| |
National
HMO
Lobby
Home
What is a HMO?
Local HMO Plans
Ten Point Plan
Lobby
Aims
Constitution
Members
Regions
History
Papers
Leeds HMO Lobby
Lobbying
National Developments
Sustainable Communities
Use Classes Order
HMO Licensing
Taxation of HMOs
Students & Community
Contact
National HMO Lobby
Links
|
|
From Decent Homes to Sustainable
Communities
1. The National HMO Lobby is a network of forty community groups
in thirty towns throughout the UK. Its concern is specifically with
HMOs (houses in multiple occupation) in housing supply, and especially
with addressing the problems these pose for local communities. To
this end, while its members campaign locally, the Lobby itself campaigns
nationally. We have made representations on the Housing Green Paper
Quality & Choice (DETR, 2000), Modernising the
Private Rented Sector (Shelter Commission, 2001), Selective
Licensing of Private Landlords (DTLR, 2001), Use Classes
Order (DTLR, 2002), Planning Policy Statement 1, Creating
Sustainable Communities (Minister for Planning, 2004), Housing
Bill (representations, 2004), Consultation on the Implementation
of HMO Licensing (ODPM, 2005), Householder Consents
(ODPM, 2005), Affordability & the Supply of Housing
(Commons Select Committee, 2005) and so on. And our lobbying was
instrumental in initiating Universities UK’s report on Studentification
(2006). On this basis, the Lobby wishes to respond with three main
points to DCLG’s discussion paper From
Decent Homes to Sustainable Communities – first,
on the usage of existing housing stock for decent homes; second,
on the pre-requisites for sustainable communities; and third, on
integrated ways of approaching both these issues. [For more information
on the Lobby, visit our website.]
2. First of all, the National HMO Lobby wishes to raise the issue
of second homes. More new homes are certainly necessary – but
surely the existing stock should be used as justly as possible? To
our mind it seems little short of criminal that there are people who
are homeless, families who are overcrowded, households anxious to
establish their own homes – when others enjoy the luxury of
not only a secure home, but also an additional second home which they
can also enjoy at their whim. Second homes take a variety of forms.
Best-known of course is the town-dweller who buys a country cottage
as an occasional weekend or holiday retreat. But a recent report by
Direct Line has drawn attention to student second homes also, where
parents buy a house in a university town for use by their children
in term-time [reverse holiday-homes] (1). In many cases, both types
of second home are bought directly by the users. But the burgeoning
buy-to-let market, not to mention the professional private rented
sector, has taken advantage of both of these sources of demand. Of
course, much of the PRS serves a genuine temporary need, for those
moving from the family home to their own home, or from one place of
work to another. The PRS also serves those who can’t afford
to buy. But to some degree, this is a vicious circle - would-be owners
are outbid by property investors. This is especially invidious when
investment properties are let as second homes, to holidaymakers or
to students. (For these markets, there are perfectly viable alternatives,
in the form of purpose-built development, hotels or halls.) The numbers
of houses from existing stock lost to second homes runs into the millions.
Answers are needed.
3. Secondly, the National HMO Lobby wishes to interrogate the DCLG’s
concept of sustainable
community. The Department’s website provides short,
medium and long definitions of ‘sustainable community’,
but all are based on eight elements - Active, inclusive & safe,
Well run, Environmentally sensitive, Well-designed and built, Well-connected,
Thriving, Well-served, and Fair for everyone. The Lobby has no problem
with the validity of these elements. All appear to us to be necessary
to sustaining a community. But neither separately nor indeed collectively
are they sufficient. Above all, obviously, a community
rests on its population base. It is that population which makes
the community harmonious, or the environment green, or the neighbourhood
attractive, and so on. What this means is that a sustainable community
is absolutely dependent on a population base which is both willing
and able to do these things. Lacking this base, no amount
of external intervention will achieve any of the necessary elements.
The discussion paper refers to polarisation as undermining
sustainability (paragraph 4, page 4). This can mean both division
and one-sidedness. It can be between exclusive (privileged) and
excluded (deprived) neighbourhoods (2). Deprivation may undermine
the ability of a resident population to sustain the community.
But at the same time, transience may undermine the will
of a population to be bothered at all about sustainability. So,
any conception of a ‘sustainable community’ needs the
pre-requisite of a willing and able population. Deprivation and
transience often (not always) go hand in hand (3). Answers here
too are needed.
4. Finally, the National HMO Lobby wishes to point out one measure
which would contribute at least part of an answer to these issues
concerning both decent homes and sustainable communities. The measure
centres on the role of HMOs. On the one hand, a significant proportion
of second homes (no longer available as decent homes) are student
houses. Virtually all of these are shared houses, and therefore
fall within the definition of HMO newly provided by the Housing
Act 2004. On the other hand, a significant factor in transience
(undermining sustainable communities) is the private rented sector.
Turnover of occupants is highest in this housing sector (the average
tenancy is eighteen months), and it is highest of all in HMOs. They
have their uses for short-term accommodation, but very few would
care to reside for long in a HMO. The new Housing Act provides for
licensing of HMOs (mandatory licensing of larger and less safe HMOs,
potential additional licensing of others), but these controls are
in the interest of the welfare of the tenants. They are concerned
with quality, not quantity. But it is quantities which need to be
managed, if houses are not to be lost as decent homes, and if sustainable
communities are not to be lost to transience. Proliferation of HMOs
is a matter of planning (not housing) control. But no controls are
available in English planning legislation. The relevant Statutory
Instrument is the Use Classes Order (specifically the Town &
Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 [SI 1987 764]). But HMOs
are not identified there as a distinct usage, and so there is no
planning control of HMOs. As part of an answer to achieving decent
homes and sustainable communities, the National HMO Lobby proposes
revision of the Use Classes Order, such that (a) a common definition
of HMO is adopted in both housing and planning legislation, and
(b) change of use to HMO becomes subject to planning permission.
(Both these steps have been taken in Northern Ireland’s Planning
[Use Classes] Order [Northern Ireland] 2004 [Statutory Rule 2004
458].) Such revision would enable local authorities to control proliferations
of HMOs.
5. The National HMO Lobby recognises that From Decent Homes
to Sustainable Communities is a discussion paper on housing,
whilst our proposals concern planning. But too often, a
failure to resolve a problem adequately arises from ‘silo
thinking’ – that is, considering a problem defined in
one set of terms within that set of terms only – rather that
thinking ‘outside the box [or silo]’, to seek other
solutions. The National HMO Lobby urges the Department for Communities
& Local Government, which after all comprises both housing and
planning, to consider a planning contribution to the move from
Decent Homes to Sustainable Communities.
National HMO Lobby, September 2006
Notes
(1) Reported by the Press Association, 7 August 2006, Second
Homes for Students: “Around 83,000 homes were bought
on behalf of students by last year, a 26% increase since 2000, according
to the study by finance firm Direct Line. The number of houses occupied
by students was predicted to reach 100,000 by the year 2010. The
so-called university effect helped increase the number of "second
properties" to 2.6 million, up from 2.3 million five years
ago. Around 1.6 million of the second properties were buy-to-let,
while others included holiday homes and work bases.” In Leeds,
for instance, there are currently 500 homeless families and 5000
overcrowded (according to Shelter), while the Council estimates
that over 5000 homes have been converted to student HMOs.
(2) See Anna Minton, Building Balanced Communities, RICS,
2002
(3) See Nick Bailey, Population turnover & area deprivation,
JRF, forthcoming, September 2006
National HMO Lobby
email: hmolobby@hotmail.com
website: www.hmolobby.org.uk
|