Printed minutes
Argyll and Bute Council · 16 December 2024
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 16 December 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on MONDAY, 16 DECEMBER 2024 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Alison MacLeod, Licensing Standards Officer David Walker, Solicitor Alan McMillan, Applicant Bill Ball, Objector Iain Hamilton, Objector Frances Coyle, Objector Margaret Ross, Objector 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mark Irvine, Paul Kennedy and Liz McCabe. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982, THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 (LICENSING OF SHORT-TERM LETS) ORDER 2022: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A SHORT-TERM LET LICENCE (A MCMILLAN, ROTHESAY) 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 proceeded by video call and Alan McMillan joined the meeting by MS Teams. Bill Ball, Ian Hamilton and Frances Coyle, Objectors, also proceeded by video call and joined the meeting by MS Teams. Margaret Ross proceeded by audio call and joined the meeting by telephone. The Chair invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms of the report. Thereafter the procedure set out in Appendix 11 of the report was followed and the Chair invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application.
Page 2
APPLICANT Mr McMillan acknowledged and advised that he appreciated neighbours’ concerns and uncertainty about this application for a short-term let licence at his property. He said that he hoped his responses submitted to each of the objections raised gave some insight into the high standards he kept himself to and expected from guests he accepted bookings from. He addressed each of the points summarised at section 4.3 of the report as follows: Noise He advised that except for one neighbour directly above his property, the apartment was self-contained. The perimeter consisted of one side brick to brick with a coffee shop, who had not objected to the application, the rear backed onto the bin store, and the front directly onto the high street. His closest neighbour resided at No. 2, which was divided by an exterior wall, a walkway then another brick wall. He advised that he had installed a noise monitoring system in his flat, which would send a text message to himself and anyone staying in the flat if noise levels went above a certain point. He would also be confirming to guests via both a digital and manual guest book of neighbourhood considerations. They would be asked not to play amplified music and to keep noise to a minimum when entering and exiting the building. He referred to some Objectors asking if he could guarantee that noise levels would not rise, and he advised that while others behaviour was out with his control, he would do as much as he could to prevent this with the mitigation methods he was putting in place. He said that he would also be on call to deal with any issues. Privacy and Security He advised that all his guests were vetted by the booking providers and that no guests were accepted without proof of identity. They were given a PIN code to access the building, which was only active while they were staying there and was deactivated once they left. Vulnerable Residents/Government Purchase Scheme He referred to the Objectors advising that circa 2011, all flats were sold under a shared equity scheme. He pointed out that there were no longer restrictions placed on premises in this scheme when purchased outright at 100%, which, he said, he had done. Bin Rota He referred to an informal agreement between the neighbours in respect of a bin rota and advised that he would be happy to join this or introduce alternative arrangements. He said that his preference would be to liaise with his neighbours and be part of the community. QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS Mr Hamilton referred to a condition placed on the licence holder not to damage property. He said that Mr McMillan had not adhered to these rules as he had installed a key box without approaching the other residents before doing so. Mr McMillan advised that when he first purchased the property he had contacted Fyne Homes about installing a key box
Page 3
and they had indicated they were fine for him to proceed. He pointed out that there was already a key box underneath his own key box, which held keys for entry into the building by the factor. Ms Coyle sought and received confirmation from Mr McMillan that he would include an instruction in the guest handbook that access to the lift and upper floors was not permitted. Mrs Ross referred to there being several entrances into the building and if these were used by guests they would be passing the windows and undermining the privacy of residents living on the ground floor. She asked what Mr McMillan could do to prevent this from happening. Mr McMillan advised that it is intimated in the guest hand book that the door closest to his flat was the only entrance and exit from the building. He said that he planned to produce a You Tube video giving directions from the ferry directly into the apartment. Mrs Ross referred to a lot of work being done on the flat and asked Mr McMillan if he could clean up the area outside his flat as a lot of debris and dust had been left. Mr McMillan agreed he would ensure this was dealt with. He said he wanted to be part of