Agenda item

There are concerns about the impact of high levels of Houses in Multiple Occupation in Bath.  A mixture of planning controls and housing-led solutions is to be considered by Cabinet.

[The Chief Executive, John Everitt, left the meeting at this point]

Jacqui Darbyshire read a statement on behalf of David Cox (Policy Officer, National Landlords Association) [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 7 and on the Council's website] in which he argued that additional licensing would not work; Article 4 Direction would reduce house prices and increase competition among tenants; enforcement should be concentrated on rogue landlords; but supported the idea of landlord accreditation

Councillor Tim Ball asked Jacqui whether she believed everyone had a right to live in a quality home.  Jacqui replied that she did believe this, and that it included students and families.

Councillor June Player in a statement appealed to Cabinet to do all in its power to ensure that Bath would retain community spirit in mixed communities of HMOs and local families, without a clash of lifestyles.

Councillor Tim Ball asked Councillor Player to describe the community spirit in areas of high HMO presence.  Councillor Player said that her experience was of a very much reduced sense of community spirit.  She praised those students who did voluntary work during their stay in Bath but was despondent about the lifestyle clashes which made life unhappy for some families.

Mark Rose (Planning Consultant for University of Bath) made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 8 and on the Council's website] emphasising that HMOs are an essential source of housing for young people including graduates, young professionals, key workers and contract workers as well as students.  Any action by the Council which might force these groups of people to live outside the city would have an adverse effect on the local economy.  The university’s position was that the issue was about the management of properties, and this issue could be resolved with cooperation between the Council, universities and other stakeholders and did not require an Article 4 Direction.

Naomi Mackrill (Vice-President, Community and Diversity, University of Bath Students Union) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 9 and on the Council's website] objected to the apparent blame being put on students for problems being caused by the lack of housing in the city.  She said her student colleagues would make statements which together would present the view of students from both universities.

Chris Clements (Vice-President, Sport, University of Bath Students Union) argued in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 10 and on the Council's website] that the solutions proposed in the report would not in fact solve the social and community cohesion problems but in some cases would tend to make matters worse.  He said that this was acknowledged in the report, which undermined the report’s recommendations.

Councillor Tim Ball asked Chris whether he believed it was right to turn a family home into dormitory style accommodation.  Chris replied that the right thing would be to respond to the needs of the whole community and this was reflected in the market.  Student accommodation was not a bad thing.

David Cameron (Vice-President, Activities and Development, University of Bath Students Union) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 11 and on the Council's website] said that enhanced planning policy would not address the problems associated with the bad management of HMOs and that the report provided no evidence to show that it would.  He also argued that the area did not suffer any “special circumstance” which would warrant the use of the powers.

Peter Davies (student, University of Bath) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 12 and on the Council's website] quoted the equality impact assessment from the report, which stated that the two groups of residents who were most likely to suffer as a result of the proposals were those on low incomes and students.  He argued that the Cabinet should not limit the supply of affordable housing by adopting the proposals.

Councillor Tim Ball asked Peter whether he approved of a recent situation in which a garage had been converted into a flat, with no cooking facilities.  Peter responded that he would not himself choose to live in such facilities, but felt that it was a matter of individual choice.

Matt Benka (Vice-President, Education, University of Bath Students Union) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 13 and on the Council's website] said that the cost to the Council of implementing the proposals was unknown and could turn out to be a costly mistake.  He observed that the Bath Chamber of Commerce opposed the proposals because they would cause a reduction in the supply of accommodation, and a resulting increase in price.  This in turn would result in an exodus of young talent in the city.

Councillor Tim Ball asked Matt whether he agreed that the Council had a responsibility to ensure that everyone had a safe, comfortable home to live in.  Matt said that it was the responsibility of the Council to use its funds to solve the problems, not to make them worse or ignore them.

Simon O'Kane (Post-Graduate student, University of Bath) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 14 and on the Council's website] emphasised the wide range of people who appreciated being able to live in HMOs in the city.  He knew a number of young professionals, post-graduate students, undergraduates, mature students, as well as groups of young people who grew up in Bath.  He stressed that the proposals would negatively impact on these people without solving the problems described in the report.

