New Restrictions For HMO's in Portsmouth
Portsmouth City Council (PCC) has ignored our input (detailed last month here) and with immediate effect, introduce a range of measures to reduce the volume of HMO's in the city and to stop existing HMO's being improved and developed.
Deputations from our members highlighted concerns about the legitimacy of an immediate introduction, the damage the new space requirements will cause preventing HMOs sold or taken out of HMO use being replaced by new HMOs. Our survey showed the city would lose 100 current HMO rooms if the current 6.52 sq m proposal was implemented. This new legislation states a 7.5 sq m minimum room size - only on new applications - but it is hard to imagine the impact this would have if widely enforced and the increase in homelessness that is likely to result. But our deputations were to no avail as councillors were unanimous in their desire to see these changes pushed through.
For full details, read on...
New planning restrictions on the creation of or putting more occupants in HMOs
Portsmouth City Council has with immediate effect amended the Supplementary Planning Document that guides planning officers and the Planning Committee when considering applications for new HMOs or when the landlord changes a standard C4 HMO to a bigger (over 6) Sui Generis HMO.
If you are in the process of making any changes to property you must study these changes as they may affect your plans.
The main changes
PCC will now give more weight to the amenity standards of the new HMOs. They say they have tried to align these with licensing requirements but they have specified a minimum bedroom size for one person of 7.5 sq m as opposed to the 6.52 sq m minimum for licensing. As with licensing this is not a fixed rule and they can use discretion if, say, the occupant of a small room has dedicated space elsewhere for study or storage. We have yet to see how strictly they will apply the new requirements but on the assumption that these rules were created in order to give stronger grounds for refusal, we expect them to be enforced quite rigorously.
Applications for planning permission to grow standard C4 HMOs to accommodate more than 6 persons are now likely to be refused in areas where 10% or more of the properties are HMOs. This includes properties with permitted C4 (HMO) use but not currently accepted as HMOs.
A reminder re the expiry of flexible use after ten years has been added. "it should be noted that 10 years from the permission the flexibility ceases and the use at that time becomes the lawful use." So it is important that C3/C4 properties are in use as an HMO on the 10th anniversary of the categorisation being assigned - we hope this will not result in too many families being evicted to ensure the categorisation is maintained but fear that it will, given the premium that a C4 classification gives a house in Southsea. A more sensible change would have been of the form, 'On the 10th anniversary, a C3/C4 will revert to C3 if it has not been used as a C4 in the prior 3 years' - but unfortunately, common sense counts for little in these matters.
"All planning applications must be supported by a full set of floor plans that clearly identify whether rooms are intended to be single or double and show the internal measurements for each room including areas of reduced ceiling height and include details of the bathroom sanitary ware, kitchen fitments and white goods. Whilst acknowledging that the National Described Space Standard (NDSS) relates to new dwellings, nevertheless the City Council will require that bedrooms in HMO proposals comply with this space standard, as set out below or any subsequent standard replacing the NDSS." This is particularly burdensome and way beyond normal requirements asking for 27 sq m of communal space excluding hall/stairs/landing for example - many current HMO's would not be legal if this rule were applied to them
Added "planning permission will only be granted where the proposal would not result in an over intensive use of the property." Over intensive is still open to interpretation and our fear is the planning committee now believe they can reject a proposal to turn a small HMO into a large HMO even though as a small one, it could be occupied by a family with just as many members as the rejected larger HMO.
Minor changes and clarification of how the HMO (10%) count will be made, that will reduce the likelihood of permission being granted.
PCC acknowledged that counting HMOs in use is very difficult, a point we made when the policy was first discussed in 2010 and have been back to regularly. Their database is still inaccurate and the SPD states that Ward Members and local residents help may be required to capture further local knowledege about the way properties are being occupied.
The revised SPD can be found here: https://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/ext/development-and-planning/planning/planning-houses-in-multiple-occupation
3 minor amendments were made following the consultation.
Why the changes
To quote from the report, "There has been a trend for landlords to extend their properties (normally by large box dormer roof enlargements) under the provisions of the General Permitted Development Order in order to increase the level of occupation beyond six persons. That increase in the level of occupation would involve a material change of use from a Class C4 HMO to a sui generis HMO by virtue of a greater level of activity. Cumulatively such a trend would be considered to adversely affect the living conditions of existing residents, particularly where the proportion of HMOs already exceeds the 10% threshold. The introduction of the criteria in para 1.14 of the revised document seeks to address this issue and introduce a degree of further control in the interests of amenity and delivering a mixed and balanced community. "
Basically residents (voters) don"t want more HMOs anywhere but especially where there are already over 10%. They see an HMO being extended and going from 6 to 7, 8 or 9 occupants as being as bad as a new HMO. PCC have been losing appeals where they disagree with the Planning Inspectorate on what is over intensive use and a 'material" change of use. They hope these measures will help them win appeals in future and give them the ability to reject layouts they do not like and improve the standard of HMOs generally.
Is this fair and legal
They introduced the changes with immediate effect. This will impact landlords who have committed to purchases and have permitted development modifications under way but not applied for change of use. This is not fair but clearly done to avoid a rush of applications they can"t refuse.
We will check with the RLA solicitor but there is probably nothing illegal here. Our planning experts do think that when these new requirements are used to reject applications there may well be grounds for appeal and if the association feels the application is reasonable we will endeavour to assist members with appeals but members would be advised to seek the services of planning consultants with experience in this area. The Town Planning Experts (Jonathan McDermott ) who spoke at our last meeting is one such.
What have we tried to do
We had submitted objections to the consultation. Tony Athill and another member Trevor Wilcock made valiant deputations against the revised SPD. If we had said that a great plague would descend upon their city, Cllr (and leader) Donna Jones would still have approved it. We were up against deputations from 4 councillors and the East St Thomas Residents Forum (Martin Willoughby) and all party support. Inter party politics are at play here.
Tony reports, "In my deputation I knew I was never going to get the proposed SPD dropped so concentrated on making a point about the need for more HMOs, how council actions to improve neighbourhoods do cause homelessness and objected to the planning system being used to set amenity standards and more especially standards higher than required by HMO licensing. I strongly objected the requirement that bedrooms in new HMOs should be at least 7.5 sq m. I will personal support any appeals where this is used as grounds assuming there is plenty of space elsewhere." Trevor objected to the details of the amenity (space) standards and the fact that this is to take immediate effect.
It is also worth noting that the University objected to the need for floor plans to be submitted in HMO applications and felt the need for detailed specification of kitchen and bathroom layouts should not be necessary in a planning application - a topic we are sure will be discussed when they attend our February members meeting to discuss University plans.