the community and advised that if there was anything else he could do out with his apartment in terms of the rest of the building he would be happy to contribute his fair share. OBJECTORS Bill Ball Mr Ball advised that this building was the old Court House and was different to tenements and purpose built flats. It was arranged on three sides of the building and looked over a shared courtyard, with all the flats accessible by key fob. He said it was an open environment, different from a close with stairs. He said that access was not available to the general public, and that it was a quiet, open, shared space, with flowering shrubs and large pots grown and tended by residents. There was also a shared drying area and a rota organised for bins. He advised that if they had any dealings with the factor they would hold meetings to make decisions. He said that for the first 12 years the flats were not available to the wider public. Applicants were means tested. Individual flats have come on the open market since the passing of owners. He advised that the recent purchase of Flat 1 by Mr McMillan had challenged the established dynamic of the Court House. His intention of not using it as a home, and to develop it as an Airbnb, meant there was a real shift in the whole fabric of the Court House. He said that to him, this was a change of use from a private dwelling house to a business operated from a mainland address. The temporary nature of Airbnb’s was different from residents that lived in a property. He advised that the resident at flat No 2 would be most affected by guests arriving and departing as this flat shared the entrance passageway with flat No 1. He pointed out that Mr McMillan would not be affected as he lived in Glasgow. He said that the flat had been redeveloped with a sure sense that the license was being taken for granted. He said the development had been imposed on the Court House residents and that as a resident, he felt taken advantage of. He advised that when he went through the purchasing process with Fyne Homes it was made clear to him that the
Page 4
flats could not become Airbnbs. He said this offered him security and that he welcomed that. He said this process was applied to all residents both present and future. He advised that this overall security had now gone and that this application opened the doors to other uses in the Court House which, he said, would change the environment there. He said it would challenge the sense of community and shared ownership that had been enjoyed for years. Iain Hamilton Mr Hamilton said that his main objection was that the proposal did not suit this unique property. Most of the owners bought their properties as the Court House was a secure place to stay with key fob and this was confirmed in the title deeds which stated that the flats could only be used as a private dwelling house and may not be used in any ancillary capacity for any trade, business or profession. He said Mr McMillan was getting round this by advising that he was not taking any cash on the premises. He referred to Mr McMillan advising that he was a property developer and said that this was his business model. He referred to Mr McMillan advising that he would only allow lets of 3 days or more. He pointed out that the entrance to his flat was 1.5 metres from the entrance to flat No 1. He commented that as an Airbnb up to 5 people at a time could be entering and existing the property at the same time, which would result in noise. He said this noise would be amplified as the close at this point was an echo chamber, and that this noise would not be picked up by a noise sensor in the flat. He said that his flat would be impacted more than any other. He advised that he was upset that when the Licensing Officer came to visit the flat and look around it, they did not visit the Objectors and discuss their problems. Frances Coyle Ms Coyle referred to Mr McMillan’s comments about concerns people would have with new neighbours, and she pointed out that they would have this anxiety every 3 days. She said that she felt the security of the building had been compromised. She advised that they did not have a service button and that the door to the building was never open to the public and was only opened by residents allowing access. She added that they did not want people in their courtyard with barbeques. She said this would really destroy their way of life. She commented that this was a good community working together and that it would be spoiled. She said that she understood this was a business and that Mr McMillan had to make money, but she questioned what this would cost to others in the other flats. She also commented on the Licensing Officer not visiting the other flats to see the different layouts or speak to anyone. She advised that the main thing was the security aspect and concern that this would spoil their way of life. Margaret Ross Mrs Ross advised that no one had been to view the building within the courtyard. She said this was not a typical tenement building and that when they entered from the street, using a key fob and then closed the door, they were psychologically shutting themselves off from the outside world even before opening the door to their own flat. She said there was a feeling of safety and security, which was a good feeling to have in these times when not much responsibility and respect was shown.
