be taken in raising awareness of\nthis issue.
\n\n
\n\n\nc) \nThe Panel received details of the number of households in the city\nregistered for exemption on the basis of being a student-only\nhousehold. Mr Ireland\nexplained that, for the purposes of financial calculations, all\nexemptions were assumed to be a Band D assessed property, which\nwould be liable for CT of £1200 per year.
\n\n
\n\nFor 2008/9, to date there\nhad been 2869 properties, with a projection of up to 3080 by year\nend, giving an approximate cash value of\n£4.3 million for student-exempt properties. Mr Ireland explained the\nmechanisms and grants that central Government had for compensating\nlocal authorities for the exemptions.
\n\n
\n\n\nd) \nIn response to a query about what could help to minimise the costs\nfor Council Tax collection, the Panel heard that it would be\nhelpful if student households registered their exemptions as\nquickly as possible, to avoid the council incurring costs in\nchasing up the bill-payer unnecessarily.
\n\n
\n\n\ne) \nIn response to a query about whether it might be possible to have,\nfor example, a local City Tax, the Panel heard that this would not\nbe possible under national legislation.
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n\n19.3 \nToby Hamilton, owner of MTM\nLetting Agency
\n\n
\n\n\na) \nMr Hamilton introduced\nhimself and his company, explaining that he had been a student\nlandlord for fourteen years, and that MTM had been in operation for\nfive years. MTM owned approximately two hundred properties across\nthe city, with the vast majority being student lets. The properties\nwere predominantly in Bevendean/ Coombe Road/ Lewes Road/ Upper\nLewes Road/ Hanover areas. MTM managed 15 properties along The\nAvenue, which as a whole had a 25-35% student occupancy\nrate.
\n\n
\n\n\nb) \nThe Panel heard that MTM\nwere keen to address student impact issues and that they were aware\nthat noise, refuse and unkempt gardens were the most likely areas\nof complaint. MTM issued tenants with a three-page welcome pack,\nwhich included items on respect, neighbourliness, how to manage your garden, refuse,\napplying for Council Tax exemptions, informing utility companies\netc. Staff talked through the various issues with tenants at the\nstart of their tenancy.
\n\n
\n\nMr Hamilton explained that\nMTM had a complaints procedure to be used when complaints were\nreceived from residents about student households. They would\ncontact the tenants; carry out face to face visits and take the\nstudents to the neighbour's house, encouraging them to apologise,\nand to start communicating. Mr Hamilton commented that it might not\nalways be apparent to residents that they should contact MTM\nregarding any problems with tenants.
\n\n
\n\nThe Panel heard that, on\noccasions when it was needed, MTM had worked closely with\nneighbourhood police officers to talk to households that were\ncausing a more significant problem.
\n\n
\n\n\nc) \nWith regard to Council Tax,\nMTM operated a policy under which they would not return a\ntenant’s deposit until there was proof that Council Tax\nobligations had been addressed, either through applying for\nexemption or by paying the tax). Mr Hamilton said that he thought\nabout half of local letting agents did this.
\n\n
\n\n\nd) \nMr Hamilton responded to\nresidents’ concerns that letting agents had access to vacant\nproperties before they went on to the open market, and therefore\nexcluded families wishing to purchase family properties. Mr\nHamilton commented that this might happen on a small scale, but he\nwas not aware of it being a big problem.
\n\n
\n\nWith regard to excess refuse\nbeing left at a property, Mr Hamilton said that MTM would consider\nit was the tenant’s duty to clear it. If there were excessive\nrefuse, MTM might employ cleaners and re-charge costs to the\nstudents. If MTM received complaints about furniture being left in\na garden, for example, they would ask the students to remove it\nwithin a given timescale. If this was not done, they again would\nemploy cleaners and invoice tenants.
\n\n
\n\n\ne) \nThe Panel asked whether the\nprivate rented student market might reduce, for example, if more\nhalls of residence were built and/or student numbers decreased; if\nso, what might happen to the private rented market? Mr Hamilton\nsaid supply was already exceeding demand and that it was likely\nthat there would be an increase in empty student properties. He did\nnot think that reductions in rent would necessarily affect student\ntake-up as the rent was often paid by parents. The key factor is\nthe quality of the accommodation.
\n\n
\n\nThe Panel then asked\nwhether, if supply exceeded demand, MTM could advise landlords to\nturn their properties back into family homes. They were advised\nthat this might be problematic as most student homes were six\nbedroomed properties, and not many\nfamilies would need that size accommodation.
\n\n
\n\n\n19.4 \nMark Shields, G4 Lets
\n\n
\n\n\na) \nMr\nShields introduced himself and explained the remit of G4 Lets; they\nfocussed on student\nlets, particularly in the Ditchling\nRoad area but with properties across Brighton.
\n\n
\n\n\nb) \nMr Shields explained that G4\ngave their tenants a welcome pack, with information on a number of\nissues, including the contact details for Council Tax in order to\nregister for exemption.
\n\n
\n\nG4 staff would try and visit\ntheir properties as much as possible, on average once a month. If\nthey heard about a problem, G4 would ask the student to meet with\nthe neighbour to apologise. The office would keep a diary of any\nincidents, and include photographs if needed.
