Agenda item

Houses in Multiple Occupation and Children's Care Homes

Report attached.

Minutes:

In accordance with Regulation 11 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, approval had been given by Councillor Jodi Clements, Chair of the Communities and Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee, to the following decision being made by Cabinet on 4^th December 2024, under the special urgency provisions for key decisions, on the grounds that the decision was urgent and could not reasonably be deferred.

Members considered a report of Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP, Leader of the Council, about proposed changes to planning policies in relation to Houses in Multiple Occupation and Children’s Care Homes.

Councillor Dad provided a brief introduction to the report and thanked planning officers Simon Prideaux and Shanshan Chen, who had drafted the report and who were in attendance. The report presented the draft versions of:

The evidence base document supporting the need for an Article 4 Direction that would remove permitted development rights for small houses in multiple occupation in nine wards in Hyndburn.

Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Houses in Multiple Occupation that would be used to help determine planning applications for Houses in Multiple Occupation, and;

Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Children’s Care Homes that would be used to help determine planning applications for Children’s Care Homes.

Cabinet was being asked to agree to undertake the necessary consultations, as the first step towards the Council being more readily able to manage these types of developments in the Borough.

Councillors Aziz, Walsh, Parkins, Fisher and Khan spoke in favour of the proposals. Councillor Khan queried whether the choice of wards might appear to be politically motivated and whether it might have been more advantageous to apply the Article 4 Direction across the whole Borough. Councillor Dad responded that the choice of wards was purely evidence based. Officers responded that the proposed changes were being consulted upon and that the evidence report was a live document. The wards covered and the relevant polices could be reviewed and adjusted as necessary after a period of time to reflect any change in circumstances. The approval of the Secretary of State was required for the proposed Article 4 Direction and this was unlikely to be granted for the whole Borough on the current evidence.

Approval of the report was deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

Over the past 18 months the Council had seen a significant increase in the number of planning applications for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO’s) and for Children’s Care Homes. These applications had given rise to objections from neighbouring residents and concerns about the impact that large numbers of care homes and children’s homes would have on an area.

One of the shared aims of the Corporate Strategy (2023-2028) and the adopted Hyndburn Core Strategy was to provide for a greater choice and quality of housing in the Borough. To help deliver this objective the Core Strategy set out a number of key priorities:

To provide sufficient housing of the right size and type to meet local needs, including those in need of affordable and supported housing or requiring larger family homes, higher value homes and homes to cater for an aging population. This would provide a more balanced housing supply with a choice of property types and tenure.

To ensure that all new property would be built to high standards, in sustainable locations, making the best use of brownfield land and to designs which minimised carbon emissions and related well to local character.

To ensure that areas of low demand housing were regenerated with a wider range of improved and new housing and supporting facilities, including local health centres and public open spaces.

The Core Strategy recognised that access to good quality affordable housing was an essential human need and was vital to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities. The provision of a balanced housing market within Hyndburn was a key priority and the Core Strategy sought to achieve this primarily though the development of larger family homes in sustainable locations.

This policy framework had been established in response to the housing problems that had historically been witnessed in Hyndburn. At its worse, the Borough had suffered housing market failure due to the high concentrations of poor quality terraced houses coupled with low demand, contributing to high levels of deprivation in central areas of Hyndburn. Whilst much had been done to help address these issues, large areas of the Borough still suffered from high levels of deprivation and associated problems. These areas were characterised by having:

High density of terraced and low value housing;
High numbers of rented properties;
Higher than average health issues;
Low average wages;
Higher than average number of people on allowances;
Higher rates of crime and disorder; and
Poor quality environment.

It was important to acknowledge that HMOs had widened the housing choice within the Borough, particularly providing affordable accommodation for young professionals, alongside low-income households who might be economically inactive or working in low paid jobs, and tackling the issues of a large number of vacant dwellings within the Borough. HMOs operated by government partnerships also provided essential temporary accommodations for asylum seekers, homeless people, ex-offenders, etc. The development of HMOs had also served to steadily reduce the level of vacant properties in the Borough.

