Masthead
Model Response
to the CLG Consultation on
Houses in Multiple Occupation and possible planning responses
Give a brief introduction to Oldfield Park and the issues in the area you face.
Consultation Questions
Q1. Do you experience problems/effects which you attribute to high concentrations of HMOs?
# Outline the scale of the concentration of HMOs in your neighbourhood: area, how long, proportion?
# Outline the effects of HMO-concentrations: noise? antisocial behaviour? crime? rubbish? houses & gardens? streets? local shops? local amenities? traffic? parking? etc?
# Outline the causes of these effects, that is, a destabilised community: for instance, population balance? population turnover? local schools? neighbourliness? control over the community’s future? community spirit?
Give evidence of these problems, either statistical or residents’ experiences.
[For a summary, see ‘Symptoms of Studentification’ in the Lobby’s Balanced Communities & Studentification, 2008]
Q2. Do you consider the current planning framework to be a barrier to effective management of HMOs by local planning authorities?
# Manifestly, the local planning authority (LPA) has been unable to manage HMOs in the area. Planning Inspectors have interpreted the idea of ‘single household’ in functional terms: the occupants simply share facilities; but on this basis, any form of sharing could be conceived of as a single household. On the contrary, common usage and housing legislation interpret the idea of ‘single household’ in structural terms, that is, on the basis of the relationships within the household. On this basis, there is a clear distinction between a shared house and a single household (typically a family). It is the lack of a clear distinction between ‘single’ and ‘multiple’ household which makes the UCO ineffective as a tool for the management of HMOs. [Give a local example, if you have one.]
# The current UCO is intended to require planning permission for a HMO: “as a general rule planning permission will be needed before a dwelling house could undergo a material change of use to an HMO” (para25). What is clear is that this is not in fact ‘a general rule’. And the reason is the conflicting definitions of ‘single household’.
Q3. Could promotion of best practice measures as opposed to changes in the planning framework sufficiently deal with the problems associated with HMOs, in particular those problems often associated with high concentrations of HMOs with student occupants?
# Outline any best practice in your locality, by the university or the council. Has it worked?
# Are there measures they could have taken, but haven’t? Do you have any confidence that they are at all likely to adopt any of these measures, if the government settles for Option 1?
# Do any of these measures actually tackle the root causes of the problems – concentrations of HMOs, and therefore demographic imbalance
Q4. If planning legislation is seen as a barrier to the effective management of HMOs in an area how should planning legislation be amended – along the lines of option 2 (introduce a definition along the lines of the Housing Act 2004) or option 3?
# Concentrations of HMOs have caused problems, precisely because of the inadequacy of current planning legislation, the UCO. Option 2 addresses this deficiency directly (in its second variant). First of all, this Option removes the ambiguity over the meaning of ‘single household’. It replaces the functional usage of Planning Inspectors (which allows any shared house to be a ‘single household’). It substitutes the structural definition of the Housing Act 2004, which prioritises the relationships within the household (and therefore excludes shared houses).
# Secondly, Option 2 explicitly removes all houses in ‘multiple occupation’ from Class C3. Either as a new development or as a change of use, they thereby become subject to planning control. The combination of these two steps provides LPAs with powers to manage the provision of HMOs, to be used positively, negatively, or not at all, as they choose. It also provides residents with a process which can alert them to proposals for HMOs locally.
# Option 3 however takes an opposite approach. Though it proposes redefinition of HMO as in Option 2, instead it goes on to remove HMOs from the UCO altogether by identifying them as permitted development, through the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO). LPAs thereby lose any planning control at all – unless they apply successfully for an Article 4 Direction, suspending the permitted development of HMOs in a designated area.
# But such an application is fraught with difficulties. The application process itself is laborious and resource-intensive, and may well involve a Public Inquiry. The decision is out of the hands of the LPA, and subject to central government judgement. And the local authority becomes liable to compensation claims, where HMOs are refused. [Give a local example, if your council has applied, eg for additional HMO licensing, or controls on letting boards.]
Q5. Do practitioners have a preference for one approach listed as part of option 2 over the other?
# The key problem with the current UCO is not to do with numbers of occupants, but with their relationships. If Planning Inspectors have no difficulty in accepting eight unrelated occupants as a ‘single household’, then it seems unlikely that smaller numbers would pose any problems. Lowering the threshold to three persons, as proposed in para37, therefore makes no contribution to improving the effectiveness of the UCO.
# On the other hand, the second variant of Option 2, in para38, addresses the key problem directly. Currently, the idea of ‘single household’ is undefined. Planning Inspectors have resorted to a functional interpretation (‘do the occupants share facilities?’). Any shared house is thereby regarded as a single household. However, in normal usage, the term ‘shared house’ indicates that sharing takes place precisely because the occupants are not a single household (typically, they are a family). The definition in the Housing Act 2004 adopts this structural definition, which thereby captures HMOs unambiguously.
# The second variant goes on to remove newly-defined HMOs from any of the present Use Classes – thereby subjecting them to a need for planning permission, and placing them within the planning control of the LPA.
Q6. What effect would a change to the Use Classes Order as described in option 2 have on those local planning authorities that do not encounter problems with high concentrations of HMOs?
# If a LPA had no problems with HMOs, then Option 2 would make little difference. HMO applications could simply be processed as normal. If a LPA wished to encourage HMOs, it could simply adopt a local planning policy to that effect – as indeed the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames has done (UDP, Policy HSG 15, “The Council will consider favourably applications for new non self-contained accommodation.”)
