Planning element

Planning Officers advised that a report had been taken to Planning Committee in March 2023 on this matter setting out the work undertaken to date to consider the introduction of an Article 4 Direction for HMOs in Runnymede.  Members of the Planning Committee had agreed that work would remain ongoing to gather evidence on the distribution and impact of HMOs in conjunction with the Local Plan review and that this in the view of the Planning Committee was the appropriate way forward.

It was confirmed that an Article 4 Direction would not prevent any new HMOs from being made in the Borough. Rather it would mean that the creation of ‘small’ HMOs of up to six people (C4 use class), would be subject to a planning application (as is the case for larger HMOs with seven or more occupants). Such applications would need to be determined on their own merits and when there was no reasonable grounds for refusal they would still need to be approved. The government rules state that an article 4 direction must be applied to the smallest possible geographical location to address the issue.

In order for an article 4 direction to be justified, the findings of gathered evidence would need to demonstrate that harm was arising to justify a local plan policy. It is possible that such harm could be in areas such as loss of family dwellings, parking or demonstrated loss of amenity. Any future recommendation from officers with regards a future local plan policy or article 4 direction would be an evidence-based piece of work to Planning Committee.

A member expressed concern over applications that sought permission for household extensions that were later converted to HMOs.  It was confirmed that applications need to be taken on face value, and the Council could not refuse otherwise acceptable development because of speculation over future uses. 

A member highlighted a small error in para 2.4 of the report, confirming that the Council motion relating to the feasibility of Article 4 Directions was amended to include Englefield Green East, as well as Egham Town and Englefield Green West wards.

Given the timescales involved in any potential introduction of an Article 4 Direction, a member asked about the possibility of additional tools such as SPDs to deal with the volume of HMOs, but the Head of Planning confirmed that SPDs could not introduce a new policy, only add clarity to an existing policy. 

There was a 12-month lead in time for an Article 4 Direction to be put in place otherwise substantial compensation could be payable. There could however be a degree of twin tracking between a possible article 4 direction being drafted and local plan policy being formulated, as the preparation of an article 4 direction did not necessarily have to wait until the Local Plan had been adopted, provided the evidence was there to support progressing the direction. However if the direction were to be adopted prior to the adoption of a policy it was unlikely to be effective, until policies were in place.

In relation to quantifying impacts of HMOs and the results of an earlier analysis being unclear, officers noted committee’s suggestion to liaise with Environmental Health, Community Services and Surrey Police to build up a broader picture.  It was also asked that data on antisocial behaviour was collected from Royal Holloway University and the police to ensure as broad an evidence base as possible.

Data on school numbers in areas with high volume HMOs was not currently available, but would be considered as part of the Local Plan review.  Anecdotal evidence from other local authorities could also be considered.

A member expressed concerns that bringing in an Article 4 direction could generate a significant quantum of applications for little prevention of the perceived issue. It was noted that this had been the case in some other LPA areas, however others had had greater success. The fine balance between the prospect of an Article 4 Direction and processing additional planning applications – and potentially call-ins – was noted, along with the possibility that it may not provide the desired relief. 

It was noted that it would also be challenging for planning decision makers to demonstrate harm from a small, marginal increase in occupants.  The evidence base would also require the introduction of the necessary policies to turn down HMO applications where appropriate, whilst recognising that HMOs did have a role to play in the housing mix.

Committee noted concern around parking associated with HMOs and whether mechanisms would exist through an Article 4 Direction to strengthen parking regulations.  The Head of Planning advised that this would have be achieved through policy and potentially a parking SPD and the optimum time to review this would be post-adoption of the Local Plan. 

It was noted that there may be some conflicts between the desire to provide parking at HMOs against the Council’s commitment to tackle climate change and reduce personal vehicle use.

Environment & Housing services element

In response to concerns about transient noise complaints, officers confirmed that these complaints had started to be logged by Environmental Health, however as transient noise was not considered a statutory noise complaint it was unlikely to be able to part of a justifiable evidence base, however officers would look into whether it would provide any weight from any antisocial behaviour perspective.

To address some of the concerns raised by their residents, members enquired about the feasibility of extending licensing arrangements to include small HMOs, as well as more stringent controls around maintenance of gardens, management of waste and antisocial behaviour.  Officers advised that the only way of compiling a complete database of HMOs would be to go door-to-door, and in addition to this being an enormous task, the volume of HMOs would be ever-changing and the database would be virtually impossible to keep accurate.

It was added that regardless of whether an HMO was licensed or not, enforcement and proactive work was carried out, along with inspections to ensure properties were up to standard, with improvements to fire safety making up the vast majority of required improvements.

It was also confirmed that it was not possible to charge for enforcement as part of the licensing fees, which was only permitted to cover the cost of administration, and the overwhelming majority of compliant and licensed landlords already met the requirements of them.

Whilst the emphasis would be on a landlord to apply for a license for HMOs involving over five people, there was also an onus on the local authority to ensure information and guidance was available to them, and regularly produced adverts set out the requirements, whilst officers attended freshers events to try and engage students to help set out the requirements of landlords.  Members offered to help bridge the gap to circulate the message more widely.

It was conceded that any increase in licensing would not necessarily address the issues the committee had identified due to there being a limit in what is licensable and enforceable, with a change in law needed to address some of the concerns of residents and the committee, whilst additional licensing was unlikely to have a material relief on issues around housing mix and parking.

It was also acknowledged there was a degree of subjectivity to some of the concerns, particularly around untidy gardens, which had a high threshold for breaches under the licensing conditions and would generally involve the presence of rodents or damage to neighbouring or public property.  In the vast majority of cases untidy gardens could only be addressed under management regulations.

Officers assured members that whilst not all complaints of this nature would be provided with feedback, they were always followed up and where appropriate brought to landlords’ attention. It was confirmed that Digital Services were looking into reporting streams to be able to identify repeat offenders more easily.

Addressing questions about the Council’s ability to withhold or not renew a license, officers advised this could only be done in the event of a criminal conviction, however licensing conditions could be used to help address known issues.

The role of a Joint Enforcement Team (JET), similar to what operates in Spelthorne, was explained, and officers advised that the presence of a JET in Runnymede would have a very limited impact on dealing with HMOs, due to their inability to deal with internal issues.

In considering any eventual recommendations from the work, the committee were reminded that Planning Committee had already agreed a resolution for officers to work on an evidence base for HMOs in the wider context of the Local Plan review.