|
Local HMO Plans
Concentrations of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs)
have a detrimental impact on the character and amenity, indeed the
sustainability, of neighbourhoods in many towns in the UK. The activities
nationally of the National HMO Lobby to address these impacts are
documented on other pages of the website. Meanwhile, frequently
in response to local campaigns by our members, local planning authorities
(LPAs) around the country have developed local HMO plans
– either to address the problem of concentrations of HMOs
in general, or more particularly, their principal cause, the demand
for student housing.
***
There is ample justification for local HMO plans to
be found in national planning policy. Indeed, where there is demographic
imbalance (for instance, due to HMO concentrations) local plans
are essential to achieve national policy. For instance, Planning
Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) Delivering
Sustainable Development (2005) states "Planning should
facilitate and promote sustainable development by ... ensuring that
development supports existing communities and contributes to the
creation of safe, sustainable, liveable and mixed communities"
(paragraph 5). PPS3 Housing
(2006) goes further: "The Government is seeking to create sustainable,
inclusive, mixed communities in all areas … The specific outcomes
that the planning system should deliver are a mix of housing, both
market and affordable, particularly in terms of tenure and price,
to support a wide variety of households in all areas" (paragraphs
9-10); in particular, paragraphs 20-24 are concerned specifically
with 'Achieving a mix of housing.'
Many authorities already had generic policies. Nevertheless
the development of concentrations of HMOs has revealed the inadequacy
of such policies. Their weakness was largely due to the lack of
any planning controls on the development of HMOs.
More recently, many LPAs have developed more proactive policies,
specific and targeted. Some have been developed under the current
planning regime of Local Plans and Unitary Development Plans (UDPs),
and a few are adopted. But many LPAs are taking advantage of the
new regime of Local Development Frameworks (LDFs). Some policies
take the form of Development Plan Documents (DPDs), which carry
greater weight, but take a long time to adopt; other policies are
being introduced as Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs), which
are quicker but less weighty. Many of these are currently under
development.
Since 2010, local HMO plans in England have become viable, following
the amendment in April 2010 of the Use Classes Order: a new Class
C4 was introduced, specifically for HMOs. This meant that they were
now in a different class from Dwellinghouses (C3); conversion from
C3 to C4 became a 'change of use', and therefore required planning
permission. For a brief six months, this was a national requirement.
However, in October 2010, the General Permitted Development Order
was amended, making change of use from C3 to C4 'permitted development',
exempt from planning permission. LPAs may still require planning
permssion for HMOs - but first they must introduce an Article 4
Direction, removing permitted development rights for change of use
from C3 to C4.
The policies developed so far are of three broad kinds. (1) One
of these is Areas of Restraint: here, an area within
the authority is designated, and within that area, restraints are
imposed on certain forms of development. In most cases, the restraint
is on student housing, including both purpose-built accommodation
and student houses. This approach was pioneered in Birmingham, and
is being followed in Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle. However, in
Oxford, the restraint is on HMOs.
The Inspector's Report on the Leeds
UDP Review rejected its ASHORE (Area of Student Housing Restraint)
proposal, suggesting instead an 'Area of Housing Mix'.
(2) Another kind of policy is the Threshold Approach:
here, a ceiling is set, beyond which certain forms of development
are not permitted. There are two variants, the Scottish and the
English. The Scottish version might be called the ‘blanket’
approach: a ceiling is set which applies to every street within
the authority; this was pioneered by Glasgow, and is being followed
by Fife. Normally, no more than 5% of the properties in any street
may be HMOs. The English version might be called the ‘rolling’
approach. This approach is pioneered by Loughborough: development
proposals for student housing are considered individually, and permitted
only if such developments are below a set percentage of properties
in the neighbourhood. This approach is also being followed by Sheffield,
but here it applies to HMOs.
[In the case of the Threshold Approach, it is important to bear
in mind the distinction between the percentage of properties and
the percentage of the population. The average occupancy of HMOs
is twice that of the average household (which is 2.4, see ODPM,
Survey of English Housing 2003-04). Thus, in an area where
10% of the properties are HMOs, in fact 18% of the population will
be HMO occupants. The National HMO Lobby identifies 10% of properties
or 20% of the population as the ‘tipping-point’ for
HMO-dominance in a neighbourhood: see the discussion in Chapter
2 of Balanced Communities & Studentification
(2008).]
