Houses in Multiple Occupation

Transcription

1 Houses in Multiple Occupation Kath Lawless Head of Development Management Outline Legislative background High Court Challenge Newcastle s approach 1

2 Legislation prior to 6 th April 2010 No separate use class for HMO s HMO s were either sui generis or classed as C3 dwellings if no more than 6 people living together as a family Enforcement based on case law- fact and degree Strong LA lobby for better control of smaller HMO s Changes 6 th April 2010 Govt published consultation paper in May 2009 entitled Houses in Multiple Occupation and possible planning responses. UCO amended to introduce new use class C4 together with definition of HMO in line with Housing Act 2004 GDPO amended to permit change from C4 to C3 but permission need to move from C3 to C4 2

3 Use Class definitions C3- Dwellinghouses Use as a dwellinghouse( whether or not as a sole or main residence) bya) A single person or by people to be regarded as forming a single household. b) Not more than 6 residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents or c) Not more than 6 residents living together as a single household where no care is provided to residents ( other than a use in C4) C3a single household is defined in accordance with S258 of the housing Act 2004 C4 Houses in Multiple Occupation Use of a dwelling by not more than 6 residents as a house in multiple occupation Sui Generis- HMO of more than 6 people Legislation since 1 st Oct 2010 New coalition Govt considered controls introduced in April 2010 were an unnecessary regulatory burden New GPDAO introduced 1 st October 2010 Permitted development to move between C3 and C4 If La s considered there was a local problem then Article 4 directions could be used to take away PD rights Compensation would apply if Article 4 introduced with less than 12 months notice. 3

4 A bit more on compensation If an Article 4 direction is introduced with less than 12 months notice then compensation could apply for: abortive costs of submitting an application Costs in relation to the difference between the value of a C3 dwelling and a C4 HMO High Court Challenge Milton Keynes supported by Newcastle and Oxford granted leave to Judicially review changes to GPDAO and compensation regs 2010 Case heard 30 th March 2011 Case revolved around legality and fairness of consultation undertaken on proposed changes in legislation 4

5 Judgement The Judge (Sir Michael Harrison) considered that the CLG has a broad discretion as to how consultation should be carried out. There had already been a recent and full consultation (in 2009) with LPAs, one of the options being considered at that time was the change proposed by the challenged legislation Therefore it was reasonable for CLG to opt not to repeat that exercise It was reasonable for CLG to carry out an informal consultation with representative bodies prior to making the October changes, rather than ask LPAs to answer questions they had already answered The Judge was content to consider CLG s consultation as a last minute check to inform policy Despite not being consulted directly, all 3 Claimant Councils did submit comments on the changes within the limited consultation period It was felt that the main adverse impacts of the changes were flushed out before the decision to lay the legislation was made. Newcastle s response- background Newcastle has high student population c40,000 students in full time education living in the city Important part of economy and important to provide choice of accommodation Real problem in parts of city where demand for student rented property high and pushing out family dwellings- moving away from sustainable mixed communities 5

6 More background.. High level of residential turnover so no investment in property Inbalance in social mix Loss family homes Emptying out of area outside termtime- positive and negative impact on local businesses and services Falling no of children attending local schools Noise complaints Policy response Supplementary Planning Guidance on Shared Housing adopted 2008 Covers 8 wards in the city including almost households Area identified where high concentrations of HMOs were affecting housing mix and social cohesion and housing choice Council had been lobbying for years for greater controls on HMO s 6

7 7

8 Way forward.. Council resolved to introduce an Article 4 Direction in Area of Housing Mix in September 2010 with 12 months notice. Limited to parts of city where evidence of a problem. Consulted on proposals for 6 week period from November 2010 Confirmed intention to introduce Article 4 Direction will come into force 24 th November 2011 Consultation Letters to bodies such as estate agents, residents group, universities, on web, in libraries housing officers etc Site notices posted Did not write to all 18,000 households 8

9 Implications of the Article 4 direction Article 4 does not mean refusing all changes of use from C3 to C4 Will bring changes of use under control to allow residents to be consulted and implications assessed. Planning applications are currently free so drain on resources Implications for enforcement resources. Implications of the Article 4 direction Currently preparing revised SPD on shared housing Will look at other areas of city where there is pressure from HMO s to see if need to extend Article 4 Will look at general guidance on shared housing Provide guidance on assessing applications for change from C3 to C4 Will consult and adopt by November

10 Lettings boards Advert regulations control lettings boards but significant issue in Jesmond and Heaton Voluntary Code signed up by 42 estate agents 46 enforcement cases investigated in 2010 and 35 resolved Some pressure for area of special control (Leeds have one)- very resource intensive 10

11 Some final thoughts How to reconcile Government commitment to sustainable communities, deregulation, localism and supporting local businesses? Impact of student fees may impact on demand- does this weaken argument for Article 4? How to meet resource implication-and local expectations? 11