However, at a time when corporate policies were seeking to improve the quality of housing across Hyndburn, there was a concern that the uncontrolled development of houses in multiple occupation in these areas would serve to lower the quality of housing and only serve to increase the social problems experienced in these areas. Higher than average concentrations of rented properties and houses in multiple occupation could have an unacceptable adverse impact on the socio-economic profile of these areas and as a consequence might result in families moving out of central areas and contributing to a spiral of decline at a time when the Council was working to improve these areas.

Need for an Article 4 Direction – Evidence Base

The communities in Hyndburn faced a wide range of socio-economic challenges. Many of Hyndburn’s Wards were within the top 10% of the most deprived wards in England when measured against a variety of indicators, and a similar number were also in the top 20% most deprived. Over the past 20 years, Hyndburn’s position in the indices of deprivation had steadily fallen and the steady increase in the numbers and concentrations of houses in multiple occupation were likely to have contributed towards this and made improvements to Hyndburn’s position steadily more difficult.

It was no coincidence that the wards with the lowest house values were also characterised by higher levels of deprivation and higher numbers of HMO’s. Whilst these areas had once been characterised by failing housing markets with high levels of vacant properties, owners of vacant properties were now finding companies and agencies keen to manage their properties to accommodate people with a range of needs, such as people on release from prison, mental health needs or refugees with no home. This in turn placed additional burdens and stress on already deprived communities.

An Article 4 Direction was part of planning legislation that allowed the Council to remove or restrict permitted development rights, including changes of use, in respect of an area or a particular type of property. Appendix 1 to the report set out the evidence that justified the making of an Article 4 Direction in nine wards in Hyndburn.

The need for a Policy Framework

If an Article 4 Direction was successfully implemented, it would only mean that planning permission was required for the development of small houses in multiple occupation.

Whilst the Hyndburn Core Strategy set out a broad strategy for the development of more family homes in the Borough, it was developed at a time when houses in multiple occupation were not an issue. The Development Management DPD had been developed in a way that dove-tailed with the Core Strategy and whilst it sought to improve the quality of housing across the Borough, it did not contain a detailed policy framework to help determine planning applications for houses in multiple occupation.

The Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Houses in Multiple Occupation provided in the report at Appendix 2 sought to set out a policy framework for the determination of planning applications for houses in multiple occupation submitted in Hyndburn.

This Supplementary Planning Guidance was intended to expand upon policy or provide further detail to policies in Development Plan Documents and the emerging Hyndburn Local Plan 2040. This document did not have development plan status, but it would be afforded weight as a material planning consideration in the determination of planning applications. This Supplementary Planning Guidance would remain a consultation draft until it had been consulted on and taken back to Council to be adopted.

This SPG would apply to all planning applications for development consisting of a change of use of a building from a use falling within the Use Class C3 (a family dwelling or flat for example) to Use Class C4 (small HMO) within the areas as shown at Figure 1 of Appendix 2. It would also apply to planning applications for the change of use from Use Class C3 to ‘sui generis’ large HMOs in the whole Local Authority Area.

The guidance would not apply retrospectively to existing HMOs. It should be noted that change of use from a small HMO (class C4) to dwelling house was a permitted development and did not require planning permission. However, permission was still required to change a large HMO (sui generis) into a dwelling house.

In addition to this guidance, other considerations and policies from the Hyndburn Development Plan documents and the emerging Hyndburn 2040 Local Plan might also be relevant to the consideration of a planning application for an HMO, depending on individual circumstances.