Q7. Would a change to the Use Class Order as described in option 2 or 3 have an impact on the homeless and other vulnerable groups?
# Insofar as the changes to the UCO proposed in Options 2 and 3 increase LPAs’ capacity to manage the provision of HMOs, then these changes should be advantageous to the homeless and others. In the present market free-for-all, many HMO landlords target wealthier markets, like young professionals and students – at the expense of the homeless. Improved controls would allow LPAs to make better provision for vulnerable groups like the homeless.
# Furthermore, many HMOs are in fact effectively used as second homes, when they are occupied by students on a seasonal basis, as temporary term-time accommodation. This demand places additional pressure on the housing stock generally. [Give examples of housing shortage in your area.]
Q8. Would a change to the Use Classes Order as described in option 2 or 3 have any unintended consequences, for example an impact on small scale care homes or children’s homes, which are currently classed a C3 dwelling houses?
# Para38 of the Consultation Paper proposes am amendment to the UCO which would take care of the impact of Option 2or 3 on smaller scale care homes or children’s homes. There may be other unintended consequences – if so, they must be set against the consequences (surely unintended) of current legislation.
Q9. Would a change to the Use Classes Order as described in option 2 or 3 impact unfairly – directly or indirectly – on any equality strands?
# “The planning system is about land use impacts and does not differentiate between different types of occupant” (paraA71). It should not therefore imply any inequalities. In fact, the current planning framework does give rise to inequality. Concentrations of HMOs represent an extreme of social polarisation, which excludes single households, owner-occupation and social renting, and children and the elderly. Change to the UCO would enable LPAs to promote housing mix -which is after all, national policy (PPS3).
Q10. Would a change to the Use Classes order reduce the supply of HMO accommodation in your area?
# The need for planning permission might discourage some HMO developers – but if they are so easily discouraged, this may be just as well. In fact, change to the UCO need have no impact on supply. On the contrary, it would enable LPAs better to manage the supply and distribution of HMOs.
Q11. If amendments are made to the Use Classes Order, should a property that has obtained planning permission for use as an HMO require planning permission to revert back to a C3 dwelling house?
# The consultation on HMOs is prompted by the need to address the acknowledged problem of concentrations of HMOs. Reversion from HMOs to Class C3 should therefore be encouraged – and planning permission should not be required. The GPDO could be amended so that such change is ‘permitted development’.
Q12. Would a change to the Use Classes Order as described in option 3 place a new burden on local planning authorities?
# Option 3 would place heavy burdens on LPAs who wished to manage HMOs. First, they would have to engage in the costly process of seeking an Article 4 Direction. Secondly, they would lose the fees which currently cover the costs of planning applications.
Q13. Under option 3, would the removal of the current requirement for HMOs to seek planning permission pose a problem for practitioners in managing land use impacts in their area?
# Option 3 would remove from all LPAs the ability to tackle inappropriate one-off HMO developments. Those who wished to encourage HMOs would lose any leverage. Those who wished to discourage concentrations would be dependent on successfully applying for an Article 4 Direction.
Q14. Should the compensation provisions included in Section 189 of the Planning Act 2008 be applied to change of use between C3 dwelling house and an HMO if option 3 were to be implemented?
# Since potential compensation claims would be a major disincentive to LPAs to apply for an Article 4 Direction, then any means to minimise these should be adopted – including Section 189 of the Planning Act 2008.
Q15. How important would the risk of compensation be in the decision to use Article 4 directions under option 3?
# The answers to Q4 and Q14 have already indicated that the potential compensation costs to LPAs of Option 3 would be prohibitive, and a decisive deterrent to using Article 4 Directions.
Q16. Would the extra certainty of greater control bring benefits that outweigh the burdens placed by the need to process more planning applications?
# The burdens placed by the need to process more planning applications under Option 2 are negligible. The Consultation Paper itself makes clear that “local planning authorities are assumed to have no additional costs given that the fees cover the administrative costs” (paraA36).
# However, the benefits brought by the extra certainly of greater control under Option 2 are enormous. These benefits arise from the savings made by avoiding the costs of concentrations of HMOs. These costs are wide-ranging, and include –
• Staffing of noise nuisance services;
• Extra waste disposal and street cleansing, as well as clearing ill-managed waste;
• Tackling rodent infestation;
• Removing fly-posting and graffiti;
• Additional policing, especially at the beginning of the academic year, and coping with burglary throughout;
• Casualisation of the local economy, and loss of income during vacations;
• Management of traffic and parking problems;
• Intensive demand on public services, not only policing and environmental health, but also housing, planning, etc;
• Loss of social capital, which keeps neighbourhoods clean, quiet and safe;
• Extra investment of time by local authority and university officers in liaison, consultation, planning, implementation, etc;
• Development of dedicated policies on housing, planning, licensing, environment, etc;
• Extra policing, by police and by council officers during freshers week and changeover, at the beginning and end of the academic year.
• Restoring HMOs as family homes.
[Add or delete as appropriate to your area; give local references.]
Impact Assessment (optional)
Do you think that the impact assessment broadly captures the types and levels of costs associated with the policy options? If not why?
Do you think that the impact assessment broadly captures the types and levels of benefits associated with the policy options? If not why?
Do you agree that the impact assessment reflects the main impacts that particular sectors and groups are likely to experience as a result of the policy options? If not why not?
