Really impressive work from City Council Officers!

If you read this blog lots you'll know that I volunteer as a Street Pastor in Oxford.  Well I was out last Friday evening and had drawn to my attention a dangerous situation in that the railings that are between the river and the side of the steps up from Fisher Row to Hythe Bridge Street don't actually meet the brickwork of the bridge itself.  The photo shows what I mean.  It is taken looking East towards Worcester Street and George Street from just outside the Oxford Retreat.   You can see the gap is big enough for a person to fall through and that apparently had happened to a rather intoxicated young lady earlier in the month.  One of the door supervisors at the Oxford Retreat told me the story of how he had jumped into the river to save the young woman.

I said I would include the dangerous situation in my report of the night.  The report goes to the Street Pastors Coordinator for Oxford and to the Violent Crime & CCTV Manager for the City Council, Karen Crossan.  Karen reported the issue immediately to the relevant people in City Works and I also sent them a request today.  I am incredibly impressed that they took mine and Karen's requests extremely seriously and dealt with them so fast.  The result is that "the handrail will now be extended, a stainless steel section will be welded into place tomorrow morning at 0530".

Fantastic work chaps - huge thanks to Dave Huddle for making this happen in little more than 12 hours from my request!

Licensing Hearing: The new Sainsbury's in Summertown

I chaired this panel hearing today that was necessary because two Summertown residents had sent in a joint letter of objection to the premises licence application. I was joined by Cllrs Mary Clarkson and Mark Lygo.

The application was from Sainsbury's as they are opening a new convenience store in Summertown in March.  They were applying for a license to sell alcohol on an off-sales basis only from 7am-11pm 7 days per week in line with the opening hours of the store itself.  It should be noted that we were simply deciding on the alcohol licence - all the other necessary permissions for the store to operate were already in place.

The objections centred around the risk that children might buy alcohol and the possible need for a security guard.  I put these to the applicants and got a very detailed description of Sainsbury's ways of working, including their think 25 policy, and how in Leeds they have a similar store where problems have been avoided by close working with the Police and the local Community.  Sainsbury's probably would employ a security guard at "sensitive" times but did not want to accept this as a condition.  I must say I was a bit perturbed that the objectors seemed rather to be objecting to a Sainsbury's store rather than the sale of alcohol and indeed that's what their petition said.

After the applicants and objectors had summed up they were dismissed while we made our decision.  We took the view that Sainsbury's had addressed all the concerns so granted the hours as applied for but with a condition that a prominent sign reminding customers that Summertown was an alcohol-free zone must be displayed by all exits.  We also asked for contact details of the manager to be displayed for residents to use in case of problems and reminded Sainsbury's that if there were problems it was open to the responsible authorities and the interested parties to call a licence review in the future.

I felt it was useful for Sainsbury's to be able to hear to concerns of residents and I hope the hearing will be the start of an ongoing dialogue that will enable Sainsbury's and the residents of Summertown to co-exist in common understanding and peace!

Please note this post does not form an official record of proceedings and should not be treated as such.  The decision notice from the City Council is the definitive document.

The remainder of December's full council

This was the rest of the meeting from December 19th. To be honest very little of note happened. There were lots of questions from councillors to other councillors as well as quite a few motions. With majority control of a council I'm afraid the outcomes of these are generally pretty predictable!

The one thing of note that we did was to vote on the 2012-13 council year civic post holders.  I am delighted to say that Cllr Alan Armitage will be the next Lord Mayor of Oxford but rather less delighted that the council has chosen to make an HMO Landlord who was recently bound over for the state of one of his Oxford HMOs into next year's Deputy Lord Mayor.  Cllr Dee Sinclair will be Sheriff.

I did finally get to ask my questions about HMOs but the portfolio holder wasn't present so the leader of the council answered them in his absence. I wasn't impressed! Here they are, and the answers, with my supplementary comments/questions:

Q1: Given that this council's "HMO Amenity and Facilities Good Practice Guidelines" make it clear that one shared bathroom which includes a lavatory is sufficient for up to four people in an HMO can Cllr McManners tell me why, with just two more people a second bathroom (also containing a lavatory) is not deemed sufficient by the administration? Can he tell me how many extra lavatories in the last 12 months this council has forced landlords to have installed in 6-person HMOs that already had two lavatory-containing shared bathrooms?