Councillor Tim Ball asked Simon whether he felt that the University was doing enough to help students to live in purpose-built accommodation off-campus.  Simon said that projected figures were that the university would be able to provide 1200 purpose-built places by 2020, but the unfortunate reality was that this would not be nearly enough to meet the growing demand.

Amy Stringer (Vice-President, Activities and Participation, Bath Spa University Students Union) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 15 and on the Council's website] referred to the transport difficulties for students forced by the proposed measures to live further from campus.  A vastly improved transport network would be required as a direct consequence of the Article 4 Direction.  She alluded to the particular safety concerns of women students returning late at night to their accommodation.

Councillor Tim Ball asked Amy whether she was aware that Article 4 was not retrospective.  She acknowledged that she was aware of that.

David Howells (President, University of Bath Students Union) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 16 and on the Council's website] referred to the requirement that special circumstances were required before an Article 4 Direction could be implemented, but the report had failed to demonstrate that any special circumstances existed.  He felt that Article 4 would discriminate against the young and the lower paid in the city and would lead to a loss of talent from the local economy.

Councillor Tim Ball asked David to confirm, if the Cabinet decided to go ahead with the proposals to consult for a year, whether the student community would work with Cabinet to resolve the issues.  David assured Cabinet that the student community would eagerly engage with the Council in this way, but emphasised that it would be difficult to do so if Article 4 had been imposed.

Phil Irvine (University of Bath) made a statement in which he emphasised that the policy would discriminate on the basis of age, income and marital status.  He felt strongly that the proposals should not be implemented.

Anthony Masters (University of Bath) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 17 and on the Council's website] pointed out that the adoption of Article 4 would have impacts on student nurses, trainee doctors, young professionals and students alike.  He said that the reasons stated for recommending Article 4 to Cabinet were that high-density student communities prevented social cohesion, but the Council’s own study found that there was no evidence of any link between the density of HMO accommodation in a community and the levels of littering or anti-social behaviour.  He also reminded the Cabinet that the Council already had powers of inspection over HMOs and that the police could be called in cases of individual anti-social behaviour.  He asked Cabinet to reject the proposals.

Sam Baldwin in an ad hoc statement explained that she was a working mum.  She had been a student herself and had lived in a number of HMOs – but there had always been a good mix of family homes and HMOs in each street.  She had lived in Oldfield Park for 6 years and had experienced anti-social behaviour on a number of occasions, at all times of the day and night.  She appealed to the Cabinet to create a more balanced mix of HMO and family housing in Oldfield Park.

Councillor Tim Ball asked Sam whether she could distinguish between a well-managed HMO and an absentee landlord HMO.  She said that it was easy to tell the difference – the house next to her own was let by an agent and it was a nightmare for her.  She related some of her recent experiences.

Councillor David Dixon asked Sam whether parking was an issue.  She replied that during term time, parking in her street was usually impossible which meant she had to walk from streets away, with a young baby and shopping bags.

Emma Broughton made an ad hoc statement as a resident of St Kilda’s Road.  She said that there had been a huge change to her area as a result of increasing numbers of HMOs.  She felt that more halls of residence should be built on campus.

Councillor Will Sandry in an ad hoc statement acknowledged that students want and need a wide choice of accommodation.  He reminded the universities that they had a corporate social responsibility not to take on more students than could be accommodated.  He reminded the Letting Agents and landlords that the proposals would benefit good landlords.  He urged Cabinet to adopt the proposals in the report.

Councillor John Bull made an ad hoc statement welcoming the wide discussion taking place about the issue.  He felt that it was right to prevent unbalanced communities and emphasised that an Article 4 Direction would not ban HMOs, it would redistribute them more widely.  But he felt there were some difficulties with the proposals, because they would not improve the conditions of homes for the tenants or the community.  The solution would be to undertake a licensing approach, which would require 3-4 officers to monitor effectively.  He asked Cabinet to work closely with the two universities to increase accommodation available on the campuses.