Page 5
She said they were living in different times and that if this licence was granted many strangers would be coming and going, taking away that safety net from everyone living there. She referred to the intercom system set up in each flat for any visitors to the property. She said this was a security system. She referred to Mr McMillan’s comments about the bin rota and advised that was not one of their main concerns and was something that could be easily resolved. She referred to Mr McMillan advising that he would only accept 3 night stays as a minimum and that anything less would be subject to request and approval by Mr McMillan, she said this was a contradiction. She referred to Mr McMillan advising that a minimum of 3 night stays was to avoid renters coming at the weekends to “hit the pubs”. She commented that this was presumptuous of Mr McMillan and advised that she was not interested as to why any renters would be coming to the island. She also referred to the entrance into the building leading to other entrances on the ground floor, and to the bedroom windows facing onto the courtyard. She advised that they all felt their sense of community was being taken away and that this has been a secure building and a safe place, since the flats first became available. She also advised that several owners within the Court building did not have a smart phone, never mind access to the internet. She said that they felt naïve and powerless to raise their objections. She said that those Objectors in attendance today were speaking on behalf of those other residents. She said that for her, if the Committee granted this licence they would be removing the privacy and security net from everyone within this complex. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT Mr McMillan had no questions but responded to a number comments made by the Objectors. He referred to the restrictions that were put in place on each property back in 2011 and advised that these were not in place now if a property was purchased outright. He referred to comments made about the noise detection system only detecting noise within the property, and advised that the system allowed for an extension to the sensor which he could extend to the outside of his property. He also referred to his reasons for a minimum 3 night stay. He referred to having a good track record with his other 2 apartments on the island and said that he had never had any issues in the past with any renters. He referred to getting a lot of hill walkers and that he also had a contract with the NHS and received requests from the surgery to house a doctor for one or 2 nights. He said that was why he could potentially let a property for less than 3 nights, depending on the reason why. Mrs Ross sought clarification from Mr McMillan on why he had initially displayed the notice about applying for a licence, too high up for anyone to see. Mr McMillan explained that he had not wanted to put it on his front door as it would not have been seen by the general public. He said that by placing it in his window he thought it would have stood out more. He confirmed that once he was contacted by the Council to move the notice he had done so and that he had also duplicated it and placed it where instructed and also placed a copy on his front door. He said that the notices were in place for 42 days.
Page 6
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from the Licensing Standards Officer that it would not be relevant for the Committee to base their decision on the terms of the title deeds and that this was a private matter for individual parties to resolve themselves. Councillor Green, referred to the title deeds not being a relevant matter for the licensing authority and asked the Objectors if they had considered taking legal action in terms of enforcing what was contained within the title deeds. Mr Ball said he wished he could take this matter to a court of law to get a ruling on it. He said he knew that Mr McMillan had approached a solicitor and got their opinion. He said he would like to be able to take this to a court of law to get it cleared up but none of the residents had the funds to follow it up. Ms Coyle said that this was a clear breach of the title deeds but the problem was the cost to go down the legal route at this time. She said that if they had the resources they would have gone down the legal route. Mr Hamilton commented that this legislation was brought in to protect premises like theirs. He said the Committee were putting them in a difficult position due to the costs. He said that if the Committee gave a licence to someone that could be breaking the law. He said that he thought the licensing authority should protect them by not giving the licence. Councillor Brown referred to the Committee not being able to take the title deeds into consideration, even though they said the property could not be rented out, and she sought clarification from the Council’s Solicitor on how the Committee could grant this licence. Mr Walker confirmed that the Committee should not be taking the title deeds into consideration as it was not a relevant matter. He said that the licensing authority could not consider the title deeds as these fall out with the remit of the licensing authority. Councillor Brown asked the Council’s Solicitor if the Committee should be looking at a planning application for a change of use from a private dwelling to a short-term let. Mr Walker advised that was an issue for the planning department and fell out