Response: There are no national standards for facilities and amenities in HMOs and each council must produce its own guidelines. Our standards were developed following consultation with landlords in the city as well as consideration of work carried out by other local authorities. Some of the proposed standards were amended following comments from landlords. We recently compared our standards with those used by 14 other similar cities and concluded that the standards being applied in Oxford are consistent with those being applied elsewhere. The use of an HMO is considered to be very different to a family house occupied by a similar number of people which is why additional standards are required. For example, 6 young professionals living in a house are all likely to be getting ready to go to work at the same time in the morning and so both bathrooms are likely to be in constant use. A separate w.c. is therefore an essential amenity for the other occupiers....

There were only two HMOs licensed in the last 12 months where an additional separate toilet was required to be installed. Both of these properties were occupied by 6 people and had 2 bathrooms.

As far as I'm concerned that still doesn't answer my question.  Why is 1 OK for four if 2 are not OK for 6?  It makes no sense to me.  At least the problem is not as widespread as I'd thought.

Q2: In the last 12 months, how many Oxford homes where an HMO license has been applied (or re-applied) for have passed the inspection without the Council requiring modifications, or additions before the grant of the license? What percentage of total homes inspected in that period does that figure represent?

Response: The records indicate that in the last 12 months only 11 HMOs were inspected that did not require any work before the licence was granted. A total of 454 inspections have been carried out so this represents 2% of the total for the same period.

The answer then goes on in depth about how many landlords have bee prosecuted, entirely missing the point of my question, in that it is about the top end of the market where there are happy tenants and professional landlords.  This is a classic attempt to diver attention from the real issue of the unintended damage the HMO licensing scheme is doing to tenants in high-quality house-shares with professional landlords.   I responded,

"So does this mean that Oxford City Council is saying the vast majority of HMOs in Oxford are unfit for their tenants or does it mean that the standards are set to high and/or being applied too bluntly?"

There was no answer!

A great morning catching up with constituents and a prospective new Carfax councillor

I spent this morning knocking on doors in Carfax, the ward I represent.  I was delighted to be joined by Cllr Stephen Brown, my ward Colleague; Cllr Graham Jones, a Lib Dem Councillor for St. Clements; and Duncan Stott about which more below.  It was great to catch up with people after the Christmas break and hear about various local issues, some of which we have already dealt with.  Carfax is a fascinating ward with a massively diverse group of electors.  I was privileged to talk to The Registrar of Oxford University at his residence this morning and feel equally at home attending the users meeting of O'Hanlon House (also in Carfax Ward) which is a critical service and facility for the homeless on the pathway back into independent housing.

I am delighted to report that following  Stephen's announcement that he's not re-standing for election as a Carfax Ward City Councillor in May, Oxford Lib Dems have chosen Duncan Stott as the next Lib Dem candidate for Carfax ward in May 2012.

Stephen has been a wonderful ward colleague and a really inspirational leader of the Lib Dem group on Oxford City Council.  I'll miss him very much but entirely understand and support his decision to take some time out to spend more time with his family and his grandchildren while they are small.  I know too that Stephen will continue to work as hard as ever for the people of Oxford, particularly in Carfax Ward, until the local elections in May.

Duncan is an incredibly energetic and enthusiastic young man who has been involved in the Lib Dems for some time and has been extremely active both nationally and locally.  He grew up in Oldham and then gained his Masters Degree at the University of York.  He moved to Oxford six years ago and works just outside our City as a Senior Research and Development engineer in a hi-tech company.  He's lived in Oxford City for those six years.  I think the great thing about Duncan is that he has a really good understanding of Oxford City as a non-student resident but also entirely understands what it's like to be a student in a big City.  I am impressed at about how well he keeps both in balance.  I hope you'll agree that he'd make a fantastic LibDem Councillor for Carfax with its 35:65 non-student:student balance and I hope you'll be able to meet him in the coming months.

I'm really enjoying and excited about working with Duncan in the run up to the elections and feel confident that we'll be a great LibDem team for Carfax, being a strong voice for students and everyone else also resident in the ward.

Planning Review Committee

We met today to discuss two planning applications.  There were seven councillors present at the meeting.

The first application was for a development at Cantay House off Park End Street.   The application was actually deferred after a discussion about contributions to social housing in developments of 4-9 units that has just been agreed at full council on 19th December.  You can see the Development Plan Document (DPD).  The whole question really is about how much weight can be given to a policy that was not in place when the application was made, was not in place when it was first determined by the West Area planning committee and is yet to be approved by a planning inspector.   If there is an appeal (on grounds of non-determination) then I imagine we'll see!