\n\n
\n\n\nc) \nThe Panel asked Mr Shields\nto comment on the issue of conservatories being used as living\nrooms, explaining that a number of residents had raised this\nelement of permitted development as an area of concern due to the\nnoise coming from the conservatories.
\n\n
\n\nMr Shields said that there\nwere benefits to having a conservatory rather than a garden: for\nexample, students tended not to garden and so it was better to\ndevelop the space more usefully. It was also felt that, if there\nwere a patio or garden rather than a conservatory, students would\nbe likely to gather in the garden and cause more noise problems. Mr\nShields explained that their properties were non-smoking; students\nwould have to go outside to smoke, which may inadvertently cause\nnoise nuisance to neighbours. The conservatories help to use outside space and contain\nnoise and those whom wish to smoke. Outside space is still there\nfor barbeques and table and chairs in the summer months.
\n\n
\n\n\nd) \nIn response to a query about\nwhether deposits could be used to cover any outstanding Council Tax\nbills, Mr Shields said that this might be problematic. Under the\nDeposit Collection Scheme, deposits were not meant to be used for\nany other means, and they could not be used for paying debts and so\non.
\n\n
\n\n\ne) \nMr Shields echoed\nMTM’s comments about the problems\nin the letting market; the company had found this a very difficult\nyear - any properties that had not been rented already might be\nempty for the entire year.
\n\n
\n\n\n19.5 \nShula Rich,\non behalf of the National Federation of Residential\nLandlords
\n\n
\n\n\na) \nMs Rich introduced\nherself and explained her qualifications\nto the Panel. These included being a past Director of the National\nFederations of Residential Landlords (NFRL); past Chair of the\nPrivate Sector Housing Forum and author of the NFRL Landlord\nTraining Manual. Ms Rich explained that she had been a private\nstudent landlord for twenty years.
\n\n
\n\n\nb) \nMs Rich felt it was becoming\nmore difficult to let to students, because of the lack of power\ngiven to landlords. If there was a problem, the only option would\nbe to threaten eviction, but it could take two to three months for\nthe court hearing, in a tenancy that was only six months long, so\nit was not a practical solution.
\n\n
\nMs Rich did not feel that\nextending planning controls would be the answer to tackling the\nproblems; it should be about micro-management of issues. Landlords\nneeded the powers to deal speedily with nuisance of any\nform.
\n\n
\n\nMs Rich felt that there was\na difference between students and non-students in the way that they\nbehaved as tenants; she received fewer complaints about\nnon-students than about student households. She felt that this was\nlargely due to students from the same university living together\nand having a shared circle of friends.
\n\n
\n\nWhen she received complaints\nabout tenants, she would write to the household asking them to be\nmore considerate. She would involve the universities and colleges\nif she had to send three or more letters to a household. Ms Rich\nfelt that cheaper alcohol was one cause of the rise in the number\nof parties and related noise complaints. Ms Rich had always had\nhelp from Environmental Health when needed, and their service could\nnot be improved.
\n\n
\n\nc) \nIn response to a query about\nhow Ms Rich made her tenants aware of their responsibilities, the\nPanel heard that Ms Rich would go through the lease in detail,\npointing out all of the tenant’s responsibilities. Ms Rich\nwould also check what music playing equipment each student\nowned.
\n\n
\n\nd) \nIn response to a query about\nhow Ms Rich dealt with students’ refuse, the Panel heard that\nMs Rich considered it to be the students' responsibility, although\nshe had arranged for cleaners for her properties. In the past, Ms\nRich had arranged for clearance of any excess refuse in order not\nto inconvenience neighbours.
\n\n
\n\ne) \nMs Rich suggested that one\nsolution to the noise problems could be the introduction of on the\nspot fines, in the region of £30 per person, to be imposed by\nthe council or police when attending complaints of noisy\nparties.
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n19.6 David House, Deputy\nVice-Chancellor, University of Brighton
\n\n
\n\n\na) \nMr House introduced himself;\nhe has been Deputy Vice-Chancellor at the University of Brighton\n(UoB) for twenty years. UoB had submitted a written statement to\nthe Panel.
\n\n
\n\nb) \nIn response to a query\nconcerning whether there were plans to build more campus\naccommodation, Mr House said that UoB needed to increase its\naccommodation offer. If UoB wished to offer campus accommodation to\nall first years who wanted it, they would have to double the\ncurrent level of campus accommodation. It was working to expand\nVarley Hall in conjunction with the council, as well as on a\ndevelopment in Circus St.
\n\n
\n\nc) \nThe Panel asked Mr House to\ncomment on Phoenix Halls in particular, which presented a\nparticular set of challenges, as they were located in a densely\npacked residential area. Mr House told the Panel that, in the early\nyears, Phoenix Halls had caused very few problems and that UoB had\nbeen surprised by the current level of complaints. UoB was\ncommitted to dealing with the problems and resolving them for the\nbenefit of all parties.