with the scope of the licensing authority. Councillor Brown asked Mr McMillan if there was someone on the island that could be contacted to deal with any issues if he was not around. Mr McMillan explained that he was on the island more often than not. He said he was there a minimum of 50% of the time and that the only reason he was not there 100% of the time was because he had 2 young children and he was not with their mum anymore. He said he had the children 50% of the time. He said that when he was not on the island he had extended family that he stayed with on the island and also family around the corner from the property. He advised that he also had a list of external contractors that could deal with any property issues which arose. He said that as a landlord he was very responsive to issues. Councillor Brown asked if there was someone on the island that could deal with an issue such as noise quickly. Mr McMillan said he would treat any guest the same way as he would treat a neighbour. He referred to the alert system he had in place and advised that he would contact the guests direct and ask them to reduce any noise and point out they were not adhering to the conditions of let that they had accepted. He said that if there was still an issue he would contact the Police about any noise disturbance. He said that he
Page 7
had a good track record of dealing with any issues as they arose. He said he hoped the preventative measures he would put in place would help. He said that he would be happy to provide the neighbours with an alternative contact number of a family member on the island. Councillor Armour asked the Objectors if any of them had taken legal advice on what was stated in the title deeds. Mrs Ross said she never thought she would require legal advice on the title deeds at this stage in life. She said that they relied on them to be true. She confirmed that she had not sought any legal advice. Mr Ball advised that he had a conversation with a solicitor on the island that he had used to purchase his flat about this issue and she had not been able to offer a definitive response. He said that he had asked what the next stage was for them and she had indicated that they would need to appoint a solicitor who understood issues regarding deeds and property and go to court to present that. He said that at the moment it felt too big a step to take. Mr Hamilton commented that the title deeds were written up before Airbnbs existed. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Mr McMillan that he acknowledged the existence of the title needs. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Mr McMillan that he acknowledged that it stated in the title deeds that “any flat is to be used as a private dwelling house, and may not be used even in an ancillary capacity, for any trade, business or profession” and that it also stated that “the flat must not be subdivided or occupied by more than one family at a time”. In terms of the flat only being occupied by one family at a time, Councillor Green asked Mr McMillan if he would be complying with that. Mr McMillan advised that this was not stated in the guest handbook at the moment. He said that over the last 2 or 3 years, since becoming a landlord, he had not known of 2 families staying at any of his properties at the same time. He said he would be happy to include that as a condition for anyone looking to rent. Mr McMillan further advised that prior to purchasing the flat he had raised the title deeds issue, and sought advice from, a solicitor and also raised the issue with Bute Property, who were the Agent selling the property. He said that the advice given was there would be no issue with doing this because it was the opinion of the solicitor that as he was not taking physical cash or using a cash machine on the premises, this would be no different to a full time let where payment would go to an Agency, the Agency would take a fee, and then pass the rest on to him. On the basis of that advice, he said he decided to proceed with the purchase. Councillor Blair said he was perturbed about the amount of focus being placed on the title deeds. He said it was his understanding this was a civil issue between the residents. Mr Walker confirmed that any issue with title deeds was a private civil matter and not a material consideration for granting or not granting a licence.
Page 8
Councillor Blair referred to having a good experience of having an Airbnb next door to his own home and that he had met a range of people from all parts of the world. He asked the Objectors if they could see any advantage on meeting visitors from around the world. Mr Hamilton said their objection was not about who would come from abroad and want to chat to them. He said their concern was about the security of the Court House. He said he was concerned about noise late at night and about who could be wondering about late at night. He said he’d had this security for years and that this would be eroded. He referred to the key boxes on the front of the building and pointed out that this was a listed building. He suggested that these key boxes could be a breach of the listed status. Councillor Armour referred to concerns raised about noise and the mitigation measures proposed to be put in place by the Applicant. He suggested that with these mitigation measures in place this could lead to less of an issue than if someone had brought the property to live in. He commented that someone could buy the property to live in it, be unsociable and create