The second application was for a change to what many know as the John Allen Centre, whereby B&Q's building will be subdivided at the end of the B&Q lease providing another Sainsbury's supermarket as well as some café/restaurant units and four houses fronting onto Rymers Lane.  The bulk of the discussion was about a developer contribution to improve the lighting of the area on the other side of the retail park to make things safer for people accessing the site from roads such as Maidcroft Road, Cleveland Drive and Havelock Road.  There was also concern about the hours during which the service yard can be used and I hope that proper enforcement of allowed hours will improve matters for some local residents who are being sleep-deprived by some extremely antisocial behaviour by delivery companies.  The application was approved.

Full Council

The last full council of 2011 and a ridiculously full agenda! We met at 5pm and I didn't stop until 10.37pm and even then, had not dealt with the motions on notices, statements and questions.

There were some very important items at this meeting.

The council also considered plans for Barton West and also the latest round of attacks on HMO tenants and landlords.  The use of a house as an HMO (that means 3 or more unrelated people living there) is a different planning use class and Labour has made it a requirement that all changes to use class C4 will require planning permission and that change of use from C3 (family home) to C4 will require planning permission.  Even more worrying is that planning permission will be refused if there are more than 20% of properties in that street already in use as HMOs.  I think that will be catastrophically disastrous for Oxford's housing situation.  We'll see.

I am utterly appalled at some of the judgemental and social-sorting based on tenure language that is being used by this Labour Council.  Try "However, in some areas of the city, high concentrations of HMOs are resulting in changes to the character of the local area, and may also contribute to local parking problems, large numbers of transient households, and the affordability of renting or buying homes in Oxford. This has led some people to believe that their communities are becoming unbalanced, because the number of short‐term tenants with less established community ties has grown too large."

I think that's outrageous and hope that lots of Oxford-dwellers will agree. I see it as nothing more than a direct attack on students, honest landlords and anyone elsewho can't afford to live in Oxford in any other way than in an HMO.

Another thing discussed was the issue of adopting some legislation to allow the licensing of horse-drawn carriages in the City Centre. This was being recommended by the General Purposes Licensing Committee but I am pleased that the Full Council saw that any horse drawn carriages would be inappropriate in such a constrained City as Oxford for reasons both of horse welfare and pedestrian, cyclist safety. I was glad to be one of the 27 that voted against the Licensing Committee's recommendation.  This shocking video from New York is one of the things that convinced me to vote against.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWhmuUUeZKU&feature=player_embedded

A long and tiring meeting and some really stupid planning decisions rushed through by our current megalomaniac Labour Administration if you ask me!

City Centre Neighbourhood Action Group

These meetings are always useful and I was impressed at the chairing skills of Matt Sulley, the Police Officer who has taken over the running of the group.  We had some useful discussion about what to do about speeding on St. Giles and also about some antisocial behaviour issues in the City Centre.  I commented about how many obscenely drunk people there are in the City Centre in the small hours, particularly at the weekends, and suggested that some venues must be serving people who are too drunk.  I do hope Oxford can try to lead the way on doing something about this as getting that drunk is really not good for the health of anyone involved and I can't really believe it's a good night out either to have to be picked up by by a parent and drive home with your head in a washing up bowl!

The meeting was rather short as we had full council at 5pm.

Union Street Student Accommodation permission granted and subsequent councillor abuse

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Using far too much paper and resources?

Last Friday I received the agenda for City Executive Board (CEB). It was three volumes totalling 944 pages, double-sided so only 472 pieces of paper. As normal this was delivered to my home by the council courier van (while I was probably at work).   This would be the same for all 48 members of council (some may have elected to have papers delivered elsewhere but all are entitled to a delivery).  That's a staggering 22,656 pieces of paper for one meeting - and that's without the officer copies and the spare ones for the members of the public at the meeting!  At a conservative £5/500 sheets that's approaching £300 just on the paper, without considering the staff time to prepare, print, collate and bind the material as well as the staff time to deliver it to houses and the costs of running the courier's van.

CEB is an important meeting as it has all the executive power of the council so all members of council do need to see the papers but I really don't believe many actually have time to read every sheet of paper in such a huge agenda.  This is 944 pages to read between when I got home on Friday and the CEB meeting the next Wednesday.  That's about 5 full days that already have lots of time committed, not least to my day job!