A number of observations may be made about both Areas of Restraint
and the Threshold Approach. First of all, in both cases, the restraint
or prohibition should be applied to HMOs, rather
than to student houses (hence, AMOR or Area of Multiple Occupancy
Restraint). Problems arise from concentrations of HMOs because their
tenants are transient – and this
is true of all HMOs, whether their tenants are students or benefit
claimants or migrant workers or young professionals. Again, definition
of ‘student’ is problematic in various respects; but
there is now a broadly accepted definition of HMO in most of the
UK (based on the Housing Act 2004 and the equivalent legislation
in Northern Ireland and in Scotland). Prohibitions on student housing
can be misrepresented as discriminatory. And HMOs are easier
to monitor (especially with HMO licensing). A second point
to be made is that restraint should be applied, not only to new
HMOs, but also to any development which increases
the capacity of existing HMOs. The new planning definition of HMO
in the Use Classes Orders in
England and in Northern Ireland makes Areas of Restraint
and Threshold policies a realistic option for LPAs.
(3) A third kind of policy developed by LPAs affected by student
HMOs is Purpose-Built Development: here, areas
within the authority are designated for the development of purpose-built
accommodation for students. Since demand by students (rather than
claimants or professionals) is the main driver of concentrations
of HMOs, this policy addresses the cause of the problems arising.
This policy is being followed by Newcastle, for instance.
Such PBD policies are strongly recommended, but they are not
unproblematic. The siting of purpose-built development is an essential
consideration. Purpose-Built Development in the wrong place (within
areas of existing concentration) can exacerbate the situation; and
insensitively sited, can actually generate new problems. First of
all, the key problem is not the HMOs as such (though conversion
of family homes is of course a serious problem in itself) –
rather, the key problem is the concentration, and hence the demographic
imbalance (which generates social, economic and environmental problems,
and undermines the community’s capacity to tackle these problems).
Purpose-Built Development can contribute to imbalance as much as
(if not more than) HMO conversions. Secondly, Purpose-Built Development
attracts additional HMO conversions – on the one hand,
students leaving the accommodation look for housing in the familiarity
of the surrounding neighbourhood; and on the other, their friends
(not in the accommodation) look for housing nearby. Finally, Purpose-Built
Developments are actually a deterrent
to the rebalancing of a community by the immigration of long-term
residents, especially families. [In Leeds, for instance, Kirkstall
Brewery and Sugarwell Court have been developed as purpose-built
residences outside the main student colony – and both have
attracted their own local colonies.]
***
All of these policies are necessary, none on its own is sufficient.
Areas of Restraint address concentrations themselves. The Threshold
Approach tackles developing concentrations. Purpose-built Development
is designed to deflate their causes. Therefore, in order to address
the impacts of concentrations of HMOs comprehensively, the
National HMO Lobby recommends –
# that LPAs with concentrations of HMOs develop local HMO plans
which are proactive, specific and targeted;
# that LPAs consider local HMO plans which comprise a three-fold
strategy, including Areas of Restraint and a Threshold Approach
and (in university towns) Purpose-Built Development,
as complementary policies;
# that in all of these policies, LPAs take account of the problematic
issues raised by each.
Local HMO plans are more realistic than they used to be, now that
planning legislation in relation to HMOs, specifically the Use Classes
Order, in Northern Ireland and in England, provides a clear definition
of HMO (however, Scotland and Wales still await changes in their
UCOs).