noise. He asked the Objectors if they felt the noise issue would only happen with an Airbnb rather than someone who bought and lived in the property. Mr Hamilton advised that they would be able to get to know someone who bought and lived in the property. He said the problem was they would be getting someone different every 3 days and they would not know who was coming and where from. He said the main problem was the impact on the security that they currently had within the Court House. Mr Ball said that if an owner lived in the property on a long-term basis they would build a relationship with them, as that was the way of life here. He said you automatically had an awareness of other people’s needs when living like this. He said he was not sure this was a viable argument. He said he would feel at risk of approaching someone from the Airbnb if they, for example, were smoking in the courtyard. Councillor Philand referred to what the Objectors had said about not knowing who would be coming and going and when, and commented that Mr McMillan would know and that each of his guests would be vetted in advance. He asked the Objectors if they could think of anything else that Mr McMillan could do to alleviate their anxiety. Mr Ball said he did not think so. He commented that the bottom line was having an Airbnb in a community of 24 flats. He said he did not think anything could be done. Councillor Green asked the Council’s Solicitor if the Committee could decide that Mr McMillan was not a fit and proper person as he was seeking to circumvent any title deeds that might be in place. Mr Walker confirmed that he would advise against using that argument as the title needs were out with the scope of the licensing authority and there were no relevant planning objections either. Councillor Wallace asked Mr McMillan if he recognised that noise echoed around the courtyard and that noise that would normally be acceptable would be amplified in that setting. Mr McMillan said yes, given the fact that it was on open area. He advised that he did not think it would echo throughout the building given the distance there was. He added that he felt that he has put all relevant measures in place to mitigate against any risks. Councillor Blair asked Mr McMillan if he perceived himself to be a fit and proper person. He also asked if the courtyard was a no smoking zone for residents and visitors. Mr McMillan advised that in terms of the courtyard he did not know if it was legally a no
Page 9
smoking zone. He said it was his personal opinion that this should be a no smoking area and that he would be advising visitors not to smoke, even in the outside area. Mr McMillan said he was a fit and proper person and that he had experience as a landlord. He said this was his livelihood and that he provided for his 2 children on that basis. He said he took everything very seriously and commented that the licensing scheme was the best thing that had come in as it separated the amateur landlords from the professional landlords who want to uphold the code of conduct and do the best for guests and residents. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Mr McMillan that he hoped to have a great relationship with the neighbours going forward to ensure that they could all work together. He said that he had great relationships with the neighbours of his other 2 properties on the island. He said he understood that there were full time residents in building and said that he owned the property and wanted to maintain it to a high standard. Councillor Howard referred to the title deeds. She said it bothered her, as they seemed to shelter the residents. She asked the Council’s Solicitor if the Committee were to give the go ahead for this and then the residents went to court and got clarification that their interpretation of the title deeds was correct, would the Committee be guilty of doing something illegal. Mr Walker confirmed this would not be the case as external advice has been received on this and the licensing authority should not take any consideration into the title deeds. Councillor Blair asked the Applicant what his definition of a family was. He commented that in general terms you could have a family visiting your accommodation that consisted of a mother, a father, a grandparent and children or an uncle. He asked the Applicant if he would consider that to be a family group and if he would consider 2 couples as friends as 2 families in terms of the title deeds. Mr McMilllan said that if you went by the title deeds it would be one family at a time. He said he took on board what Councillor Blair said about different family groups and said he personally considered blood relatives as family. He said the accommodation was set up with 2 double beds. He advised that he had not opted for 2 single beds as that would have allowed 3 different parties to stay. He explained that he was applying for a license to accommodate upto 5, 2 people for each of the double beds and a travel cot. SUMMING UP Objectors Mr Ball advised that he had nothing further to add and that all the issues that had been raised were quite clear. Mr Hamilton referred to issues with technology and some of the residents not having access to technology and the internet. He said that there would have been more objections to this application but due to how it was processed some people of an older age were excluded to some degree. Ms Coyle confirmed she had nothing further to say. Mrs Ross also confirmed that everything had been covered.
