National HMO
Lobby

Home
What is a HMO?
Local HMO Plans
Ten Point Plan

Lobby
Aims
Constitution
Members
Regions
History
Papers

Leeds HMO Lobby
Nottingham Action Group

Lobbying
National Developments
Sustainable Communities
Use Classes Order
HMO Licensing
Taxation of HMOs
Students & Community

Contact
National HMO Lobby
Links

Annexes to the response by the National HMO Lobby to Communities & Local Government's Proposals for changes to planning application fees in England (2010), presented to CLG, 30 November 2010.

Annex X Question 4
The Proposals for changes to planning application fees in England ask at Question 4, "are there any other development management services which are not currently charged for but should require a fee?" Paragraph 22 gives as examples applications regarding Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Tree Preservation Orders, and suggests that these should not be charged, because (1) these are additional restrictions imposed on owners, (2) they carry additional burdens in terms of maintenance, and (3) they are in the public interest.
However, Annex A lists numerous other types of application for which a fee is not currently payable. This is of some concern, as around 35 per cent of development management resources are being allocated to dealing with applications which do not currently incur a fee (Proposals, paragraph 10). The current review should be seeking to reduce these exemptions. One of these is applications for development which is allowed under permitted development rights where those rights have been removed by an Article 4 direction. In this case, the reasons given for not charging a fee in paragraph 22 do not apply.
(1) Article 4 directions do not impose additional restrictions. They are invoked only in situations where planning permission has been granted for certain classes of development described as permitted development in Schedule 2 of the GPDO. Effectively, an Article 4 direction removes the prior permission provided by the GPDO, and restores the status quo.
(2) Article 4 directions do not carry additional burdens, in terms of maintenance or otherwise. While Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Tree Preservation Orders require preservation and maintenance by owners, an Article 4 direction simply removes a prior permission.
(3) Article 4 directions are indeed in the public interest. But they are invoked where the public interest may be compromised by the pursuit of private interest. As paragraph 9 of the proposals states, "Planning decisions often bring private benefit to the applicant; in particular, a property with planning permission may be much more valuable than it would be without. The power granted to authorities to charge planning application fees reflects the possible private benefit implicit in a planning permission. An applicant should expect to pay a fee for an application that could bring a measure of gain." Permitted development rights benefit the applicant only. Article 4 directions are introduced only to protect the public interest from exercise of those rights.
(For a specific example of an Article 4 direction, see the answer to Question 6 in Annex Y, below.)
Article 4 directions are an instance where "applicants are receiving private benefits without having to pay a fee for their application. This isn't sustainable for authorities and is unfair for the general tax payer, who is subsidising the application" (para 15). Therefore, the National HMO Lobby recommends that fees should be charged for development management services incurred by Article 4 directions.

Annex Y Question 6
Question 6 asks, "What are the likely effects of any of the changes on you, or the group or business or local authority you represent?" The National HMO Lobby, which has campaigned for ten years for planning controls on HMOs, is particularly interested in charges for development services which do not currently require a fee - in particular, applications for development which is allowed under permitted development rights where those rights have been removed by an Article 4 direction.
In response to the Lobby, the previous government adopted Statutory Instrument 2010 653, which introduced a new definition of HMO, and separated smaller HMOs from Use Class C3, re-allocating them to a new Class C4. The present government adopted SI 2010 2134, which made change of use from C3 to C4 permitted development, on the understanding that LPAs which wished to control HMOs could introduce Article 4 directions, removing this permitted development right.
One of the problems facing such LPAs is the fact that planning applications which would arise in these cases will not incur a fee. Processing these applications therefore would present LPAs with considerable expense, not reimbursed. This situation is contrary to current government policy in two respects. First of all, policy generally is to enable authorities to set their own fees which reflect local costs (Proposals, para 4), and to widen the scope of fees, especially as "around 35 per cent of development management resources are being allocated to dealing with applications which do not currently incur a fee" (paragraph 10). Secondly, policy specifically is to enable LPAs to manage HMO development locally by means of Article 4 directions, even though applications generated thereby do not require a fee.
There are good reasons for charging a fee for HMO applications required by an Article 4 direction. (1) A direction does not impose an additional restriction on applicants. It simply restores the normal requirement that change of use from C3 to C4 needs planning permission. (2) A direction implies no additional burdens for applicants. Indeed, any costs they may entail are incurred entirely voluntarily by the applicant wishing to convert a property to HMO. (3) A direction protects the public interest. HMO conversions are entirely for the benefit of the owner, who thereby profits from the income generated. Over-development of HMOs is detrimental to the public interest, damaging the character of an area and the amenity of residents. It was these very problems which led to new legislation on HMOs in the first place.
The changes recommended by the National HMO Lobby in answer to Question 4 would facilitate government policy, and help to alleviate the detrimental impacts on the local communities which are its members, caused by uncontrolled development of concentrations of HMOs.

Note, on 3 August 2012, the government at last published Proposals for changes to planning application fees in England: Consultation - Summary of responses (which was supposed to have come into effect in 2011). There were 425 responses, 51% from the public sector (local authorities), 32% from the private sector, and 6% from the third sector (including the National HMO Lobby). 62% supported the localisation of fees, a majority supported charging fees for resubmitted applications, 61% supported higher fees for retrospective applications, 71% supported extending the range of fees, and 63% opposed any more exemptions. But the government has resolved to take no action on their consultation at all! They have ignored our recommendation on A4D applications, and are not devolving fees, nor making any changes to the range of fees. All they propose, after their consultation, is to make a national increase in existing fees of 15%.

National HMO Lobby
email: hmolobby@hotmail.com website: www.hmolobby.org.uk