The Chair welcomed Councillor Gerry Curran (Chair of the Council’s Development Control Committee) and invited him to report to Cabinet on the debate about the subject which had taken place at the Development Control Committee meeting earlier that day.

Councillor Gerry Curran said that there had been a mix of views at the meeting, but the overall view had been that Cabinet should consult and should report back to a future Development Control Committee before making any decisions on implementing Article 4.  There had been particular concerns about the resource implications of the proposals.  He agreed with Councillor Bull in urging Cabinet to work with the two universities to come up with solutions.

Councillor Tim Ball, in proposing the item, thanked all who had contributed to the debate.  He felt that everyone deserved a quality home to live in – not a windowless garage refurbishment or a split-window bedroom.  He emphasised that the aim of the proposals was to prevent too many HMOs in one small area and to allow the Council to control the quality of the accommodation.

Councillor Ball referred to paragraph 3.2 in the report, and said that the word “commitment” should be replaced by the word “bid”.  He felt that the universities had not yet fully engaged with the Council, but was delighted that the students had agreed to work towards a solution.  He said he would move a different proposal from the one recommended in the report, which would provide a whole year for the community to be consulted.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the proposal and emphasised that the proposals would be the start of a long consultation, not the conclusion.  He offered to visit any meeting to discuss the possible approaches to the problem.

Councillor David Dixon said that the issues were far from clear-cut.  Additional licensing was supported by all stakeholders except the bad absentee landlords who would resent spending more to keep their own property in good order.  He felt that doing nothing could not be an option because the problems were evident.

Councillor Roger Symonds felt that the reason for the existing imbalances in communities was because the Council had been powerless to act.  He had been very disappointed that the “right to buy” and the increasing numbers of HMOs had taken many family homes out of circulation, leading to the problems discussed in the report.  He was pleased that the proposal was to consult for a year before deciding whether to confirm the Article 4 approach.

Councillor Nathan Hartley said that as a member of the Student Community Partnership in his Cabinet role, he felt that there was a good working relationship with the student community.  He agreed that the issues were complex and that there was no clear cut solution, but was delighted that the proposals contained a strong consultation element.

Councillor Tim Ball summed up by explaining the steps that would be taken in the next year to consult.  He encouraged all those present to engage with the Scrutiny process during the next year and to come back to Cabinet when the final decision would be made after hearing all the evidence.

On a motion from Councillor Tim Ball, seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley, it was

RESOLVED

(1) To AGREE that it is satisfied that it is expedient that development that would normally benefit from permitted development rights should not be carried out unless permission is granted for it on application;

(2) To AGREE accordingly to make a non-immediate Article 4 Direction covering Houses in Multiple Occupation in the City of Bath for the reason set out in paragraph 5.5 of the report;

(3) To NOTE that a 6-week public consultation is required under the regulations with results being considered before any implementation of the Article 4 Direction;

(4) To DELEGATE authority to the Divisional Director for Planning and Transport, in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Housing to undertake all steps required to bring into effect the Article 4 Direction;

(5) To ASK the Divisional Director for Planning & Transport to prepare a Supplementary Planning Document as part of the Local Development Framework to enable implementation of the Article 4 Direction;

(6) To AGREE that the representations and the results of the public consultation are considered by Cabinet in no less that 12 months from the notice of the Article 4 Direction to enable consideration as to whether the Article 4 Direction should be confirmed, abandoned or amended:  and

(7) To ASK that evidence be gathered to ascertain whether the legislative conditions for introducing additional licensing can be met, and if so, undertake a 10-week public consultation exercise which will inform the designs of any such designation.  The outcome of this process will be subject to a further report to Cabinet where a decision will be made whether to implement additional licensing and if so, whether all or part of the district to be subject to additional licensing for classes of HMOs specified by the Council.

[The Chief Executive, John Everitt, rejoined the meeting at this point]