Yesterday, given that the CEB  meeting is in the past I put my papers in the recycling, as there was nothing confidential, for it to be collected by another part of the council.

Today I received the agenda for full council on 19th December.  It's another 350 or so pages!  I'm seriously considering asking the courier to deliver straight to the recycling centre to cut out the middle man (me!)

Now it's not that I don't want to read these reports but as you can see from the links in this item, they are all available on the City Council's web site. Why not just send councillors the contents pages so we can browse on the web for any reports that we actually need to read thoroughly?

I am pleased that City Council IT is looking into getting councillors to use tablet devices to read papers and it really can't come too quickly as far as I am concerned.  I read almost everything online these days and the council really does make it pretty easy to find stuff:  There is a full public page on Council meetings and there is even an RSS feed for those that prefer to use things like Google Reader.  That feed is also on this blog page.

Nice comments from Oxford University Student Union

Working with and engaging with our Universities, particularly the student body, is always a challenge.  Not because anyone makes it difficult but I think because students come and go so quickly and because the senior people in the Students' unions change every year.  This academic year, Oxford University Student Union (OUSU) is lucky to have Daniel Stone (Dan) as its Vice President (Charities and Community).  He works tirelessly to try to bring Students and City together and it's great as a City Councillor to have a meaningful way to interface with the many students who live in Carfax Ward, the residents of which I represent!

Dan recently published a nice column in the Oxford Student, the official newspaper of OUSU, that couldn't really have been nicer.  You should be able to read it if you click on it here but if not, here's the middle paragraph:

"City Councillors are here to represent students too!  There are City Council wards running through the centre of Oxford and extending out through Jericho, Summertown and over the Magdalen Bridge.  We're lucky to have a fantastic group of Councillors, many of whom were former students and consequently want to engage with the student population as much as possible.  But it's up to us to speak and make our voices heard"

Thanks Dan - it's a pleasure to be able to serve you and the students of Oxford!

Do read the whole article if you can. Click it to enlarge it.

Site Visit for Union Street Planning Application

We visited the site of planning application for some student accommodation in a constrained little site off Union Street in East Oxford, near to East Oxford Primary School and one of its external sports areas.  This application was approved by West Area Planning Committee last month and was call-in to Planning Review Committee.  We should have heard it on 30th November but as that was the day of strikes, I and many other committee members agreed not to cross the picket line and to defer the meeting.  We now re-determine the application on 15th December.

This application is the one that was the subject of the nasty anti-student comments I posted about last month so I thought we ought to have a site visit to try to get a feel for the site and try to understand the position of all people and groups concerned.

I was grateful that two planning officers were able to attend and explain the site to us, with the proper plans.  I attended along with Nuala Young and Mike Rowley so that means at least some of the committee will have first-hand experience of the site.  I'm sure others will know it too as it is currently the site of the "Plebs College" squat so it's been in the news a lot lately.

I shan't comment here on my views on the merits or otherwise of the application as I want to be able to listen carefully to what people say and make an unbiased decision at the meeting on Thursday 15th December.  Click the picture to see a larger version of it.

Lord Mayor's Christmas Reception

This is the annual event held at the Town Hall where councillors all get to bring two guests from local charities doing good in the area and one personal guest.

This year I invited Wendy Woodcock, from the CfBT Education Trust, as she is Chair of Governors at Oxford Spires Academy where I am also a governor. CfBT is also the principal sponsor of Oxford Spires Academy.  I also invited Sue Croft, the Principal of Oxford Spires Academy. My personal guest was my sister, Emma, as she's been living in Oxford for a couple of years now and it seemed appropriate to introduce her to council colleagues.

The event is always a good opportunity to say thank you to those who work so hard for our City in various ways.  Wendy has done a sterling job helping a fledgling academy and its fledgling Governing Body to become effective very quickly and Sue really is an inspirational leader of Oxford Spires Academy.  The difference they will both make to education and educational attainment of Children in our City is, I think, extremely important.  I was delighted to be able to invite them both to the reception.  Some excellent links were made and it was good to raise the profile of Oxford Spires Academy among other councillors and their guests, as well as the City Council's Chief executive.

My sister is an independent speech and language therapist and had some useful conversations about her work with some of those present too.

