Subject: Director/Head of Service: Decision Issues: Classification: CCC Ward(s): Summary: To Resolve: Next stage in process Canterbury Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) Article 4 Direction Ian Brown These matters are within the authority of the Committee This report is open to the public. Barton, Blean Forest, Chartham and Stone Street, Northgate, St Stephens, Sturry, Westgate, and Wincheap Notice was served on 25 th February 2015 for an Article 4 Direction requiring Planning Permission to be sought for the change of use from C3 (residential) to C4 (small HMO) within a designated area including the city of Canterbury and surrounding areas (denoted on map Appendix 1). Permission is sought to retain this notice in operation and to bring the Direction into force. That the attached Article 4 Direction be confirmed, to come into force on 25 th February 2016. If it is agreed to confirm the Article 4 Direction, this will come into force on 25 th February 2016. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. Introduction 1.1 Background In April 2010, changes in legislation resulted in the change from C3 to C4 requiring planning permission. This was later altered in October 2010 to once again bring them under permitted development. Between December 2010 and January 2011, the Council consulted on a draft Article 4 Direction to require planning permission for the change from C3 to C4. The general response was positive, but it was decided to defer the decision on confirming the Direction pending the outcome of the Houses in Multiple Occupation Best Value Review, which was being prepared. Following the review, it was concluded that some form of restriction on HMOs was needed in order to create balanced communities. In October 2014, Members recommended that an Article 4 Direction should be implemented. As a result Nathaniel Litchfield & Partners was commissioned to draw up the Direction and associated supporting documentation. 1.2 Immediate and non-immediate Article 4 Directions
2. Detail There are two kinds of Article 4 Direction, one which is made with immediate effect and one which comes into force after a period of notice. The tests for making each kind of order are different. For an immediate order, the Council needs to consider that the development to which the direction relates would be prejudicial to the proper planning of their area or constitute a threat to the amenities of their area. To make a non-immediate order, the local planning authority needs to be satisfied that it is expedient that the development to be controlled should not be carried out unless permission is granted for it on an application. The immediate order carries with it a substantial risk that compensation would be payable to those who are refused permission, or who are granted permission only with conditions that can lessen the value of their property. It is considered in this instance that the non-immediate order was the most appropriate, and was therefore served with a 12-month notice period. A copy of the Article 4 Direction (with a map indicating the area to which it will apply) is attached at Appendix 1. While HMOs do make a significant contribution to the vibrancy of the city, attracting young professionals, student, migrant workers and a transient workforce to the area, there are also negative impacts in areas where they are highly concentrated. This is in large part due to the increasing number of private student lettings in the City and immediate vicinity. Such concentrations put pressure on local amenities, traffic congestion, existing families, and external appearance of the areas. It is felt that reducing these pockets of concentrated HMOs through greater assessment is required; an assessment which is easier to make when planning permission is mandatory for the change of use. The Direction area is large, covering not only the City but parts of the surrounding wards. This is to recognise the potential for HMO displacement activity resulting from the operation of the HMO Article 4 within the city centre. The Article 4 Direction would work in conjunction with draft policy HD6 of the Local Plan: Policy HD6 Housing in multiple occupation: In order to maintain an appropriate housing mix within the designated area, and to safeguard the character of local communities, the proportion of multiple occupancies should not exceed 10% of the total number of dwellings within a 100m radius of any application property. The City Council will not permit changes of use to HMOs, or extensions to existing HMOs, where that proportion would be exceeded. In areas where there is already an exceptionally high proportion of HMOs, for example, in any particular block of properties, consideration will be given to permitting further conversions. In all cases, regard will also be had to the following factors:
a. whether the proposals would lead to a level of car-parking that would exceed the capacity of the street; b. whether the proposals could provide acceptable arrangements for bin storage and other shared facilities; and c. whether the design of any extension would be appropriate in terms of the property itself or the character of the area. It was hoped that an early indication of support for the soundness of the policy would be given; however, it is not considered that the serving of the non-immediate Article 4 Direction would prejudice the Inspector s consideration of the draft Policy. However, there remains the risk that the Local Plan Inspector may not support the policy, in which case the Article 4 Direction will effectively be made void. Councillors should be aware that the Council is not able to charge fees for applications resulting from the serving of an Article 4 Direction. Change of use applications are currently charged at 385 per application, which could not be recouped. 3. Relevant Council Policy/Strategies/Budgetary Documents Houses in Multiple Occupation Best Value Review (2012) Canterbury District Local Plan (publication draft June 2014) East Kent Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 4. Consultation planned or undertaken There have been 102 representations to the public consultation. 94 of these were submitted by local Canterbury residents, representing the views of 115 people in total. Responses were also received from a local estate and letting agent, a Ward Councillor, the Highways Agency, and an independent landlord. In addition, four residents associations submitted responses. In total, 94 representations supporting the introduction of the Article 4 Direction were received, accounting for 92% of the total response. Two further representations (equivalent to 2% of the total response) expressed support but also concern relating to the potential effects of its introduction. Two objections were received and two representations comprised of comments that indicated that the respondents were opposed to the making of the Article 4 Direction. The Highways Agency stated that they had no comment to make on the proposals. One consultee stated their objection but the detailed comments suggest that they, in fact, supported the making of the Article 4 Direction. Support Of the 96 supporting representations received (i.e. including the support and concern representations), the majority were from individuals/local residents from various parts of Canterbury. One representation of support was received from Ward Councillor Cllr Terry Westgate on behalf of the St Stephen s Area. ACRA, St Michael s Road and St Stephen's Residents Associations as well as Oaten Hill & District Society also submitted representations of support. Thirty five representations stated support but do not include any specific comments. The representations in support of the making of the Direction raise a number of issues such as noise; refuse management and neglect of properties and garden
