Agenda item

            The Committee considered the following report, together with the associated appendices:

 

 

“1.0     Purpose of Report orSummary of MainIssues

 

1.1       Toupdate memberson theproject forthe removalof deemedconsent forestate agentsignage in theStranmillis, Queens andHolylands areas.

 

1.2       Toseek Committeeendorsement for the preferred option.

 

1.3       Toseek authorityto applyto theDepartment forInfrastructure (DfI)to servea directionunder Section6 ofThe Planning(Control ofAdvertisements) Regulations(Northern Ireland)2015 restrictingthe displayoflettingsboards inthe Stranmillis,Queens andHolylandsareas inaccordance withthe PreferredOption setout inthis reportatparagraphs 3.9-3.11.

 

2.0       Recommendations

 

2.1       Membersare askedto:

 

·        Notethe current position.

 

·        Endorse the Preferred Optionfor restricting signage set out at paragraphs3.9- 3.11.

 

·        Authorisethe submission ofa full report and proposal to DfI.

     

3.0       Main report

 

            Background

 

3.1       Memberswillbe familiarwiththe strategicproject ongoingto tackletheproliferation ofestate agentsignage inthe areasofStranmillis,Queens andthe Holylands.It wasagreed withMembers thata proposalwouldbemade toDfIfollowingappropriate surveyingand consultationunder Section6 ofThe Planning(Control ofAdvertisements) Regulations(Northern Ireland)2015 whichpermits theremoval ofdeemedconsent bythe Department for Infrastructure(DfI).

 

3.2       Followingdatacollection andliaison withDfI, Members were updated atthe 15thNovember 2016Committee of theconsultation periodfor theproposal includingtwokey stakeholderevents (onefor residentsand theother forestate agents/landlords)atCity Halland thelaunch ofa questionnaireconsultation onCitizenSpace whichconcluded on 9thDecember 2016.

 

            Keyconsultation results

 

3.3       Aspart ofa 12 week publicconsultation issued tokey stakeholdersseeking viewson the display ofTo Let boards, there were243 consultation responsesto thequestionnaire including 176 residents, 43landlords and 24estate agents.

 

·        86%agreed it was harming theappearance of thearea

·        82%agreed it was making thearea less desirable

·        78%agreed it attracted vandalismand burglaries (through appearance of empty properties)

·        85%agreed it gives the impressionthat onlystudents live in theseareas

 

3.4       Theresults showthat 95.5%ofresidents, 69.8%oflandlords and41.7% ofestate agentsare in favourofsomesort of restriction onTo Let boards.

 

3.5       Itis clearfrom theconsultation thatresidents arein favourofacomplete ban(67.6% favoura banwhile23.2% wouldprefer arestriction)whileestate agentsand landlordswould preferto retainthe currentregulations (70.8%).Of the29.2% thatwouldwelcome achange, 43%favour restrictions while57% wouldprefer aban. Individuallandlords areparticularly concerned asthey say areunable to use websites such as PropertyPal orProperty Newsbecause theyare notregistered agents.All stakeholdersgenerally agreedthat the current system requireschange.

 

            PolicyOptions

 

3.6       Completeban –other jurisdictionshave optedfor acomplete banofestate agentsignage renderingit acomplete andsimple solutionto theproblem. Thereis littleenforcement monitoring to do asany signageis a directoffence.

 

3.7       Restrictedsignage –local authoritiessuch asCardiff andNewcastle permitrestricted signagewhereby small,flush signsare permittedbut only at certaintimes. The numberper streetis alsorestricted, forexample, eachestate agentor landlordmay onlyhave oneadvertisement perstreet. This entailsa largerenforcement resourceimplication, certainlyinitially,but acknowledgesthe difficultythat individuallandlords havewithadvertising online.

 

3.8       Withinthe restrictedsignage option,there area numberofsub-options wherebythe Councilcan choosethe amountoftime thesignage isdisplayed, thenumber ofsigns perstreetetc.

 

            Preferredoption

 

3.9       Officershave reviewedthe evidencegathered andlistened tothe viewsof thekey stakeholdersand itis consideredthat themost inclusiveand consideredoption wouldbe aproposal forrestricted signagewhichwould balancethe concernsofboth residentsand estate agents/landlords.

 

3.10     Itwasclear throughengagement withestate agentsand landlordsthat theirbusiest timeofyear isbetween April and September.It wouldtherefore seemappropriate torestrict thesignage tothese sixmonths ratherthan the3-month banengaged inother citiessuch as Cardiff.This isalso a gesture towardsthe residents’ preference fora completeban.

 

3.11     Therestricted signagewould not be permittedon everydwelling, rather itis restrictedto onesign peragent/landlord perstreet. Acopy ofdraft guidancehas beenprovided atAppendix A.

 

            Futureimplementation

 

3.12     ShouldDfI see fitto grantthe reviseddeemed consentfor theseareas,Belfast PlanningService willcontinue itsengagement withkey stakeholdersto ensurethat thescheme iswell publicised and support isprovided to those operatingwithin theseareas.

 

3.13     Anenforcement strategy fordealingwiththe schemewillbe implementedand willtake a‘zero tolerance’approach toensure fairnessfor all.It isenvisaged thiswillinvolvea pro-active approach includingsurveying.

 

4.0       Finance andResource Implications

 

            Thereare noadditional resourceimplications arisingout ofthis submissionand itis hopedthat ultimatelythe successfulimplementation ofthis schemewillreduce theresources necessary toenforce estateagent signage in thearea.

 

5.0       Assetand Other Implications

 

            None.”

 

            During discussion Members raised the issue of enforcement, set templates for signage, registered signage, and best practice.

 

Proposal

 

            Moved by Councillor Hussey, and

            Seconded by Councillor Dorrian,

 

      The Committee agreed to the preferred option as outlined in 3.9 of the report.

 

            On a vote by show of hands four Members voted for the proposal and six against and it was declared lost.

 

Further Proposal

 

            Moved by Councillor Mullan, and

            Seconded by Councillor Lyons,

           

      The Committee agreed to the removal of deemed consent for estate agent signage in the Stranmillis, Queens and Holylands areas and to apply to the Department for Infrastructure to serve a direction under Section 6 of The Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 for a complete ban of lettings boards in these area.

 

            On a vote by show of hands six Members voted for the proposal and three against and it was declared carried.