Agenda item

To consider the updates in respect of the changes to the Houses in Multiple Occupation Regulatory Regime; and implementation of the Animal Welfare Regulations 2018.

15.1          Attention was drawn to the report of the Environmental Health Manager, circulated at Pages No. 100-102, which provided an update in respect of the significant changes to the Houses in Multiple Occupation regime and the implementation of the Animal Welfare Regulations 2018.  Members were asked to consider the report.

15.2          The Environmental Health Manager advised that the new legislation had come into effect on 1 October 2018.  With regard to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), there was now a requirement to licence properties that were two or more storeys with at least five tenants that formed more than one household.  It was a requirement that any fees applied relating to the licensing regime adequately reflected the costs to the Council of processing an application and managing that application during the period of the licence.  The previous countywide fee of £450 had been reviewed and would now be £870 for a five year licence; this had been worked out on a component basis taking into account the actual cost to the authority and was comparable with other local authorities in Gloucestershire.  To date, Tewkesbury Borough Council had been contacted by seven landlords wishing to apply to have their properties licensed which, although significantly less than predicted, was in line with similar authorities.  A strategy was being put in place to try to identify other HMOs that met the latest requirements.  The strategy would involve writing to all properties where the address of the Council Tax payer differed from the property address; writing to all estate and letting agents; carrying out a further publicity campaign; and engaging other Council departments/services and strategic partners with a view to gaining intelligence.  The onus would be on the owner to apply for a licence if they were affected by the legislation. A Member suggested that the Electoral Register could be used to identify HMOs and the Environmental Health Manager confirmed there was a specific exemption in the Housing Act which would allow that information to be used for this purpose and it might be possible to combine this with other sources of information, such as Council Tax, in order to identify properties to write to.

15.3           A Member sought clarification as to whether flats could be HMOs and was advised that they could be if they were single living units with five or more people from different households sharing facilities such as a bathroom or kitchen.  A Member raised concern about the difficulties which could arise in terms of Council Tax payment if a landlord failed to register a property as a HMO and he indicated that he had a particular case in mind.  In response, the Chair advised that Members could take any issues to officers at any time and he suggested this be taken up outside of the meeting so the Member could get a definitive answer from the officer in terms of his particular query. 

15.4           A Member questioned what the sanction would be for failing to register an HMO and was advised that it was an offence so the Council would look to prosecute.  The Environmental Health Manager indicated that there were usually several reasons for failing to come forward, for instance, the property may be in poor condition, e.g. no heating or hot water.  In response to a query, Members were advised that the landlord would normally be called in for an interview under caution and the Council would make a decision on whether it was in the public interest to take them to Court. 

15.5           As advised at the previous Licensing Committee meeting, the Animal Welfare Regulations 2018 had come into force on 1 October 2018 and statutory guidance had been issued at the beginning of September.  The regulations had the potential to significantly impact upon inspections and how animal activities were assessed.  A charging scheme was currently being worked up but the other local authorities in the county had put their schemes on hold pending further guidance which was due to be released.  It would be necessary to go out across the borough to identity additional licensable activities; it was noted there were a number of dog boarding franchises within the borough and the legal issues around that would require some clarification i.e. whether the franchise would need to be licensed or the actual location where boarding took place. 

15.6           A Member queried whether the new legislation applied to dog and cat breeders and the Environmental Health Manager clarified that dog breeding in particular was one of the key drivers of the legislation.  There was a need to clarify the criteria in this regard, for example, whether food, vaccinations etc. were taken into account in terms of any profits made by the breeder, and whether puppies were from a one-off litter.  It was also necessary to establish how technology could be used to identify breeders, e.g. social media, but he provided assurance that once the definitions were clear, it would be widely publicised.  The Member indicated that he was aware of a dog breeder being identified by Inland Revenue through the insurance he was paying for the dogs and veterinary bills etc. so this could be a potential way of identifying breeders.  In addition, breeders tended to register dogs with Crufts or the Kennel Club so that could be used to check the number of puppies in a litter and how much they had been sold for.  Another Member suggested that the legislation could be publicised by distributing leaflets in known dog walking areas.  A Member questioned whether dog walkers would need to be licensed and the Environmental Health Manager indicated that consideration needed to be given to the definition as there were uncertainties about which particular scenarios would be licensable, for example, if a dog walker picked up dogs from their houses and then took them to their house for the day, there may be an argument that this was technically doggy day care.  A Member queried whether the new legislation applied to riding schools and was advised that riding establishments were already covered by legislation but the new regulations included animals used for entertainment, for example, a clown bringing out an iguana at a child’s party, falconers etc.  Clarification was provided that agricultural animals were covered by the County Council under different legislation.  A Member pointed out that school fetes and community events often had a ‘petting zoo’ and the Environmental Health Manager confirmed they would need to be licensed but a technical matter which needed to be resolved was where the animal should be licensed, for instance, if an animal from Wales was brought to an event in Tewkesbury Borough.

15.7          Having considered the information provided, it was

RESOLVED          That the updates in respect of the significant changes to the Houses in Multiple Occupation regime and the implementation of the Animal Welfare Regulations 2018 be NOTED.