Children’s Homes Supplementary Planning Guidance

The draft Children’s Homes SPG was set out in the report at Appendix 3. This SPG had confirmed that a children’s home which operated with care staff on shifts did not comply with the definition of Class C3(b) or C3(c) use, and use of such premises as a children’s home would generally fall within Class C2 use (residential institution). By virtue of their differences in operational nature, level of activities, number of staff/visitors, and associated parking requirement and vehicle movements, a material change of use between children’s homes and residential dwellings would occur, therefore planning permission would be required for such type of development to enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the merits and impacts of the proposal.

The Children’s Homes Supplementary Planning Guidance was intended to expand upon policy or provide further detail to policies in Development Plan Documents and the emerging Hyndburn Local Plan 2040. This document did not have development plan status, but it would be afforded weight as a material planning consideration in the determination of planning applications. This Supplementary Planning Guidance would remain a consultation draft until it had been consulted on and taken back to Council to be adopted.

This SPG would apply to all planning applications for development of children’s homes. It particularly aimed to ensure that care needs for local children would be met locally, and to minimise the risk of children from other regions of the country being placed in Hyndburn. It set out two policies to ensure that the proposed children’s homes would meet the needs of local communities and satisfy site specific requirements which included:

That the general location of the care home was considered to be suitable and appropriate;
That the application property was suitable for the number of children and carers proposed;
That there was sufficient off-street car-parking for carers and visitors and that the development would not impact on highway safety, and;
That the development would not result in a concentration or cluster of children’s care home in that area.

In addition to this guidance, other considerations and policies from the Hyndburn Development Plan documents and the emerging Hyndburn 2040 Local Plan and the Ministerial Statement (2023) might also be relevant to the consideration of a planning application for an HMO, depending on individual circumstances.

Alternative Options considered and Reasons for Rejection

There were essentially three alternative options open to Cabinet:

Do not take forward the HMO Article 4 Direction - Alternative options would be to not introduce an Article 4 direction, in which case conversions to small HMOs would remain permitted development across the Borough or to apply the Article 4 direction to more wards of the Borough.

In light of the evidence presented in the Evidence Report (Appendix 1), it was considered appropriate to introduce the Article 4 Direction to the nine wards in Hyndburn (Barnfield, Central, Church, Clayton-le-Moors, Netherton, Peel, Rishton, Spring Hill, and St. Andrews) as these were the areas with the main concentrations of HMOs, and social/economic issues such as deprivation, high crime rate and low property prices.

Do not take forward the HMO SPD - In this scenario, the Council was likely to receive increased numbers of planning applications for HMOs. Without detail policy guidance, the Council would not be able to effectively manage and steer future developments of small and large HMOs in a consistent manner in the areas subject to Article 4 Direction and the whole borough, which would also lead to more appeals as applicants might challenge the Council’s interpretation of policies in the current and emerging local plans used as reasons for refusal.

Do not take forward the Children’s Homes SPD - In this scenario, the Council would continue to receive planning applications for children’s homes without any particular policy guidance to allow the Planning Committee to assess whether the proposed development would meet the care needs for the local community, whether the prospective children’s homes were of an appropriate space standards, and whether they would be appropriately located in the community without resulting in undue impact on the amenity of the existing communities and highway safety.

Consequently, the Council would not be able to effectively manage developments of children’s homes, which might lead to more appeals against the Council’s decisions.

Resolved - That the Cabinet:

(1) Makes an Article 4 Direction to remove permitted development rights for change of use from individual dwelling houses (Class C3) to small Houses in Multiple Occupation in nine wards within Hyndburn (Barnfield, Central, Church, Clayton-le-Moors, Netherton, Peel, Rishton, Spring Hill, and St. Andrew’s), in line with the details set out in the Evidence Report (Appendix 1);

(2) Approves the draft Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) as set out in Appendix 2 of the report, to be issued for consultation.

(3) Approves the draft Children’s Homes Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) as set out in Appendix 3, to be issued for consultation.

(4) Delegates authority to the Head of Planning and Transportation to consider the outcome of the consultation and to determine whether the direction should be confirmed, and whether to adopt the HMO and Children’s Homes SPGs.

Supporting documents: