In proposing the motion, Councillor Mike Whiting explained he had received complaints about works to convert a property in his ward to a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) which were lawful, and which planning permission was not required. This meant local residents, including elected Members had no right to comment on the development, and the motion put forward sought to give communities across the borough the right to be heard on the subject of HMO’s. Councillor Whiting said a range of affordable properties were needed for local residents, and HMO’s could play a positive role. He said the motion did not seek to prevent HMO’s, but sought the Council’s ability to set its own HMO development policy and give the Planning Committee the right to refuse or include planning conditions and give the public the right to be consulted.

Councillor Whiting explained the different controls in place for large and small HMO’s under permitted development rights, and said removing the permitted development rights on small HMO’s would necessitate planning permission. He also explained that an immediate Article 4 direction took effect straight away but may make the Council liable for compensation should the application be considered and then refused within 12 months of submission. A non-immediate Article 4 direction came into effect 12 months after the decision to implement it, but prevented applicants from claiming compensation. Councillor Whiting said there was a risk with a non-immediate Article 4 direction of a rush of applications before the Article 4 direction took effect. He said there had been very few claims for compensation on those Councils that had chosen to impose an immediate Article 4 direction.

Turning to the second recommendation at 2.2 in the Agenda pack, Councillor Whiting said he believed the Council should expedite a Supplementary Planning Guidance Document (SPD) to address the aspects of HMO’s as set out in the motion, and he raised concern that the increase of HMO’s could be connected to increases in antisocial behaviour, increased pressure on car parking and the loss of single family homes. Councillor Whiting set out the benefits an SPD could provide to officers and members of the Planning Committee in managing HMO’s.

Referring to 2.3 in the motion, Councillor Whiting stressed the importance of consulting residents.

In seconding the motion Councillor Kieran Mischuk reserved his right to speak.

Members were invited to speak and made comments including:

·         Thanked Councillors Whiting and Mischuk for bringing the motion to Full Council;

·         noted the disruption that HMO’s could have on an area;

·         supported the motion which was about protecting communities, residents’ rights to speak and giving guidance to the Council;

·         considered landlords dividing properties to fit in as many people as they could was a negative, and the profits they made;

·         the motion would assist in making HMO’s fit for purpose;

·         sought clarification on the Use Class a refuge would fall under, as was concerned that a refuge might be publicly identified at Planning Committee;

·         there was a need to balance the desperate need for affordable, good quality housing with the legitimate concerns of the community and HMO’s played a vital role in housing;

·         poorly regulated HMO’s could lead to terrible standards and strain on local services;

·         raised concern that an immediate Article 4 direction could expose Councils to compensation claims;

·         would only support a non-immediate Article 4 direction with a clear SPD;

·         supported safe, decent and properly managed HMO’s but should not rush into it;

·         could not support the motion in its current form;

·         this needed to be set up quickly in order to avoid a rush in developers setting up HMO’s before they were considered by Planning Committee;

·         clarified whether Council could make decisions when there were budget implications if compensation claims were made;

·         gave examples where an HMO had provided much needed accommodation for residents but other examples where accommodation was inadequate and a health and safety breach;

·         residents in HMO’s and new flat conversions in Swale were not entitled to resident parking permits and this caused issues;

·         gave experiences of HMO’s with poor fire safety records;

·         preferred immediate Article 4 to avoid landlords giving notice to existing tenants in houses that might be converted to HMO’s, and the resultant issues of re-housing residents;

·         sought clarity on the process for the motion to be implemented;

·         understood the need to regularise but could not support because of the impact on under 35 year old’s;

·         referred to new legislation that would place more responsibility on landlords to provide adequate accommodation; and

·         raised concern whether there was capacity for officers to assess HMO applications and to write a policy.

Officers confirmed the Use Class for a refuge was either Class 2 or sui generis, and would therefore not be included or impacted by the motion. In respect of compensation claims, the Monitoring Officer advised the decision would not be made at Council, the motion sought to refer the matter to the relevant Committee for decision.

The seconder of the motion, Councillor Mischuk, said the motion supported vital local-decision making and gave the power to the Council to reject any HMO’s it considered unfit.

The proposer of the motion, Councillor Whiting, thanked Members for the constructive debate. He agreed there needed to be protection for the anonymity of refuges and this should be looked at by officers. Councillor Whiting said there were very few examples of where developers had sought compensation. Finally he said there was a need for good HMO’s and the motion sought to ensure that through its own policy and SPD’s.

Resolved:

That this Council notes that:

1.1. Since 2010 the conversion of a dwelling house into a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) for up to six residents has been permitted development. This means that full planning permission is not required to undertake these conversions and the council, as the Local Planning Authority, has no control over the numbers or locations where these occur, and local communities are denied the opportunity to comment.

1.2. HMO’s, while a valuable element in the overall housing supply

offering affordable accommodation, they can have significant impacts on local amenity, including increased parking demand, refuse generation, local infrastructure, public services, housing balance and changes to the character of residential areas.

1.3. Unregulated or concentrated growth of HMO’s in specific neighbourhoods may lead to a lack of available properties for families and single occupiers.

1.4. Several local authorities across England have implemented Article 4 Directions to require planning consent for all new HMO’s, thereby allowing for better local oversight and policy application.

1.5. Article 4 Directions can either be non-immediate or immediate. A non-immediate Article 4 Direction does not take effect for a set period of time after it is introduced. This period of time can be any period from 28 days to 2 years, however it would normally be 12 months. An immediate Article 4 Direction takes effect as soon as it is introduced.

This Council therefore resolves to:

2.1. Commence the process of introducing a borough-wide Immediate Article 4 Direction under the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 to remove the permitted development right allowing the conversion of a dwelling house (Use Class C3) into an HMO for up to six residents (Use Class C4), where the following types of property will be among those most likely to be classed as an HMO:

2.1.1. an entire house or flat which is let to three or more tenants who form two or more households and who share a kitchen, bathroom or toilet

2.1.2. a house or flat which has been converted entirely into bedsits or other non[1]self-contained accommodation and which is let to three or more tenants who form two or more households and who share kitchen, bathroom or toilet facilities

2.1.3. a converted house which contains one or more flats which are not wholly self[1]contained (i.e. each flat does not contain within it a kitchen, bathroom and toilet) and which is occupied by three or more tenants who form two or more households

2.1.4. a building which is converted entirely into self-contained flats if the conversion did not meet the standards of the 1991 Building Regulations and more than one-third of the flats are let on short-term tenancies

2.2. Refer this matter to the relevant Committee to develop a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) addressing:

2.2.1. A maximum threshold for HMO’s within defined areas or individual streets to avoid over concentration

2.2.2. Minimum off-street parking requirements for HMO’s to reduce pressure on local roads

2.2.3. Proper waste and recycling storage and management for all HMO’s

2.2.4. Minimum room sizes and standards in line with national guidelines

2.3. Consult with residents, ward councillors, parish councils, area committees, and other stakeholders to ensure the proposed Article 4 Direction and revised SPD are responsive to community concerns while supporting access to affordable housing.