\n\n
\nMr House said that a number\nof strategies had been introduced, including employing a fulltime\nCommunity Liaison Officer. UoB was reviewing the adverse impact of\nthe smoking ban in halls of residence, recognising that this had\ncaused significant noise problems for neighbours. UoB had the\ndiscretion to re-allow smoking in private rooms; this was being\nconsidered as this might resolve some noise problems. The Panel\nheard that UoB had tightened up staffing levels at Phoenix Halls.\nUoB had various disciplinary procedures available, including a fine\nof up to £250, for action that might damage UoB's reputation.
\n\n
\n\nd) \nThe Panel asked Mr House\nwhether he thought that the universities appreciated the scale of\nresidents’ frustrations with the impact of students. Mr House\nsaid that he hoped that the fact that UoB had employed a fulltime\nmember of staff would show there was commitment to resolve the\nissues. UoB was spending a lot of time working with various\npartners, including the student union, to tackle the issues\npresented.
\n\n
\n\ne) \nThe Panel asked whether the\nuniversity would ever contact parents directly. Mr House said that\nthis would not generally happen; students were adults so it was not\nlikely that UoB would have the power to contact parents.
\n\n
\n\nf) \nIn response to a query about\nwhether UoB would look into head leasing properties, the Panel\nheard that they fully managed the halls of residence, and were\ninterested in head leasing. UoB would not like to wholly own\ndomestic properties as there would be ongoing management issues and\ncosts
\n\n
\n\ng) \nMr House summed up\nUoB’s position on accommodation:\ncampus accommodation would gradually increase where possible, but\nprivate sector housing also had a key role to pay.
\n\n
\n\n\n19.6 \nCharles Dudley, Director\nof Residential, Sport and Trading Services and Lorinda Holness,\nResidential Services Manager, University of Sussex
\n\n\na) \nMr\nDudley and Ms Holness introduced\nthemselves; Mr Dudley was in attendance to represent the\nVice-Chancellor of the university. The University of Sussex (UoS)\nhad submitted a statement to the Panel. UoS was pleased to note that the\npositive contribution of the institution on the local community was\nwidely appreciated.
\n\n
\n\n\nb) \nThe Panel queried who\nresidents should contact if they had problems with student\nneighbours, as UoS did not have a designated community liaison\nofficer. The Panel heard that the Housing Team should be contacted,\non 01273 678220. If residents were unaware of this, then UoS would\nneed to do more work to promote the service.
\n\n
\n\nThe Panel heard that UoS\nknew where all of their under-graduates lived and that they were\nwilling to deal with problems. Mr Dudley said that a study was\nunderway, looking at a shared services\nprogramme with the University of Brighton, and it was possible that\nrecommendations from this might include UoS having its own\nCommunity Liaison Officer, amongst other outcomes. This was also\nlikely to include suggestions for improved channels of\ncommunication between the universities and local stakeholders as\nthe current consultation process was too fragmented
\n\n
\n\nc) \nIn response to a query about\nhow first-year students living in halls were taught skills for\nliving, the Panel heard that a number of initiatives were in place\nincluding workshops and information packs for students.
\n\n
\n\nd) \nThe Panel asked whether UoS\nknew about potential demand for accommodation in halls from second\nand third year students. Ms Holness\nexplained that UoS carried out an annual exit survey for students\nleaving halls, and had asked this question for the first time in\nthis year's survey. Approximately 45% of respondents said that they\nwould prefer to have a second year in halls; of the 45%,\na high proportion were international\nstudents.
\n\n
\n\nUoS said that it was\ncommitted to housing all first-year students in university managed\nhousing, with the majority on campus and had just received outline\nplanning permission for 798 campus rooms. Mr Dudley commented that\nthere was no public subsidy for student housing and it was a major\nfinancial outlay for UoS, which he hoped would evidence\nUoS's commitment to student\naccommodation. The success of their accommodation strategy could be\ndemonstrated in the fact that there were 1000 less UoS students\nliving in HMOs than last year.
\n\n
\n\ne) \nThe Panel raised\nstudents’ concerns that campus accommodation can be too\ncostly for students. Ms Holness said\nthat the exit survey asked students whether they felt that the\nhalls offered value for money. The question always got a positive\nresponse. There was an almost 100% occupancy rate for the current\nflats, which could be taken as an indication that they were not too\ncostly. The rents were inclusive of utility costs, services,\nbroadband connectivity and contents insurance which provided a\nvalue for money package. In addition, UoS offered a range of\naccommodation options including lower priced rooms with less\nincluded in the price.
\n\n
\n\nf) \nIn terms of student\ncomplaints, Ms Holness said that UoS\ndid not tend to receive many complaints about its students, so it\nwas hard to say whether it was more prevalent in head-leased\nproperties, or in the private rented sector.
\n\n
\n\ng) \nMr Dudley commented on the\nearlier discussion of micro-managing problems and the need, as\npreviously stated, to improve channels of communication which were\ntoo fragmented. This was an area that both universities would be\nkeen to explore and discuss with partners to assist with issues\narising from the concentration of students in particular areas of\nthe city.
\nAny Other Business
\nMinutes:
\n20.1 The Chairman thanked\nall of the contributors for their input.
\n