Agenda item - Recommendations from the Cabinet

Agenda item

Recommendations from the Cabinet

To consider the recommendations from the meeting of the Cabinet held on 20th October 2021.

 

Minutes:

Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020

 

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling Services presented a report on the subject of the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020.  Members were advised that this recent legislation introduced a requirement for all privately rented properties to have an electrical installation safety check every 5 years, similar to the requirement already applicable to Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs).  Under the terms of the legislation, landlords were required to have undertaken a safety check by 1st April 2021.  Where the safety check identified any failure of electrical safety standards, the landlord was required to notify the local authority, to provide a copy of the report and to submit evidence demonstrating that they had addressed the issues within 28 days of the failures being identified.  Members were informed that, to date, this appeared to be taking place as required.

 

The legislation included the provision to impose penalty charges for non-compliance by landlords in addition to the local authority undertaking work in default if necessary.  The penalty charge structure that had been proposed by Officers would be for landlords to pay £1,000 for a first offence and £3,000 per offence for any subsequent offences.  This penalty charge structure had been determined in conjunction with other Worcestershire authorities as a level sufficient to present a deterrence to non-compliance but unlikely to justify an appeal. Members were advised that the Government had set a maximum charge that could be levied in instances where a portfolio landlord who would be expected to be informed of statutory standards applying to rented accommodation, or engaging reputable agents for managing their properties, had consistently failed to address electrical safety in a number of their properties.  The fee proposed for subsequent offences by Officers would be proportionate in cases involving a single property or a small portfolio landlord failing in his or her legal duties and who were less likely to risk further breaches.

 

The recommendation detailed in the report was proposed by Councillor G. Denaro and seconded by Councillor M. Sherrey.

 

Members subsequently discussed the report and in so doing welcomed the introduction of a change in legislation that would have a positive impact on the safety of tenants in the private rented sector. 

 

During consideration of this item, an amendment was proposed by Councillor R. Hunter which was seconded by Councillor S. Robinson.  The amendment was as follows:

 

“Instead of capping the penalty for second offences at £3,000 the Council should set a cap of £29,000.”

 

In proposing the amendment, Councillor Hunter explained that he was concerned that Officers were proposing to cap the charge for later offences at £3,000 when the legislation permitted Councils to charge up to £30,000.  The charges would be levied against landlords who had been found guilty of serious breaches of electrical safety standards.  This had implications for the safety of tenants in their homes.  Councillor Hunter commented that a recent National Housing Survey had found that 30% of houses in the private rented sector in the country had serious electrical safety issues and if these figures were similar at the local level this was very concerning.  It was acknowledged that there were many good landlords in the private rented sector but the higher charge would not impact on these landlords.  The lower fee level for first offences also appeared to be reasonable at £1,000.  However, Councillor Hunter concluded that a penalty charge capped at £29,000 for subsequent offences would act as more of a deterrent to landlords who did breach safety standards than a charge of £3,000.

 

Council subsequently discussed the proposed amendment in detail and in the process, questions were raised about the reasons why the authority would not choose to cap the charge for serial offences at close to the legal limit of £30,000.  Members noted that action that could be taken to encourage landlords to ensure their properties were compliant with electrical safety standards was important as this had implications for the safety of residents. 

 

On being put to the vote the amendment was carried.

 

The original proposal having been proposed and seconded and the amendment carried, the Chairman’s decision to move to the next item of business without further debate confirmed that the original proposal, incorporating the amendment as carried, was taken and agreed.

 

RESOLVED that, subject to capping the penalty for second offences at £29,000, the proposed financial penalty charges for non-compliance are adopted and the respective enforcement powers of the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020 are delegated to the Head of Community and Housing Services.

 

(Prior to consideration of this item, Councillors C. Hotham, A. Kriss, M. Middleton, P. Thomas and J. Till declared pecuniary interests due to their position, or their spouse’s position, as private sector landlords.  They left the room and took no part in the debate or vote thereon.)

