Agenda item

A decision is sought about whether to confirm a city-wide Article 4 Direction for houses in multiple occupation, and adopt a Supplementary Planning Document to detail how these new planning applications will be determined

Gavin Dick (National Landlords Association) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 22 and on the Council’s website] asked the Cabinet to explain the Council’s response to the recently announcement by DWP about welfare support.  He was concerned that the proposals would reduce house prices as had already happened in Newcastle.  The impact would be on the most vulnerable in society.

Johnny Kidney in an ad hoc statement said that although he supported the Licensing proposals, but not the Article 4 proposals now before Cabinet.  He lived in a road with 88% HMO density and was concerned that the proposals would have a devastating effect on his ability to sell the house.  He asked Cabinet to make exemptions to high density roads, as other councils had done.

Councillor Geoff Ward in an ad hoc statement recognised the challenges of student life and also of local residents.  He felt that Cabinet was about to use Article 4 rather than tackling the rogue landlords.  The proposals would reduce property values for owner-occupiers but would not choke off the demand for multiple occupation, in a city with 2 universities.

Councillor Dave Laming in an ad hoc statement observed that more students could be accommodated on the river, as in Oxford.

Anthony Masters in an ad hoc statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 23 and on the Council’s website] said that the critical question would be how to measure whether Article 4 was successful.  He said that the problem would simply move to another part of the city.  He reminded Cabinet that problem tenants and problem landlords could be dealt with under existing powers.  He urged Cabinet to reject the proposals, which he predicted would not improve housing or behaviour.

Councillor Will Sandry in an ad hoc statement said the proposals were about community.  He assured Cabinet that in Oldfield Ward, his constituents were calling for the proposals to be adopted.  He said that the speakers from the National Landlords Association did not speak for his constituents.  He responded to Anthony Master’s question by saying that the success of the proposals would be evident on the first day - investors would be prevented from buying residential homes and converting them into multiple occupancy.

Stella Wainwright, a resident of Oldfield Park, in an ad hoc statement said that the proposals were 18 years too late.  If implemented now they would prevent local people from selling their homes and would leave them marooned.  She asked for Cabinet to make an exception for high density roads.

Councillor Tim Ball introduced the item by emphasising that Cabinet wanted to see balanced communities.  The proposed threshold would be reached when an area reached 25% density.  He responded to the points made by Gavin Dick by saying that he had seen no evidence of any detrimental effect on vulnerable people.  He was ready to look at examples from other councils.  In response to the appeals for exemptions in certain high density streets, he pointed out that a year after making an exception in high density areas, Exeter had seen an increase in the density in those streets.  In response to those who had been concerned about their house prices, he replied that house values were not a matter for planning policy.  The danger of exempting certain streets was that the Council might be subject to challenge.  It would also give an indication that the Council expected those streets to become 100% density.

Councillor Ball explained that the Article 4 Directive could be reviewed after a period.  However, if Cabinet did not adopt the proposals now, there would be a further year’s delay.  He moved the proposals.

[A copy of Councillor Ball’s notes is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 8 and on the Council’s website].

Councillor David Dixon seconded the proposal.  He said that Cabinet must address the long term needs of housing.  Landlords had caused a huge increase in house prices by buying up houses to convert into multiple occupancy.  He felt that, even if this took 10 or 15 years to redress, it would be worth it for the city and its communities.

Councillor Paul Crossley said that Article 4 would clarify the situation for home owners and landlords.  He thanked local residents for their massive support during the consultation period.  He acknowledged the benefits to Bath brought by its 2 universities, and said that the Council was encouraging purpose built student accommodation.

Councillor Ben Stevens expressed some sympathy with Johnny Kidney’s concerns about the value of his home; however, the Council received one complaint every 2 days about refuse, which was not acceptable.  The speakers from the NLA had a vested interest and he was hopeful that their doomsday predictions would not come true.

On a motion from Councillor Tim Ball, seconded by Councillor David Dixon, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To CONFIRM the Article 4 Direction relating to small HMOs made on 31 May 2012 and advertised in the Council’s Notice of Making an Article 4 Direction;

(2) To ADOPT the Supplementary Planning Document on Houses in Multiple Occupation in Bath, to supplement the Local Plan, specifically saved Policy HG.12 which will be given significant weight in the determination of planning applications; and

(3) To DELEGATE responsibility to the Divisional Director of Planning & Transport to make graphic and minor textual amendments to the SPD prior to adoption.