Agenda item

This Item was introduced and presented by the Assistant Director of Planning. The presentation covered an overview of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) definitions, licensing requirements and planning controls. The presentation noted the current position in Rushcliffe, which was that HMOs accommodating seven or more occupants required planning permission. It was also noted that an Article 4 Direction removed permitted development rights and required a planning application but did not automatically prevent development.

The Group was advised, during the presentation, that there were currently 188 licensed HMOs in Rushcliffe and that the number of HMOs occupied by three or four people was unknown as licensing was not required. The Group was also advised that a commissioned study by Rushcliffe Borough Council suggested there were likely to be a further 175 HMOs, although this data was not verified. Of those unverified HMOs, it was thought that 91 were in West Bridgford. It was also noted that HMO concentrations were predominantly within West Bridgford, particularly along key arterial routes.

In summarising the current context, officers noted that complaints were mostly related to noise, with a small number relating to antisocial behaviour. It was also noted that Nottinghamshire County Council reported very few parking complaints directly linked to HMOs and that current evidence did not demonstrate significant harm, or risk of harm, to local amenity or wellbeing.

Following the presentation, Councillors asked questions and raised some concerns, including regarding the concentration of HMOs across West Bridgford and Trent Bridge. Councillors shared concerns from their own wards, including the impact on local communities and the character of neighbourhoods, as well as the impact on family homes, both in terms of access to family homes and the availability of family housing stock in certain areas, and the impact on families living in areas with high concentrations of HMOs.

Councillors specifically asked to be provided with local and national examples of where Article 4 implementation had taken place and officers advised that implementation was generally in city areas and gave Bolton as an example.

Councillors commented on complaints received relating to HMOs and whether the figures quoted accurately reflected residents’ concerns. Councillors noted that residents might experience fatigue from complaining, which would be compounded if they saw little noticeable action resulting from their complaints. Similarly, Councillors noted that residents might direct their complaints to other bodies, such as the relevant universities.

Councillors also considered what other tools or levers existed within the planning system to mitigate their current concerns. It was noted that there were no such policy options that would address the issues raised by Councillors.

It was RESOLVED that the Communities Scrutiny Group had scrutinised the contents of the report and the conclusions as set out in paragraphs 4.27 to 4.30, and the Group decided to provide an additional recommendation.

The Group had differing views on the evidence and whether it was sufficient to progress an Article 4 Direction. The Group then discussed a further recommendation which better reflected the Group's concerns. The Group voted in favour of the new recommendation.

It was additionally RESOLVED that further investigative work be undertaken to establish whether an Article 4 Direction could be justified within smaller neighbourhood areas of West Bridgford. This was voted on and received unanimous support from the Group.