Why I am on strike today

I work for the University of Oxford and am a paid-up member of the Universities and Colleges Union.  I've just set my work out of office message to read:

"Thank you for your email.  In line with the ballot of the University and Colleges Union I am taking part in industrial action in the form of a strike today to send a message to our government that I will not accept their erosion of and withdrawal of support to UK Higher Education.  This means I will not be dealing with any email sent to me today.  If you still wish to contact me please re-send your email another day."

I will not be crossing any picket lines in to the town hall today and fully support the action by all the hard working council staff that provide you and me with so many services we depend on right across the City.

It was bad enough that Clegg and co carped on about what a good thing tuition fees of £9k were and now the Tory-led coalition is attempting to slash remuneration for academic and academic-related (that's me) staff in Universities in the form of a big reduction in pension benefits and an increase in contributions from employees.  Now let me be clear, these changes don't affect me YET but I see them as part of a slippery slope so I am willing to join the legally-called strike action to support the work of the Universities and Colleges Union to protect the rights of my current and future colleagues and to join the collective effort in sending as strong a message as possible to the coalition that Higher Education (along with many other public services) is much more valuable than this and that the cuts are going too far.  If we screw higher education now then in 20 or so years time we'll be in a much greater mess than we are now!

I should also say that I don't think Labour did any better when in power and it's shocking how they don't really have a plan to get the UK out the financial mess THAT THEY LET US GET INTO when they were last in power.  We do have to sort out the economy and reverse the dangerous slip back to recession that we're currently seeing. The Leader of the Labour Party isn't even supporting this strike (See http://labourlist.org/2011/11/ed-miliband-wont-back-strikes/) which I think is frankly outrageous given how it was the Unions that got him elected to be leader of the party in the first place!

It's good to see that the coalition is taking its responsibilities on benefits seriously and has protected the most vulnerable in society from real-terms cuts in income. I'm also pleased to see that the chancellor has put the January rise in fuel taxes (struggling families really can't afford it any more than the many business that are now spending so much on fuel) on hold but there is still so much more that could be done.

I know it's fashionable to bash bankers and so on but really - do these people actually NEED to be so wealthy?  Remember - it wasn't the public sector workers (from nurses to civil servants to academics to border control staff) who caused this recession.  You didn't see them engaging in all sort of greed-fuelled high-risk, low-sense banking activity that simply made them richer and left the UK (and much of the rest of the world) in the mess it is now in.  And are they paying the penalty for any of this? Not a chance!  The coalition is trying to dump it all on the hard-working, lower-paid public sector and almost universally public spirited workers of our country.  If Labour had regulated the banks properly about 10 years ago then I believe we wouldn't be in the mess we are now in.  But I'm not an economist so don't pretend to have all the answers here.  [following comments, I should add that it's investment bankers I have the real problem with, not so much the retail bankers although they should not have been allowed to let individuals get into so much personal debt either]

Remember - nobody chooses a public sector job for the money - so for the coalition to hit us rather than hitting those who are making a fortune out of everyone else's suffering is, I think, utterly outrageous.

National Landlords Association Oxford Branch Meeting

This was an interesting meeting, attended by about 20 of Oxford's decent and honest landlords as well as Ian Wright, the City Council Service Manager that covers HMOs and Ken Staunton, the NLA Head of Regions.

Ken first spoke about the NLA Landlord accreditation scheme which looks like is a really useful thing.  I am impressed at how much information it provides and how it has a requirement for Continual Professional Development for Landlords.  That's very important in the continual changing regulatory landscape in which the business has to operate these days.

There was then a talk by Ian Wright from the City Council about the additional HMO registration scheme.  Ian did a good job of explaining what I think is a completely over-the top scheme that is crippling the HMO market.  It's not Ian's fault - he's just doing what the Labour Administration of Oxford City Council tell him but there really are a lot of charges and I was appalled to hear that the council is demanding extra works on 97% of properties where licenses are being applied for.  In most cases tenants and landlords were entirely happy before the council interfered.  Ian did show some slides of some awful cases where council intervention is clearly needed and welcome but I suspect none of those applied to to the good and honest landlords present last night.  There was also a list given of successful prosecutions.  I was a bit surprised that the names of all those convicted were included and didn't really understand why Ian included a case where someone had been imprisoned after performing an illegal eviction.  That case was nothing to do with HMO licensing even though that was the subject of Ian's talk.