Page 10
Applicant Mr McMillan advised that most of the relevant points had been covered. He said that he was an experienced landlord and that he would carry out everything with integrity, driven by his own set of values and that he tried to be respectful of everyone around him. He referred to the title deeds and said he appreciated what Mr Walker had said about them not being relevant. He advised that to him they were relevant and that was why he sought legal advice before purchasing the property and he was advised they were not an issue. He referred to Mr Ball saying he would not know who was coming and going and advised that he would be happy to share with residents dates when any guests were arriving or leaving in the same way as he did with other people in the community. He said that may give them peace of mind to know when to expect guests. Mr McMillan confirmed that he would uphold all the conditions on the licence at all times. When asked, all the parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Green said this application made him feel uncomfortable. He said he took on board the advice received from Officers and advised that to some extent that reflected national legislation. He said he felt he had to say when something did not feel right and this did not. He advised that if he voted for the application to be granted it would not be because it was the right thing to do, it would be because of the restrictions placed on the Committee. Councillor Wallace advised that he had no concerns with Mr McMillan as an Applicant in terms of the business he was doing elsewhere. He said that he had concerns about noise levels and that he knew that noise was amplified in the courtyard and passageways. He said he also took on board what the Objectors had said about security. Councillor Brown said she also felt uncomfortable. She acknowledged that the title deeds could not be taken into consideration and said that was what was making her uncomfortable. She said she had no issues with Mr McMillan and felt sure he had done all he could to mitigate against any noise issues. She said he was doing everything that was asked of him and he was showing a willingness to speak to people and put things in place. She said she was reassured that if any issues occurred with people that were renting they would be dealt with quickly and efficiently by Mr McMillan or someone else on the island. She said she did not think you could ask much more from a landlord. She said that she felt Mr McMillan had taken on board all the issues the Objectors have raised and that he had done his best to put measures in place to address these. Councillor Armour was of a similar view to Councillor Brown. He referred to the title deeds and said the Committee had been through this before. He commented that a couple of years ago before this licensing scheme was in place, and if Mr McMillan had gotten the same advice about the title deeds, this short-term let would just have gone ahead. He said that he agreed with Mr McMillan that the licensing scheme was a good thing. He advised that this would weed out unscrupulous landlords. He said he had sympathy for the residents but the Committee had to act on what was in front of them and the legal advice given was that the title deeds could not be taken into consideration. He advised that he thought Mr McMillan had done a lot to try and mitigate issues that may arise and that he had done everything possible. He confirmed that he would support Mr McMillan’s application but that he fully appreciated the concerns the residents had.
Page 11
Councillor Blair agreed with the comments made regarding some of the concerns and said he was sure all of them would be mitigated by the steps put in place by Mr McMillan. He said he understood the concerns and commented that he’d had a good experience of an Airbnb next door to his own home but that may not have been the case. He advised that going forward he hoped that the residents would have good dialogue with the Applicant to iron out any problems. He said he would be happy to accept the recommendations in the report and approve the application. Councillor Philand said he echoed what had been said about the title deeds in respect of concerns that if something was approved it could be legally challenged. He advised that Mr McMillan had given him as much reassurance as possible. He said he understood the concerns of the residents. He referred to the references Mr McMillan had from his other properties and said that they had demonstrated that he was responsible as the other businesses seemed to be well managed and he thought that bowed well. Councillor Green said he thought that Mr McMillan had done everything he could but he wished that he had not bought a property which had been built to address concerns of housing need and which would now be used as a short-term let. He said he agreed that Mr McMillan had done everything he could to alleviate concerns. Councillor Brown said there were no material considerations that would allow the Committee to refuse this. She said she was not comfortable about the issue with the title deeds but this was not something the Committee could consider. She said she fully believed that Mr McMillan had shown due diligence in seeking advice from his own solicitor. She said she did feel he was a fit and proper person and so would agree with the recommendations in the report. Motion To agree to grant a short-term let licence to Mr McMillan subject to the additional conditions detailed in the report in respect of anti-social behaviour, privacy and security, littering and waste disposal, and damage to property. Moved by Councillor Jan Brown, seconded by Councillor John Armour. Amendment To continue consideration of this application to a future meeting to allow Members time to prepare a competent Motion to refuse the application. Moved by Councillor Peter Wallace, seconded by Councillor Graham Hardie. A vote was taken by calling the roll. Motion Amendment Councillor Armour Councillor Green Councillor Blair Councillor A Hampsey Councillor Brown Councillor D Hampsey Councillor Forrest Councillor Hardie Councillor Howard Councillor Wallace Councillor Philand
Page 12
The Motion was carried by 6 votes to 5 and the Committee resolved accordingly. DECISION The Committee agreed to grant a short-term let licence to Mr McMillan subject to the additional conditions detailed in the report in respect of anti-social behaviour, privacy and security, littering and waste disposal, and damage to property. (Reference: Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager, submitted)