 

Mobile Homes Act 2013 – Introduction of Licensing Fees

 

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling presented a report detailing the proposed introduction of licensing fees under the Mobile Homes Act 2013. Members were informed that there was a licensing duty in respect of mobile home parks.  The Council, as the licensing authority, incurred costs in relation to the licensing regime, including action taken in respect of compliance.  The licensing fees would help to cover the costs of the work undertaken by the Council in respect of this matter and help provide Officers with the power to take action on licence conditions.

 

During consideration of this item, concerns were raised about the fees that would be paid by mobile home residents living on smaller mobile home park sites and the potential for annual inspection fees to be passed down to residents.  Members commented that this would represent an additional fee for residents who would already be paying for utilities and potentially Council Tax contributions.  In this context, it was suggested that it might be appropriate only to charge mobile homes a fee where sites consisted of 4 or more homes, so that the costs could be shared.  However, Members were informed that the costs were not due to be passed down to residents in mobile homes.  In addition, the Council often had to spend more time working on compliance issues associated with smaller sites than at large mobile home parks, which were manged by experienced management companies and that tended to be familiar with regulatory requirements.

 

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor G. Denaro and seconded by Councillor M. Sherrey.

 

RESOLVED that

 

(1)      the Mobile Home Fee Structure is approved and implemented to all relevant sites throughout Bromsgrove District reviewed on an annual basis; and

(2)      the recovery of expenses through enforcement action is approved and implemented to all relevant sites throughout the District.

 

Bromsgrove District Council’s Duty to Co-operate Statement with Solihull

 

The Portfolio Holder for Leisure, Cultural Services and Community Safety presented a report on the subject of Bromsgrove District Council’s Duty to Co-operate Statement of Common Ground with Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council.  The report detailed the implications of the Solihull Local Plan for Bromsgrove District and the response that had been provided by Bromsgrove District Council.  This included raising concerns about the impact of developments proposed in the Solihull Local Plan on parts of Bromsgrove District, particularly the infrastructure implications in Wythall.  Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council had accepted many of the points raised by Bromsgrove District Council and these had been raised with the Planning Inspector. 

 

The recommendation was proposed by Councillor P. Thomas and seconded by Councillor K. May.

 

RESOLVED that the Statement of Common Ground is signed by the Leader of the Council and submitted to Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council.

 

Bromsgrove District Council’s Approach to the Draft Black Country Plan

 

The Portfolio Holder for Leisure, Cultural Services and Community Safety presented a report detailing the Council’s approach to the draft Black Country Plan.  The Draft Black Country Plan had been developed for a number of Councils based in the Black Country region.  Bromsgrove District Council had considered the housing development proposals recorded in the plan as well as the implications for Bromsgrove District.  This had included comments regarding the infrastructure implications of a development north of the District’s border, close to Hagley.  Bromsgrove District Council had concluded that further work was needed on the plan to address these concerns.

 

The recommendation was proposed by Councillor P. Thomas and seconded by Councillor K. May.

 

RESOLVED that the Council endorses the officer response to the Draft Black Country Plan and that it is confirmed with the Black Country Authorities as such.

 

Catshill and Marlbrook Neighbourhood Plan Adoption

 

The Portfolio Holder for Leisure, Cultural Services and Community Safety presented the Catshill and Marlbrook Neighbourhood Plan for Members’ consideration.  Council was advised that this represented the last stage of the neighbourhood plan adoption process.  The draft neighbourhood plan had previously been considered and endorsed by Cabinet earlier in 2021.  The examiner had considered the content of the draft plan and had been satisfied, subject to a few minor amendments.  The neighbourhood plan had subsequently been the subject of a local referendum in which 88% of electors had voted in support of using the plan.  Members thanked the local residents who took part in the referendum for their support together with Catshill and North Marlbrook Parish Council for their hard work on developing the neighbourhood plan.

 

During consideration of this item, reference was made to the next stage in the process, in terms of the adoption of the Catshill Neighbourhood Plan.  Members were informed that, subject to Council agreement to adopt the plan, the plan would start to be enacted.

 

The recommendation was proposed by Councillor P. Thomas and seconded by Councillor J. Till.

 

RESOLVED that the Catshill and North Marlbrook Parish Neighbourhood Plan be ‘made’ (formally adopted) immediately, in accordance with the relevant legislation.

 

 

Supporting documents: