Questions on notice under Council Procedure Rule 11.10(b) may be asked of the Lord Mayor, a Member of the City Executive Board or the Chair of a Committee.

 

Questions on notice must, by the Constitution, be notified to the Head of Law and Governance by no later that 9.30am on Friday 17^th February 2012.

 

Full details of any questions for which the required notice has been given will be circulated to Members of Council before the meeting.

(a)       Questions notified in time for written replies to be provided

                                   

1.         Question to the Board Member, City Development (Councillor Colin Cook) from Councillor Nuala Young

 

                        Covered Market – Former Palms Delicatessen Unit

 

Could the Board Member list the 42 applicants for the lease on the store in the Covered Market that was previously Palms Delicatessen and what type of trade was offered by each one?

 

Answer: The information is confidential and not for publication under Part 1, Schedule 12A, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Local Government Act 1972. 

 

                        The information has been provided to Councillor Young.

                         

Councillor Young in a supplementary question asked if considering that the Council had agreed conditions of tenancy, could he explain why 19 of he 42 applicants were discounted.

 

In response Councillor Cook said that Officers had applied the strategy and that out of the 42 expressions of interest, only 2 had met the strategy.  He did not know why the 19 unkowns did not provide follow through information with a bid

 

2.         Question to the Board Member, Cleaner, Greener Oxford (Councillor John Tanner) from Councillor Jean Fooks

 

                        Disposal of light bulbs

 

“The City Council is rightly asking residents to observe the restrictions on what goes into their green wheelie bins. Light bulbs are hazardous waste but at present the Council does not provide any facilities for their safe disposal. For those who are able to do so, driving dead bulbs to Redbridge is an option – but hardly environmentally friendly to do so. Many people do not have a car and this is applauded as reducing carbon emissions.  

When will the Council provide special containers at recycling sites and in district centres for the safe disposal of light bulbs?”

 

Answer: Normal light bulbs can be disposed of in your green wheelie bin.  Fluorescent tubes, normal light bulbs and low energy light bulbs can be taken to Redbridge Waste Recycling Centre.  You can also visit the Recolight website to search for your nearest collection point for low energy light bulbs.  We have no plans for other collection arrangements for light bulbs.  I understand the Councillor’s concern and I will investigate to see if there is anything further the City Council can do.

 

Councillor Fooks in a supplementary question asked if Councillor Tanner would explain why the leaflets said that batteries and lightbulbs should not go in bins.

 

In response Councillor Tanner said that as well as the Redbridge Centre, lightbulbs could also be taken to Homebase, Robert Dyas and Sainsburys.

 

(b)       Questions notified by the deadline in the Constitution (replies to be given orally at Council)

 

3.         Question to the Board Member, Housing Needs (Councillor Joe McManners) from Councillor Tony Brett.

 

I’d like to know whether the following living arrangement is an HMO?  A rented 3 bedroom house occupied by three unrelated people, two of whom are a couple in a long standing relationship (although not married or civil partnered but possibly engaged) who use one bedroom for sleeping and another as a study/work room, effectively living as one household.  The third person has their own bedroom and could be argued to be a separate “household”.  I’m using the Administration’s own language here.

 

Response: The example given is a HMO as it consisted of 3 people renting who form more than one household and who share facilities.  The use of the “household” is not the language of the Administration, as it comes directly from the definitions contained in the Housing Act 2004 and its associated regulation.

 

Councillor Brett in a supplementary question asked if the Board Member justified indirect discrimination on the grounds of marital status.  In response Councillor McManners re-iterated that HMO’s were defined by law.

 

4.         Question to the Board Member, Housing Needs (Councillor Joe McManners) from Councillor Tony Brett.

 

Your guidelines on what needs to be licensed as an HMO say that a house with resident landlord(s) requires a license if it has more than two lodgers.  Can you let me know, in the case of a resident landlord couple and three or four lodgers whether that house would count according to your definitions as a large HMO or a small HMO and thus be liable for fees of £470 plus £172 annually or £362 plus £150 annually?  Would this change if any of the lodgers were related and so formed fewer “households” than the number of lodgers?

 

Response: Wherever there is a resident landlord in a HMO they are included in the total number of occupiers in the property.  This is nothing new and it has been the case since 2006 when mandatory licensing of HMO’s was introduced across the UK.

 

If the lodgers were all related, for example it was 2 brothers and a cousin, there would still be 2 households sharing the property with 3 people renting so a licence would be required.

 

5.         Question to the Board Member, Housing Needs (Councillor Joe McManners) from Councillor Tony Brett.

 

May I ask why, given the onerous requirements of the Administration’s amenities and facilities guide, it seems to be quite willing to let much larger households (often quite vulnerable ones) live in far lower standards of accommodation?  As an example I can think of several households that contains eight people – three adults and five children. They get by with one bathroom containing a bath and toilet with just one extra toilet in a separate room. The children most certainly all need the bathroom at the same time in the morning as they all go to school at the same time.  You appear to have banned private rented unrelated tenants from living like this but seem to be continuing to allow it for vulnerable families.  Do you consider that vulnerable families need a lower level of amenity provision? What are you going to do for all the unrelated tenants you are making homeless by pricing their landlords out of the market?  Do you want them to leave Oxford and thus stop contributing to its vibrant economic and cultural life?

 

Response: Firstly can I say that the amenities and facilities guide which provides the standards for HMO accommodation in Oxford is not onerous. We have compared our requirements with those used in 14 similar cities and the standards being applied in Oxford are very similar. In a recent meeting to review progress with the HMO Licensing scheme, our officers were complimented by the accredited letting agents and landlords on their pragmatic approach in applying the standards.

 

Whilst the Housing Health and Safety Rating Scheme can be used to assess family homes, we do not have the statutory powers to intervene in relation to homes let to families like we do with HMOs. However, families regularly share facilities in a way that unrelated individuals would not be prepared to and this has clearly been recognised by Parliament which is why the same powers do not apply. If families are particularly vulnerable it could be that we could use a disabled facilities grant to improve facilities.

 

The purpose of licensing HMOs and applying our facilities and amenities guide is not to ban tenants from living in a certain way, but to ensure that they live in a property that provides them with adequate facilities.

 

There is no evidence of any overall loss of HMO accommodation. Whilst we have reports of some landlords choosing to stop letting their houses to sharers, there are as many reports of new investors in HMO stock and HMO owners increasing occupancy levels having previously reduced them to avoid the need for licensing

 

6.         Question to the Board Member, Housing Needs (Councillor Joe McManners) from Councillor Tony Brett.

 

I noticed on a poster on a bus stop on 10^th February that the Administration is offering a £600 “finders fee” to those people fortunate enough to have a 2-bedroom house to let with “no fees and no obligation to accept any potential tenant” as well as “payment of reasonable agency fees”.  May I ask if the portfolio holder how he justifies that position given that for a 3 bedroom property that might be let to 3 unrelated people his administration is charging £362 for registration as an HMO (with an additional £150 per year to keep the license) and will most probably demand a lot more expensive works given that thus far his officers have deemed 98% of licensable properties unfit to receive a license?  A three bedroomed property will release more pressure on Oxford’s housing situation than a 2-bed so why has the administration made it almost £1000 more profitable to let a 2-bed than a 3-bed?

 

Response: Response: The finders fee is being offered by the Housing and Community service as there is a shortage of 2 bed properties for families who have presented to the Council as being in housing need. There is far less need for 3 bed properties which is why there is no finders fee being offered for them. The payment of the finders fee is an incentive for landlords who would otherwise be able to rent their property to a family not in housing need at the market rate or use it as an HMO and make even more money. If we are unable to find a suitable property the costs of providing emergency accommodation are exceedingly high and overall the scheme helps reduces the Council’s costs in complying with its housing duties.

 

The cost of complying with the HMO licensing scheme should be just the licensing fee if the landlord has been maintaining the property and complying with the law.

 

7.         Question to the Board Member, Cleaner, Green Oxford (Councillor John Tanner) from Councillor Jean Fooks.

 

Residents have to buy the paper ecosacks for garden waste in batches of 10 or 20.  Can we assume that they will be allowed to use any sacks they still have at the end of this financial year in the next one?

 

                        Response: Yes.

 

8.         Question to the Leader of the Council (Councillor Bob Price) from Councillor Mark Mills

 

                        Prayers at Council meetings

 

Should all local authorities follow Oxford City’s example and avoid requiring councillors to participate in often hypocritical displays of religious devotion?

 

Response: It was a wise decision by the Courts and it is up to each Council to decide for itself.