LOCAL HMO PLANS AUTUMN 2005 [partially updated,
Spring 2007, Summer 2010, Spring 2011, Autumn 2011]
ENGLAND
London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Notice
of Article
4 Direction, effective 12 March 2012; LDF Borough
Wide Development Policies DPD, Policy BC4: Residential
Conversions and Houses in Multiple Occupation, adopted March 2011
Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council Notice
of Article
4 Direction, effective 22 July 2012
Bath & North East Somerset Council Local
Plan Revised Deposit 2003 (Policy
HG.12 Development for the use of buildings for residential purposes;
and Policy
HG.17 Development of student accommodation); the Council is
due to consider an Article
4 Direction in March 2012.
Bexhill-on-Sea: see Rother District Council
Birmingham City Council Selly Oak Local Plan
Policy 11.22 'Area of Restraint (Student Accommodation)' adopted
2001; LDF, Core
Strategy (Policy SP 28, Student Accommodation), consultation
March 2011
Bournemouth Borough Council: notice of Article
4 Direction, effective 16 December 2011; LDF Core
Strategy Pre-Submission Consultation Document, August 2011
(Policy CS 23 Houses of Multiple Occupation, p56), public
examination, January - March 2012.
Brighton & Hove City Council LDF City
Plan, consulting on an Article 4 Direction, October-December
2011.
Bristol City Council LDF Draft Site
Allocations and Development Management Development Plan Document,
Policy
DM1 Specialist Housing, consultation June - October 2010, revision
due March 2012; notice of Article
4 Direction, effective 11 December 2011.
Canterbury City Council LDF Balanced
Housing Provision: Housing in Multiple Occupation SPD,
consultation 2010; notice of Article
4 Direction, effective 2 December 2011.
Charnwood Borough Council (Loughborough) LDF,
Student
Housing Provision in Loughborough SPD, 2005; Core
Strategy Further Consultation (proposed student accommodation
policy), 2008; notice of Article
4 Direction, effective 12 Feb 2012.
Cornwall Council: despite HMO problems in Falmouth,
arising from the presence of University College Falmouth and the
Cornwall Campus of the University of Exeter, no
Article 4 Direction is proposed.
Durham County Council, City of Durham Local
Plan Policy
H9 Multiple Occupation (saved policy 2007).
Exeter City Council SPG
Student Accommodation in Residential Areas 2008; LDF
Houses in Multiple Occupation SPD, adopted July 2011; notice
of Article
4 Direction, effective 31 December 2011.
Falmouth: see Cornwall Council
Hastings Borough Council: notice of Article
4 Direction, effective 2 July 2012; LDF Core
Strategy, Houses in Multiple Occupation, Proposed Policy,
2011
Hatfield: see Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council
London Borough of Hillingdon, Council resolves
to introduce an Article
4 Direction, Item 38, 3 November 2011
Hull City Council Decision on Article
4 Direction deferred by Cabinet, 24 October 2011
Leamington Spa: see Warwick District Council
Leeds City Council, Leeds
UDP Review, Policy H15 ‘Area of Housing Mix’,
adopted 19 July 2006; Local Development Framework Core
Strategy (2009) (paras 5.3.45-50) (proposes policy on student
accommodation, and SPD on HMOs); notice of Article
4 Direction, effective 10 Feb 2012.
Leicester City Council: At a meeting on 14 November
2011, the City Mayor and Cabinet decided to introduce an immediate
moratorium on
the determination of planning applications for student housing,
pending the production of a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
which will seek to ensure that the need for student accommodation
was filled in a way that was suitable for students and other residents.
North East Lincolnshire Council, SPG02 Conversion
of Properties to Flats and Houses in Multiple Occupation,
adopted 2002
Loughborough: see Charnwood Borough Council
Manchester City Council, Core
Strategy DPD (Policy H11 HMOs),
amendment following public examination 2011, under consultation
30 January - 12 March 2012; notice of Article
4 Direction, effective 8 October 2011.
Milton Keynes Council: two notices of Article
4 Directions, one immediate (29 December 2010), one effective
23 December 2011; Houses
in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document, consultation
October 2011-January 2012.
Margate: see Thanet District Council
Newcastle City Council, Local Development
Framework Supplementary Planning Document on Shared Housing,
February 2008, revoked 25 November 2011; Interim
Planning Guidance on Purpose Built Student Accommodation,
November 2007; notice of Article
4 Direction, effective 24 November 2011; LDF Maintaining
Sustainable Communities SPD, adopted 25 November 2011;
notice of second Article
4 Direction, effective 9 December 2012.
Northampton Borough Council: two notices of Article
4 Directions, one effective immediately (14 February 2011),
one effective 14 March 2012.