upkeep commonly associated with HMOs. Many respondents state that they are not against students and a number cited positive experiences of living alongside HMO student households. However, a large number of respondents highlight the impact that high concentrations of HMOs can have on limiting the supply of affordable family housing in Canterbury. An Article 4 Direction is identified as a means for achieving a more balanced housing market to meet local needs. It is felt that the character and sense of community in Canterbury is negatively affected in certain areas due to the imbalance between the ratio of permanent residents and rented accommodation (including HMOs) and the implications this imbalance has, for example, tenants are predominantly short-term and often the houses are unoccupied outside of term time. A number of respondents also indicated that children are forced to travel longer distances to the local schools as family homes in the vicinity have been converted to HMOs. These points support the Council s own research and evidence as set out in the Article 4 Direction background and the supporting documentation and could be addressed by the implementation of the Article 4 Direction. Objections Four representations of objection were submitted during the Article 4 Direction consultation period; one by a local resident and private landlord and the other by a local estate and letting agent, Amos Dawton & Finn. As set out previously, two further representations did not expressly object to the Direction but submitted comments that indicated concerns regarding its introduction. Reasons for objecting to the Direction included: Impacts on property values; Destabilising impact on the housing market; Resulting upward pressures on rent; Loss of flexibility for private landlords; An Article 4 Direction is not a mechanism for resolving disturbances; and Impact on local businesses In response to these concerns, the Council s intention is to create planning policies that support the creation of sustainable mixed communities in Canterbury and achieve an appropriate housing mix to meet local housing need. This includes the need for HMOs but also includes homes that will attract more affluent working households and families and those that meet the needs of your families facing deprivation and affordability problems (as identified by the East Kent Strategic Housing Market Assessment [SHMA]). The Article 4 Direction would control the location of new HMOs rather than preventing any further changes of use to HMO from taking place. Canterbury will continue to attract a significant student population, a proportion of whom will live within HMOs. Furthermore, there is no clear evidence that families will not want to live alongside HMOs. Planning is concerned with land use in the public interest, so that the protection of purely private interests such as the impact of a development on the value of a neighbouring property is not considered relevant. Taken in combination these factors suggest that on the basis of property values, the stability of the housing market and rental levels there is no reason not to confirm the Article 4 Direction. The concerns about loss of flexibility for private landlords are noted; however, the Article 4 Direction will not apply retrospectively to established HMOs, and while landlords will have to apply for planning permission no planning application fee is
applicable for a change of use where permitted development rights are removed. This removes the financial burden of applying for planning permission and is considered to be a balanced approach. The Article 4 Direction is not considered to be the sole mechanism for resolving disturbances including noise and litter, however, the Council s evidence indicates that these problems are greater in areas with high concentrations of HMOs therefore it can form part of a wider suite of measures and approaches to combat these issues. It is acknowledged that students do have a role in supporting local businesses; however, the Article 4 Direction will not act to reduce the number of students in Canterbury. Furthermore, all residents in Canterbury contribute to the local economy and ensure the vitality and viability of local businesses. An objection was raised in relation to the extent of the area which will be covered by the Direction, it was suggested that the area should be reduced, restricting student properties to certain areas where there are already high percentages. In response, the Direction area is drawn to extend beyond the City of Canterbury to account for HMO displacement resulting from the operation of the Article 4 Direction in the city centre and therefore enable the management of both areas of existing high concentrations of HMOs and areas of potential growth. One objector suggested that the shortage of houses will then lead you [the Council] to look much more favourably on any of the Universities planning applications in the future and this is surely not a good thing. Canterbury City Council considers all planning applications on their individual merits reflecting material planning considerations. 5. Options available with reasons for suitability There are two options available to Councillors in respect of this report: (1) Do not confirm the Article 4 Direction and await the Local Plan Inspector s view on the suitability of the Direction and draft HMO policy; (2) Confirm the Article 4 Direction, enabling it to come into force on 25 th February 2016. 6. Reasons for supporting option recommended, with risk assessment The option being recommended is option (2). This has the significant benefit of complying with draft policy, having the support of local residents, and not being subject to compensation claims. The risk remains that the Local Plan Inspector might not support the policy, in which case this work will have been abortive. 7. Implications (a) Financial Implications the Article 4 Direction process has so far cost in the region of 15-20,000, following agreement with Councillors in November 2014. There will be resource implications for the Planning Service, with additional applications to be assessed, but without any additional fees being
chargeable. There may also be implications for Planning Enforcement in terms of monitoring unauthorised changes of use. (b) Legal Implications by imposing a non-immediate Article 4 Direction, with 12 months notice of it coming into force, compensation is not payable to applications whose permitted development rights have been withdrawn, and where the LPA subsequently refuses planning permission for development, or grants such permission subject to more limiting conditions that the GPDO permits. Other implications (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) Staffing/resource none directly arising from this report Property Portfolio none directly arising from this report Environmental/Sustainability none directly arising from this report Planning/Building Regulations If the Article 4 Direction is confirmed, this would lead to additional planning applications being received, for which no fee is paid. During the 4 month period during which smaller HMOs were development requiring planning permission, 26 applications were received, not an insignificant number. Human Rights issues none directly arising from this report Equalities none directly arising from this report Crime and Disorder none directly arising from this report Biodiversity none directly arising from this report Safeguarding Children none directly arising from this report Energy efficiency none directly arising from this report 8. Conclusions The conclusions in relation to the points to be considered by the Planning Committee are set out in the main report. Contact Officer: Claire Sutton Telephone: 862186 Annex 1 : Article 4 Direction and map (see page xy)(to be placed at back of Agenda) Filename Version Date Time