There was a lot of dicussion and confusion about the change to HMO registration requirements coming in January 2012 and the Article 4 direction on planning which removes the permitted development right to change a property from C3 (domestic household) to C4 (HMO with 3-6 unrelated sharers) coming in February 2012.  It's fascinating to me that the council seems to act as if Landlords are nasty evildoers trying to extort money out of tenants while spending as little as possible whereas what I saw was a bunch of honest professionals trying to run their business in an honest a way as possible.  There is clearly a lot of confusion about the ridiculous amount over over-regulation the Labour council is trying to pile onto the HMO market in Oxford.  I find it really hard to understand as Oxford is depsperately short of housing and HMOs provide a vital part of the housing mix.  If Landlords are persecuted and saddled with ridiculous amounts of expense for work that nobody wants then that will just get passed on in increased rents and Oxford's housing (and homelessness) problems will jut get worse.  I wish Labour would just accept that being a landlord is just an honest business in the same that running a taxi, a shop, or a bar is.

The meeting took about 2 hours and was extremely interesting.

Back from Holiday to a tirade of anti-student vitriol

I'm just back from a week away and disgusted by some of the emails I have received about a planning application in East Oxford. Clearly there is a campaign going on and a standard email has been circulated. I quote some phrases repeated in many of them:

"from my many years of experience of the growing numbers of students in the East Oxford area they are incapable of talking quietly or without using offensive language in every sentence that leaves their mouths along with continuously playing loud music."

"The student population is increasing to unbearable amounts already in this area and they do not need any further encouragement or welcoming into our community because they bring nothing positive."

"Our community is being destroyed and controlled by the universities and their students."

Well I'm sorry but I completely disagree with all of that.  It is full of gross generalisations and is frankly offensive to the many people in Oxford who are students or staff at either of its world-class Universities.  To say students bring nothing positive is utter nonsense - how do people think local business remain viable and vibrant?  I don't just mean bars either - I mean buses, restaurants, supermarkets, local shops and much more.  How many people in Oxford would become unemployed if out two Universities disappeared? I would, as would the leader of the council and many thousands more local people.  The other thing to consider is that if purpose-built student accommodation is provided then this reduces pressure on more conventional housing that could then be used for families and other social groupings.  In principle I think purpose-built student accommodation is a vital part of the accommodation mix in Oxford and the more of it we can have (so long as it is appropriate in scale, site etc.) the more we will reduce the massive housing pressure Oxford suffers.

We have students in our street and they are mostly quiet, considerate and well-spoken.  Occasionally we hear them late at night and occasionally they hear us.  That's a consequence of living in a crowded City with densely built accommodation - for me it's a fair swap for all the wonderful things there are about Oxford.  At last night's Central South and West area forum there were many students present with positive contributions to make and showing genuine interest for local issues of concern.  I was extremely impressed that OUSU, the Oxford University Student Union, is organising an-on street collection for the new Crisis Skylight Centre in Oxford this weekend.  Students do many good things for our City and many volunteer for all sorts of community outreach.  You can read lots about this on the site of the Oxford Hub.

On this particular planning application I will retain an open mind  - there may be reasons to refuse it if it gets called in and there may not.  As chair of Planning Review Committee I'll have to study it more carefully.  But I can say this without any doubt:  I will not be making any decision in either direction just because this is accommodation intended for students.  To do so would show complete disregard for planning law and would be frankly stupid.

The language I have read in emails sounds horribly like the racism of the 60s, the homophobia of the 80s and the sexism of the 70s.  I wonder - would people oppose an afro-Caribbean resource and advice centre, or an LGBT resource and advice centre, on that site with such gross and frankly disgusting generalisations.  They might find themselves on the wrong side of the law if they did.

Central South and West Area Forum

This forum met today in the Town Hall and focussed on student safety issues as well as homelessness.  It was really good to have Lesley Dewhurst from Oxford Homeless Pathways present to explain to us all the good work her charity does.  We also have the new manager from the Oxford Crisis Skylight Centre to tell us about all the good work just about to start in the Old Fire Station.   Lesley produced the best handout I have seen for ages that shows really well how the homelessness services work in Oxford.  How refreshing not to be blinded by high-tech graphics.  Click on the image here to see it in its full glory!

