Agenda item - Houses of Multiple Occupation - Response to matters raised at full Council

Report of the Executive Director, Economy Environment & Culture (copy attached).

(1) That the Committee notes the contents of the report as a response to the matters raised, set out in paragraph 1.1 of the report, in particular;

            (2) That the City Plan Part One is not reviewed and that consequently the radius and % threshold relating to assessments of HMO concentration set out in Policy CP21 are not altered;

            (3) That the Committee support the inclusion of additional criteria (as described in paragraph 3.14 of the report) in a draft HMO policy in the Draft City Plan Part Two, due to go out to public consultation in summer 2018;

            (4) That the process seek an extension of the Article 4 Direction Area is not commenced at the current time, but the situation be closely monitored.

23.1    The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment and Culture which had been prepared in response to matters been raised at the meeting of Full Council which had taken place on 20 October 2016 following submission of a petition on behalf of “Family Homes Not HMOs.

23.2    It was noted that the petition had requested that:

            i The City Plan Part One be reviewed in order to increase the area of restriction from 50 metres where applications for conversion to HMOs would be rejected if more than 5% of dwellings were already HMOs;

            ii Consideration be given to the extension of the current Article 4 Direction area and options to further extend the licensing of private rented housing; and

            iii Consideration be given as to whether to better align the Planning and Licensing functions in relation to HMOs and learn from other university towns as to more effective management of student HMOs and to request a report on this matter to committee.

23.3    It was noted that as set out in Policy CP21 of the City Plan Part One, the current threshold used in considering planning applications for new build HMOs or a change of use to HMO was that they would not permitted where more than 10% of dwellings within a radius of 50 metres of the application site were already in HMO use. This policy was being used to determine planning applications and applications which did not meet the criteria were usually refused. Research undertaken had indicated that no other planning authorities had set a threshold below 10% which would appear to show that a threshold as low as 5% would be hard to justify as a level which caused significant harm to residential amenity. It would need to be demonstrated that a 5% concentration was the ‘tipping point’ where a locality became unbalanced and the negative impacts of HMO concentrations become apparent, and that the current 10% level was ineffective in preventing further deteriorations in residential amenity.

23.4    The Article 4 Direction and Policy CP21 wase not intended to provide a cap on the total number of HMOs, rather to prevent further over-concentrations in areas that already had a proliferation by encouraging a more even spread. The evidence set out in Appendix 1 indicated the policy as currently worded was effective in preventing further proliferation of HMOs in areas of high concentrations. Planning policy could not however be applied retrospectively to reduce concentrations in areas with existing high levels of HMOs.

23.5    The threshold for refusing new HMOs in CP21 had been intentionally set at what was considered to be a relatively high level to reflect the sensitivity of a large proportion of the residential areas covered by the Article 4 Direction which were covered by high density terraced housing, the benchmarking exercise which had been carried out had indicated that the 10% within 50m threshold in Brighton and Hove was one of the most stringent. Extending the distance from the application property from 50m to 150m for the purposes of analysing the existing concentration of HMOs would  be hard to justify. Properties at a greater distance away were less likely to be affected by any negative amenity impacts such as noise disturbance that could arise from the potential HMO.There might also be unintended consequences of extending the radius of the area considered from 50m to 150m. Applications currently refused due to there being over 10% HMOs within 50m could fall below the 10% threshold as a consequence of extra properties being included in the assessment of a wider 150m radius area. For example, a larger radius could include a flatted development several streets away, these were usually predominantly C3 residential units. This would make the grant of permission more likely even if the HMO concentration within the immediate 50m radius is above the threshold. The opposite effect may also occur however, and the overall effect on the number of applications granted is likely to be neutral and for that reason this approach was not recommended.

23.6    Councillor Morris noted the content of the report stating that in his view possible extensions in future should be given serious consideration.

23.7    Councillor Nemeth considered that consideration of percentage change overall had some merit and should be explored. It was explained that some changes could be effected as a result of the on-going consultation process and what form they might take would emerge as a result of that process.

23.8    Councillor Druitt stated that he welcomed the report and the approach suggested which he considered to be sound.

23.9    Councillor Mears stated that she was in agreement that the suggested approach which sought to take account of the high density terraced housing which characterised some areas of the city represented a sensible approach.

23.10  RESOLVED – (1) That the Committee notes the contents of the report as a response to the matters raised, set out in paragraph 1.1 of the report, in particular;

            (2) That the City Plan Part One is not reviewed and that consequently the radius and % threshold relating to assessments of HMO concentration set out in Policy CP21 are not altered;

            (3) That the Committee support the inclusion of additional criteria (as described in paragraph 3.14 of the report) in a draft HMO policy in the Draft City Plan Part Two, due to go out to public consultation in summer 2018;

            (4) That the process seek an extension of the Article 4 Direction Area is not commenced at the current time, but the situation be closely monitored.