Agenda and draft minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor David Shaw.

In accordance with the local Code of Conduct, a councillor is required to disclose at the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) that they may have in respect of any matter for consideration on this agenda.  Any councillor with a DPI must notparticipate in any discussion or vote regarding that matter and they must also withdraw from the meeting immediately before consideration of the matter.

If that DPI has not been registered, the councillor must notify the Monitoring Officer of the details of the DPI within 28 days of the date of the meeting.

Councillors are further invited to disclose any non-pecuniary interest which may be relevant to any matter on this agenda, in the interests of transparency, and to confirm that it will not affect their objectivity in relation to that matter.

Councillor Keith Witham declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 5.1 ‘Mobile Home Sites – Licensing Committee Update’ owing to having lived on a park home site for 15 years that was licenced.  Councillor Witham confirmed that he was entirely impartial on the topic.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Licensing Committee held on 25 September 2024.

The minutes of the Licensing Committee held on 25 September 2024 were agreed and signed by the Chairperson as an accurate record. 

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

The Chairperson, Councillor Young stated that she wished to congratulate the licensing team on receiving the ‘Platinum Animal Welfare Policy and Procedures Award’ in the ‘RSPCA Pawprints Awards’.  The award recognised excellent practices in animal welfare and was presented to organisations who had held gold in one category or more for five years in a row.  The link to the article on the Council’s website can be found here: Platinum award win in RSPCA PawPrints Awards - Guildford Borough Council.

The Committee received an update from the Private Sector Housing Manager, Sean Grady on Mobile Home Sites.  The Committee noted that the report covered how the Council and its licensing regime managed mobile homes and provided an overview of the services available.  It also detailed the legislation; the guidance and how mobile homes sites were licenced and were engaged with the fit and proper regulations. 

The report did not go into any specific details regarding the enforcement of particular sites.  Enforcement was a wide-reaching term and encompassed anything from prosecution to notices.  It was important to note that specific sites could not be discussed publicly.  However, members could always ask the Private Sector Housing Manager directly, outside of the Committee setting, regarding any concerns they had.  There was an interconnection between housing and planning and therefore some of the queries raised may need to be deferred to the planning department.  

The Committee noted that the Private Sector Housing Manager had received some queries from Councillor Vanessa King: 

“I note that the report (para 5.1) cannot update the committee on sites that do not have a licence granted or are still pending with applications. Is that information available elsewhere? If not, can it be provided at a later date? It think it would be helpful to understand the wider situation.”

The Private Sector Housing Manager confirmed that a site that did not have a site licence granted, was a similar question to one that might need enforcement.  To list specific sites would be the same as listing specific enforcement that might be needed or could be considered.  If any councillor had a question about a site that should have a licence, they were advised to notify the Private Sector Housing Manager so that the matter could be investigated further, in liaison with the planning department.  The licensing of a mobile home was a two-step process.  First of all, the site had to have planning permission so that the correct legal mechanisms were in place to actually issue a site licence.  Sites that did not have a licence or if a licence was not needed, probably was not a matter for housing, but one for planning.  Therefore, it might not be that a licence was not needed but that planning permission might be needed for some other reason.  Pending applications could be contentious and listing those sites was not appropriate in a public forum.  Individual concerns would be investigated on a case-by-case basis.           

“Para 20.1 E&D Implications. Is there no implication here for traveller communities? Are they covered elsewhere?”

The Private Sector Housing Manager confirmed that some of the travelling community sites are licenced sites.  The report was an update and did not have any direct equality and diversity implications for traveller communities. 

“A list of locations would be appreciated.”

The Private Sector Housing Manager confirmed that there was an online register of licensed sites for both recreational and residential: Check the register - Guildford Borough Council.

Councillor Witham who  ...  view the full minutes text for item L5

The Committee discussed and noted its work programme with no comments.