Agenda item

To consider the updates in respect of the changes to the Houses in Multiple Occupation regime and implementation of the Animal Welfare Regulations. 

24.1          Attention was drawn to the report of the Head of Community Services, circulated at Pages No. 135-138, which provided an update in respect of the significant changes to Houses in Multiple Occupation licensing and implementation of the Animal Welfare Regulations 2018.  Members were asked to consider the report.

24.2          The Chair felt it was important to note that the inspection and processing of applications arising from the Animal Welfare Regulations had been significantly more time-consuming than the previous regime with the issuing of a licence proving to take six to seven hours of Officer time compared to two to three hours previously.  The Environmental Health Manager explained that all existing licences were required to be converted under the regime - as well as licensing new animal activity - and this was a significant piece of work which needed to be done in a timely fashion alongside other licensing work, such as the inspection of food premises.  Since the publication of the Committee report, the number of applications for licensable animal activities had risen to 44, of which 36 had been inspected and two re-visited with 23 licences having been issued to date.  The Council was the first in the county to refuse an application, which it had done the previous day, and a second refusal was anticipated once the report had been written up.  The impact assessment of the regulations suggested that there would be an increase in the amount of regulated activities and it was intended to formulate a plan to publicise the changes in the community.

24.3          A Member questioned whether the Council had a provision for licensing exotic animals, such as pythons, which might be taken to school fetes etc. and she queried whether the licence was granted by the local authority from where the animal was based or in the area where the event was taking place - she was concerned as to who monitored their welfare particularly following the reports of pythons being abandoned in another part of the country.  In response, the Environmental Health Manager advised that these animals were covered by the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 which was very stringent in terms of the specialist conditions that were needed.  They were also covered in part by the Animal Welfare Regulations in terms of the display of animals, for instance, mice should not be kept next to cats as this could induce stress.  The legislation was unclear in places, because it was new, and had generated a lot of discussion among the countywide licensing group.  It was recognised that animals may be housed within Gloucestershire but performing in another area, or vice versa, and generally the regulations were intended to prevent unnecessary suffering to animals so action could be taken provided the owner was known to the licensing authority. 

24.4           A Member sought confirmation as to the number of registered dog breeders in the borough and the Environmental Health Manager undertook to circulate this following the meeting.  Another Member queried why two licences had been turned down and was advised that the new regulations came with statutory guidance from Defra which required an inspection to be undertaken and a series of questions to be answered in order to give an overall score; in both cases the inspection had resulted in a very high score therefore it would have been neglectful to grant a licence.  In response to a query as to what had happened to the animals, Members were advised that there was a 28 day window for an appeal and operations could continue during that time.  The Environmental Health Manager explained that inspections were currently being undertaken by two Officers but eventually would be carried out by individual Officers, once everyone was accustomed to the new legislation.  The Officers’ report was signed-off by the Senior Licensing Officer and Environmental Health Manager and, once a decision had been made, Officers went back to explain the decision to the operator; in the case of the refusal, the operator had not taken up this offer and had instead chosen to end the business so they had missed the opportunity to discuss what action would have been needed to bring it up to standard, although this information was contained within the inspector’s report which was given to them with the decision notice.  A Member questioned whether pet shops were included under the Animal Welfare Regulations and confirmation was provided that this was the case and they were given a star rating.  There was a register which could be inspected by the public in order for them to make an informed judgement – for fairness, this would not be available on the website until all of the relevant premises had been inspected, however, the information could be requested from Officers in the interim. 

24.5           With regard to Houses in Multiple Occupation, Members were advised that, since the introduction of the changes on 1 October 2018, 11 applications had been received with four licences currently being processed and a further two properties being investigated.  It had previously been anticipated that there could be up to 100 new Houses in Multiple Occupation across the borough but only a fraction of landlords had come forward to date and discussions with neighbouring authorities had suggested that they were experiencing a similar pattern.  Whilst it may be that the original amount had been overestimated, it was also possible that landlords were failing to come forward, as such, it was intended to run a targeted campaign over the coming months in order to try to identify licensable Houses in Multiple Occupation across the borough.  It was noted that a successful prosecution had been brought against a landlord for four charges which included poor housing conditions – this was a concern as a landlord failing to come forward to register a House in Multiple Occupation may also be less likely to ensure that housing conditions were of an appropriate standard.

24.6          A Member questioned how Houses in Multiple Occupation could be identified and was advised that press releases had been issued at the end of 2018 to raise awareness locally and the changes had also received some coverage in the national press; landlord associations were another way of publicising the legislation although it was recognised that not all landlords would be members of an association.  The Environmental Health Manager explained that it was important to strike a balance between encouraging people to report suspected Houses In Multiple Occupation and managing Officer workloads in terms of the time spent investigating those reports; however, assurance was provided that there would be regular reminders on social media to reinforce the message once the initial bulk had been investigated.  The Chair indicated that a Member Update had been circulated asking Councillors to report any suspected Houses In Multiple Occupation to the Licensing Team.

24.7          It was

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