Nottingham City Council, Building
Balanced Communities, SPD, adopted March 2006, re-issued
March 2007; notice of Article
4 Direction, effective 11 March 2012.
Ormskirk: see West Lancashire Borough Council
Oxford City Council, Oxford Local Plan: Section
7 Housing Policies (Policies HS.13-HS.15) adopted 2005;
LDF Sites
& Housing DPD (Policy HP7 Houses in Multiple Occupation),
consulting January 2012; notice of Article
4 Direction, effective 24 February 2012.
Plymouth City Council: LDF Core
Strategy, Housing Provision (Policy CS15[3]), adopted 2007;
a SPD on Residential Standards is proposed in the Core Strategy
(10.33); notice of Article
4 Direction, effective 14 September 2012
Borough of Poole LDF Site
Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies Development
Plan Document (Policy SSA16 Talbot Village HMOs), submitted
August 2011; an Article
4 Direction and related HMO policies are under development for
Talbot Village, March 2011.
Portsmouth City Council: notice of Article
4 Direction, effective 1 November 2011; LDF Portsmouth Plan
Submission Draft, Policy PCS19 HMOs:
ensuring mixed and balanced communities, 2011; regrettably
revised
at public examination, July 2011.
Preston City Council: Notice of Article
4 Direction, effective February 2012
Reading Borough Council, Supplementary Planning
Guidance House
Conversions & Houses in Multiple Occupation adopted
22 September 2003; consulting on introducing an Article
4 Direction, November 2011.
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, UDP Policy
HSG15 Non Self-Contained Accommodation [HMOs] adopted 2005
Rother District Council: notice of Article
4 Direction in Bexhill-on-Sea, effective 7 March 2012
Sheffield City Council, Sheffield Development
Framework, Core
Strategy (Policy CS41 Creating Mixed Communities), adopted
2009; notice of Article
4 Direction, effective 10 December 2011.
Southampton City Council, Core
Strategy (Policy CS16 Housing Mix & Type) adopted 2010;
notice of Article
4 Direction, effective 23 March 2012; HMO
SPD, consulting, to 1 February 2012
Thanet (Margate) District Council SPG Residential
accommodation in Cliftonville West Renewal Area, 2007;
notice of Article
4 Direction, effective 4 February 2012.
Warwick District Council: notice of Article
4 Direction in Leamington Spa, effective 1 April 2012.
Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council: notice of Article
4 Direction in Hatfield, effective 12 January 2012; consulting
on Houses
in Multiple Occupation SPD, September-October 2011.
West Lancashire Borough Council: notice of Article
4 Direction in Ormskirk and Aughton, effective 24 December 2011;
West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Preferred Options,
Policy RS3 Provision of Student Accommodation, (a) Purpose-Built
Student Accommodation, (b) Houses in Multiple Occupation, consulting
January 2012.
City of York Local Plan, Chapter
7 Housing (Policy H8 Conversions) approved by Council 2005;
notice of Article
4 Direction, effective 20 April 2012; LDF Houses
in Multiple Occupation Technical Paper, January 2011; Controlling
the Concentration of Houses in Multiple Occupation
SPD, consulting 23 January - 5 March 2012
NORTHERN IRELAND
Belfast Planning Service (NI) Houses
in Multiple Occupation (HMOs): Subject Plan for Belfast City Council
Area 2015 adopted 15 December 2008
Coleraine Planning Service (NI) Coleraine
Borough HMO Subject Plan 2016: Issues paper April 2006, consulting
SCOTLAND
Dundee City Council, Supplementary Planning Guidance
Houses
in Multiple Occupation November 2006
Glasgow City Council City
Plan
Policy RES 13 'Multiple Occupancy' adopted 2004; City
Plan 2 Consultative Draft March 2006 reviews Policy
RES 13
St Andrews Fife Council Fife
Development Plan Policy H6 'Houses in Multiple Occupation',
2005, consulting
National HMO Lobby
email: hmolobby@hotmail.com
website: www.hmolobby.org.uk
|