There was a presentation about student safety from the City Council community safety ream and some useful comments from the many students present .  Student input, particularly from the OUSU Vice-President for Charities and Communities , Daniel Stone, is always particularly welcome as it can be hard to build meaningful and sustainable channels of communication between the council and the University sometimes..  I was alarmed to hear a story about a sexual assault on a student in a bus but pleased that the City Council student safety team will take up the issue with the Police and the bus operator.

A useful meeting about HMO licensing

I had a meeting today with Tim Sadler, Executive Director City Services, and Ian Wright, Health Development Service Manager in Environmental Development.  My colleagues Cllr Mark Mills and Cllr John Goddard also attended.  The subject of the meeting was to discuss the problems and unintended consequences that are occurring with the City-wide licensing of Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs).

The discussion centred around the inflexibility of the Amenities and Facilities guide.  I made a statement in full council about one of these issues a while back and two more have since arisen:

In the first case we have a landlord who owns a few some modern executive houses (built in 2003/4) and has six tenants in each.  They have plenty of bathrooms and toilets and a huge kitchen/lounge communal area with which the tenants are all happy.  The problem is that for six tenants the dreaded document insists on an extra sink (or a sink and a dishwasher).  The tenants are happy with one sink and don't want either another sink or a dishwasher as this would reduce the cupboard space available to them for storage of their own personal food.  The council is however insisting this work be done against the wishes both of the tenants and the landlord.  This seems bonkers to me and only creates expense for the landlord that will inevitably be passed to the tenants in the next rent rise.  See the ground floor plan on the left.

The second case is even more bizarre.  This is another house with six tenants.  It has two bathrooms, each of which contain a toilet.  You'd think that would be fine as the guide says that for 1-4 tenants one bathroom that contains a toilet is sufficient.  But no - for six people if you have two bathrooms that both contain a toilet you also have to have a separate toilet.  I understand that toiled has now been fitted after the issue was forced by the council -  in a room that opens onto the kitchen, as one of the options the council suggested.  The tenants hate it and never use it because of the smell into the kitchen and obvious hygiene issue.   The work the council has imposed again strikes me as a waste of money and another inevitable rent rise.  I really don't see why the house can't be treated as two groups of three people with a toilet-containing bathroom for each group.

My real issue with all this - both these cases, and the one I talked about at full council - is that these are groups of consenting and non-vulnerable adults sharing a house in a responsible and neighbourly way, with good relationships with their landlords.  One of them even said to me: "As a landlord it is my policy to provide almost anything my tenants ask for.  They are, after all, my customers.  Thus, for example, if one tells me that their mattress is uncomfortable I don't even check it myself.  If they say it is uncomfortable...it is; so I change it.   A quick phone call to my supplier who delivers and takes away the old one is easy and not very expensive.  It makes good business sense to treat tenants well.  I even turned out to fix a leak on Christmas Day.  The tenants really do not want these things that Council officers are forcing us to do."

The council is not protecting tenants in these cases - it is making problems and rent rises when there were no problems and everyone was happy.  This is absolutely classic Labour behaviour:  We'll decide what's best for you and make sure you have it - even if you don't want it! This attempt to impose a one-size fits all policy on a complex situation where one set of guidelines clearly does not fit all situations is just causing unnecessary expense and waste for landlords and rent rises for tenants in a not exactly financially buoyant time of the economic cycle.  Tenancies come in many different forms - some are room by room, some are whole-house, some have individual locks on rooms, some don't.

I am of course all in favour of pursuing landlords who are negligent, don't keep their properties in good repair and treat their tenants badly.  These are not examples of that though - these tenants are financially capable working people who choose to live in high quality HMOs because they can't afford to live in other way in Oxford with housing being in such short supply and so expensive.  The landlords are providing essential accommodation for the people of Oxford and running decent, honest businesses doing it.  In many cases this is to fund retirement - which seems entirely reasonable to me.  If the landlords were not treating the tenants well they would move out!

There are two ends of the HMO spectrum in Oxford.  At one end you have cases like those I've mentioned and at the other end you have run-down, damp, cold, overcrowded properties with vulnerable tenants with few choices.  In my mind THESE are the places where council intervention is welcome and essential.  But it really is not welcome or needed when landlord and tenants were happy and everything was fine - it is not the job of the council to disrupt perfectly good and safe arrangements between good landlords and non-vulnerable tenants.  The Labour council should be arguing about numbers of cockroaches in some properties - not numbers of sinks or toilets in places where everyone is happy!

