Agenda item

A study into the options and implications of implementing an Article 4 Direction to restrict the future growth of Houses in Multiple Occupation has been undertaken. The recommendations from the draft study are presented here for consideration, in advance of consideration of the issue by the Development Control Committee and Cabinet in March 2012. The suggested options relate not only to planning controls but also to HMO Licencing by Housing Services and other management tools.

The Divisional Director for Planning & Transport Services introduced this item to the Panel. He explained that in June 2011 the Cabinet requested that an Article 4 Direction be implemented in order to exert greater planning controls over the spread and increase in Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in Bath. He added that Arup were appointed to support the Planning Service in gathering the evidence and formulating the options for action.

He stated that it is the officer’s recommendation that option 3 of the Consultant’s report should be pursued (subject to greater clarity on cost implications) and that the implementation of an Article 4 Direction should be preceded by a 12 month notice period to avoid third party compensation claims.

Councillor Geoff Ward commented that he had met with Councillor June Player and saw the problems she faces within her ward. He asked how long the option of introducing an Article 4 Direction had been available.

The Divisional Director for Planning & Transport Services replied that it had been available for as long as permitted development rights had existed. He added that the current Government had actively reminded Councils of the option.

Councillor Geoff Ward asked if any other Council had implemented one.

The Divisional Director for Planning & Transport Services replied that most who were considering it were in the early stages and some were in the process of consultation.

Councillor Geoff Ward asked if there would be any cost implications if an Article 4 Direction were to be implemented.

The Divisional Director for Planning & Transport Services replied that no charge could be levied against a planning application where it has had its permitted development rights removed. He added what work was on-going to establish the potential loss of income. He felt that this would likely lead to an increase in enforcement activity.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney also wished to thank Councillor June Player for showing him the problems that exist within her ward. He stated that he felt a balance of communities was required and anticipated that many recent house purchases in areas with an already high HMO figure would have been bought for that purpose.

He urged officers to act with caution on any enforcement activity.

The Divisional Director for Planning & Transport Services replied that the quality of some properties had concerned us for a while and that additional licensing would give a measure of control on properties.

Councillor David Martin asked if the Article 4 Direction can be applied retrospectively.

The Divisional Director for Planning & Transport Services replied that it could not.

Councillor David Martin asked what the officers perceived as the main problems associated with HMOs.

The Divisional Director for Planning & Transport Services replied there were significant issues over parking, the impact that they have on neighbourhood amenities and property value. He added that following a recent workshop it had been identified that concern exists within the community over the summer period when the majority of HMOs are empty.

Councillor Ben Stevens addressed the Panel. He stated he was here both in his capacity as a ward councillor and as member champion for graduate retention small business and entrepreneurship. He added that he currently lived in an HMO.

He spoke of how the Article 4 directive is a highly emotive issue and that the problems with a high level of transient population were well stated in the consultation paper. He said that one of his primary concerns as a ward councillor for a highly affected area, was the lack of community cohesion felt by residents on any particular street.

He said that he had a number of massive reservations about the approach stated in Option 3 and would be keen to see those concerns addressed in whatever planning policy comes forward. He called for a decision to not be made until that planning policy is finalised.

He called for the Council to be careful to make sure the directive does what it's designed to do. He stressed the need to recognise that nothing can achieve what residents want. Nothing is going to reduce the numbers of HMOs that exist and so we need to make sure that roads can "opt out" if they want to leave a heavily studented area.

He informed the Panel that in his ward a landlord was converting unattached garages into en-suite bedrooms with a kitchenette and that this action is not covered by planning, licensing or anything else. Consequently no consultation with residents is required and he is able to run roughshod over the legitimate concerns of local people. If we are not clear about this legislation then "enterprising" landlords will find ways to circumvent the system making this whole process irrelevant.

Secondly: the biggest problem we have in Bath is arguably traffic. At present the one good thing about the HMOs is they are settled along bus service routes. If we force them to spread out, I believe we also force them into their cars, putting further pressure on the roads and parking.

He stated that most importantly he was not very impressed with what he considered a heavy-handed approach as it seems very open to the law of unintended consequences. He spoke of how he had spent last weekend chatting to young councillors from across the UK including York where they are in the process of bringing an Article 4 in. They have already seen a jump in rental prices, and are having to consider draconian measures like rent capping. In Bath, any rise in price will simply make the city unaffordable to young professionals wanting to settle here.

The B&NES economic strategy emphasises the need to encourage well paid, graduate level employment to settle in Bath. This will not happen if people cannot afford to live here. On the panel I'm a vice-chair of, we are presented with the grand vision for economic development- the city of ideas. If we keep driving those young sparky people to Bristol, our Enterprise Area at Bath Western Riverside will simply atrophy. I've spoken to several officers in the economic development team who are incredibly concerned that this article 4 directive will disadvantage us compared to the rest of the West of England LEP.

I completely understand the reason for the 12 month consultation and agree it is vital, however in discussions with councillors where this has been brought in, during the 12 month period there is a big jump in people turning houses into HMOs.

I understand the problems with high levels of rented accommodation. I live on a road that is 80% HMOs and most of my casework is made up of the problems that causes. But I cannot accept that Option 3 is the best option in its current state, and this is a very expensive option to get wrong. I would urge the panel to request that cabinet really thinks about how to mitigate the threat this poses to our economic future and comes back to this panel (and possibly my own) with some solid ideas on that planning policy. The planning policy document must be in place before the Council makes a decision. Can our Council really not come up with something more imaginative that better balances our resident’s needs and the future of our city?

Councillor Geoff Ward asked if it would be possible to solely bring the additional licensing measures forward.

The Divisional Director for Planning & Transport Services replied that the licensing option could be brought forward by itself and be potentially cost neutral to the Council.

The Chairman on behalf of the Panel stated that at this stage of the process they felt unable to approve the officer recommendations due to concerns over the potential financial pressures on the Council and the impact it may have on current homeowners who may wish to sell their properties.