Brighton & Hove City Council
Culture, Recreation & Tourism Cabinet Member Meeting
4.00pm 7 December 2010
Committee Room 3, Hove Town Hall
MINUTES
Present: Councillor Smith (Cabinet Member) |
Also in attendance: Councillors: Davis (Opposition Spokesperson) and Randal |
34 Public Questions
34.1 The Cabinet Member agreed to consider the following question which was put by Mr. Simon Doyle on behalf of Mr. Roy Pennington a beach chalet tenancy holder.
“What real evidence that, such as the annualised numbers on the list for each of the 5 chalet areas involved, they are “little used”
and what research is there as to the reason for that apparent “little use”
and what difference would it be to the finances of the council to alter the tenancies in this way
and why has there been no consideration of applying any new lease to new tenants only, retaining the original lease for current tenants, much like employers use “natural wastage” to get rid of dead wood.?”
34.2 As the recommendations accompanying the Beach Chalet Policy Proposal report, Item 42 on that days agenda had been amended and largely addressed the points raised by Mr Pennington, the Cabinet Member considered the question and the amended recommendations in concert with one another. Messrs Pennington and Doyle were thanked for their question and the Cabinet Member confirmed that the points raised would be considered under Item 42 (below) and that both would receive a written response following the meeting.
34.3 In relation to the point raised in relation to lack of summer use, this was difficult to monitor. However, if this emerged as an issue raised during the consultation process that could be revisited at that time. The Cabinet Member read out the amended recommendations which he had been asked to approve in relation to the Beach Chalet Policy Proposals (Item 42).
34.4 The Cabinet Member gave Mr Doyle the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. He sought clarification that current tenants would remain unaffected by the introduction of fixed term tenancies and it was confirmed that given the revised recommendations this would be the case pending the outcome of the consultation exercise. Rigorous action would be taken against tenants who did not meet their maintenance responsibilities, a two month notice period would be given to end tenancies in instances where tenants had not maintained chalets in compliance with their tenancy agreements.
34.5 RESOLVED – That the question, and response set out above and in Paragraph 42 of these minutes be received and noted.
42 Beach Chalet Letting Policy Proposal
42.1 The Cabinet Member considered a report of the Strategic Director of Communities setting out the proposed changes to the current letting policy for beach chalets owned by the Council at Ovingdean, Rottingdean, Saltdean, Madeira Drive and Hove Seafront. The proposed increases in the annual rent levied by the Council for the beach chalets at Ovingdean, Rottingdean, Saltdean Madeira Drive and Hove Seafront were also set out, as were the proposed new procedures for beach chalet waiting lists.
42.2 The Cabinet Member referred to the question set out in Paragraph 34 above stressing the amendments made to the recommendations set out in the report as originally circulated. He re-iterated his earlier comments in relation to the consultation process and in relation to action which would be taken in instances where tenants failed to satisfy their maintenance obligations.
42.3 RESOLVED - (1) That the Cabinet Member approves the introduction of a fixed term tenancy for a maximum period of five years for all new beach chalet tenancies which will be available for Brighton & Hove Residents only.
He stated that:
(2) He approves a consultation exercise on amending the policy for letting beach chalets to existing tenants. The aim of the consultation exercise being to reduce the long standing waiting lists.
(3) That the Cabinet Member approves the implementation of a two month notice period to end tenancies when the tenant is not complying with their maintenance responsibilities.
=======================================
comment: i say it was a "charade" because there was no discussion and no consultation --- post-decision consultation is no kind of consultation at all.
For example, why not 7 years? Why any change at all if there is no evidence to change? Why no differential between different locations? Why no look at other terms of the lease eg family or joint leases, short terms sub-leases, ect? what does "Rigorous action" mean? What are the "maintenance obligations"? Will the free-holder fulfill its "maintenance obligations" too? And who will be the representatives in this exercise, given that that there was been a distinct aversion to engage with any discussion with any tenants?
i await the next stage................