This was put rather well by one of the landlords at the last full council also:

"I would ask that the council focus on the highest risk properties and are not deflected by technical breaches of guidelines. That they use scarce resources and strong enforcement powers to protect vulnerable tenants and do not waste their energies on nitpicking .... Please avoid the temptation to consider being a landlord as a life choice of the more unsavoury end of the spectrum."

She is absolutely right! I really want this council to accept that decent, honest landlords actually provide vital housing for many of Oxford's students and young professionals.  These good landlords want the bad landlords brought to account just as much as the council and we councillors do.  The problem is that it feels like the council is currently treating all landlords like the enemy - when the council writes to them for example wouldn't a few sentences in the letter acknowledging the important contribution they are making to the City's housing needs be quite useful?  It might achieve a much better relationship and much better outcomes.

Both of the landlords quoted above have told me they are seriously considering getting out of the business because it is too much hassle.  Neither is young and both are providing good quality accommodation that Oxford desperately needs.  I think it would be a real tragedy if the Labour council's actions pushed these and others out of what is actually an essential business in Oxford thereby removing even more housing stock for young professionals and students who are an absolutely vital part of the economy of our City.

LibDem Group Meeting

We had a meeting of the Lib Dem Group on the City Council today.  We talked about our manifesto for next year and some of the excellent candidates we have lined up.  The meeting was very positive and left me encouraged for the upcoming few months leading up to the elections in 2012.

Three licensing hearings

I was called up at the last minute to join a panel to hear three license applications/variations today.  It was rather annoying as I'd just got home but I cycled back to the Town Hall in about 8 minutes! The applications were:

1.  Kebab Kid on St. Clement's

This application was for a licence to service takeaway food well into the small hours (5am at the weekends) and act as a takeaway.  There were objections from residents and Police concerned with noise in a very residential area and about the tendency for food outlets to be flashpoints for late night gathering of people and disturbance.  Eventually the panel granted reduced hours and imposed a condition requiring door supervisors to aid with dispersal on some evenings of the week.

2.  The Six Bells in Headington Quarry

The was a short extension to hours as part of a revamp of the premises by the brewery.  The panel granted the application as requested and I made sure that none of the extensions came into force until Januray 2012  (thus removing the possibility of using the extra hours in the busy December period, prior to renovation) and also that although the venue could open until 1am on some evenings, it would not be possible to admit new customers after midnight - this is to avoid people leaving other local pubs at their closing time and making a noise walking along to the Six Bells.

3.  The Viking Sports and Social Club in Old Headington

This was really just a regularisation of of existing practice due to technicalities in licensing law and the 2003 Act.  There was some confusion among local residents and indeed the applicant about what their existing club licence covered and about the ability of the licensing panel to change the number of Temporary Event Notices (TENs) that can be used.  TENs are entirely outside the remit of the Council so discussing them was actually a red-herring that caused considerable confusion.  Eventually agreement was reached and I was pleased that we had asked that the club notify neighbours of their yearly plan for events and also notify if any events were added to the calendar later in the year, after it was published.

I left the Town Hall around 8.15pm.  There was one more hearing to do but I couldn't do that as it was for an application in Carfax Ward, the one I represent.

Please note this post does not form an official record of proceedings and should not be treated as such.  The decision notices from the City Council are the definitive documents.

Licensing and Gambling Acts Committee

This was quite a brief meeting.  It included the quarterly report of licensing activity which was presented ably and usefully as ever by Julian Alison, the City Council Licensing Manager.

Most of the meeting focussed on discussion of the government proposals to deregulate lots of forms of licensable entertainment.  While I welcome reduction of red tape I do feel the current regime does give the City Council some very useful and effective tools to make sure the right balance between people's right to quiet enjoyment of their homes and licence-holders' rights to run their businesses.  I don't feel the City Council over-uses or abuses this at the moment.

In principle while I support deregulating where it is safe to do so, I am clear that local authorities do need to have sufficient legislation behind them to be able to properly balance the needs of all people in this City be they those who want to party into the small hours or those that want to sleep in the small hours so they can study or work in the morning.

I do welcome any change that will allow schools, colleges, Universities, charities etc. to be less hindered by legislation when they want to run what are essentially low-risk problem-free events but I do worry about losing control over some bigger and more problematic venues and/or events.  You can read about the proposed changes on the Department for Culture Media and Sport's web site.