Memorandum by National HMO Lobby (SRH
25)
1. The National HMO Lobby is a network of
45 community groups in 30 towns throughout the UK, campaigning
on housing issues since 2000. Its concern is specifically with
HMOs (houses in multiple occupation), and especially with addressing
the problems these can pose for local communities. To this end,
while its members campaign locally, the Lobby itself campaigns
nationally. We have made representations on the Housing Green
Paper Quality & Choice (DETR, 2000), Modernising
the Private Rented Sector (Shelter Commission, 2001), Selective
Licensing of Private Landlords (DTLR, 2001), Use Classes
Order (DTLR, 2002), Draft Housing Bill (Commons Select Committee,
2003), Planning Policy Statement 1, Creating Sustainable Communities
(Minister for Planning, 2004), the Housing Act itself (representations,
2004), The Implementation of HMO Licensing (ODPM, 2005),
Householder Consents (ODPM, 2005), Affordability &
the Supply of Housing (Commons Select Committee, 2005) and
so on. We have held meetings with successive Housing Ministers
(Nick Raynsford 2001, Lord Falconer 2002, Keith Hill 2004), and
our lobbying was instrumental in initiating Universities UK's
report on Studentification (2006). [For information on the Lobby
and its lobbying, visit our website at <http://hmolobby.org.uk/index.htm>]
2. The National HMO Lobby wishes to respond
to two queries in particular in the inquiry into the Supply of
Rented Housing by the Select Committee for Communities and Local
Government, namely: The role and effectiveness of private rented
housing in meeting housing needs and the role and effectiveness
of the planning system ... in the provision of rented housing
and securing mixed tenure housing developments. In particular,
the Lobby wishes to sound a note of caution regarding the role
of private renting in housing supply. In many cases, this type
of tenure is actually detrimental to housing supply; it can also
be damaging to the sustainability of communities; and amendment
of the planning system is essential to address these negative
effects.
3. First of all, much private renting is
actually used as second homes. When there is a housing shortage,
the existing stock should be used as justly as possible. To our
mind it seems little short of criminal that there are people who
are homeless, families who are overcrowded, households anxious
to establish their own homes—when others enjoy the luxury
of not only a secure home, but also an additional second home
which they can also enjoy at their whim. Second homes take a variety
of forms. Best known, of course, is the town-dweller who buys
a country cottage as an occasional weekend or holiday retreat.
But a recent report has drawn attention to student second homes
also, where parents buy a house in a university town for use by
their children in term-time [reverse holiday-homes]. "Around
83,000 homes were bought on behalf of students by last year, a
26% increase since 2000, according to the study by finance firm
Direct Line. The number of houses occupied by students was predicted
to reach 100,000 by the year 2010. The so-called university effect
helped increase the number of `second properties' to 2.6 million,
up from 2.3 million five years ago. Around 1.6 million of the
second properties were buy-to-let, while others included holiday
homes and work bases" (Press Association, 7 August 2006).
In Leeds, there are currently 500 homeless families and 5,000
overcrowded (according to Shelter), while the Council estimates
that over 5,000 homes have been converted to student HMOs. In
many cases, both types of second home are bought directly by the
users. But the burgeoning buy-to-let market, not to mention the
professional private rented sector, has taken advantage of both
of these sources of demand. Of course, much of the private rented
sector serves a genuine, temporary need, for those moving from
the family home to their own home, or from one place of work to
another. Private renting also serves those who can't afford to
buy. But to some degree, this is a vicious circle—would-be
owners are outbid by property investors. This is especially invidious
when investment properties are let as second homes, to holidaymakers
or to students. (For these markets, there are perfectly viable
alternatives, in the form of purpose-built development, hotels
or halls.) The numbers of houses from existing stock lost to second
homes through private renting runs into the millions. This is
one respect in which private renting is detrimental.
4. Secondly, the impact of private renting
can often be damaging to the sustainability of communities. The
Department for Communities' website provides working definitions
of "sustainable community", based on eight elements:
active; inclusive and safe; well run; environmentally sensitive;
well-designed and built; well-connected; thriving; well-served;
and fair for everyone. The Lobby endorses all these, all are necessary
to sustaining a community. However, neither separately nor indeed
collectively are they sufficient. Above all, a community rests
on its population base, and it is that population which makes
the community harmonious, or the environment green, or the neighbourhood
attractive, and so on. What this means is that a sustainable community
is absolutely dependent on a population base which is both willing
and able to do these things. Lacking this base, no amount of external
intervention will achieve any of the necessary elements. Now,
a transient or a seasonal population lacks either the ability
or the will (or both) to sustain a community. Seasonality and/or
transience mean part-time residents—who inevitably lack
the commitment and/or the capacity to work for the community's
sustainability. (Indeed, their very presence erodes community
itself.) But seasonality and transience are precisely what is
inflicted on communities by privately rented second homes. In
small proportions, the impact may be modest. But such private
renting is often attracted to honey-pot locations—either
attractive rural or coastal locations (for holiday-homes), or
university towns (for student-houses). The upshot is that concentrations
of private renting arise, with deeply damaging effects on communities.
In the case of university towns, this phenomenon has been labelled
"studentification" by Universities UK itself (for instance,
in their report Studentification, 2006). In this second aspect,
then, private renting can be detrimental.
5. One measure would contribute at least part
of an answer to these issues concerning both permanent homes and
sustainable communities. The measure centres on the role of HMOs.
On the one hand, a significant proportion of second homes (no
longer available as permanent homes) are student houses. Virtually
all of these are shared houses, and therefore fall within the
definition of HMO newly provided by the Housing Act 2004. On the
other hand, a significant factor in transience (undermining sustainable
communities) is the private rented sector. Turnover of occupants
is highest in this housing sector (the average tenancy is 18 months),
and it is highest of all in HMOs. They have their uses for short-term
accommodation, but very few would care to reside for long in a
HMO. The new Housing Act provides for licensing of HMOs (mandatory
licensing of larger and less safe HMOs, potential additional licensing
of others), but these controls are in the interest of the welfare
of the tenants. They are concerned with quality, not quantity.
But it is quantities which need to be managed, if houses are not
to be lost as permanent homes, and if sustainable communities
are not to be lost to transience. Proliferation of HMOs is a matter
of planning (not housing) control. But no controls are available
in English planning legislation. The relevant Statutory Instrument
is the Use Classes Order (specifically the Town and Country Planning
(Use Classes) Order 1987 [SI 1987 764]). But HMOs are not identified
there as a distinct usage, and so there is no planning control
of HMOs. As part of an answer to achieving decent homes and sustainable
communities, the National HMO Lobby proposes revision of the Use
Classes Order, such that: (a) a common definition of HMO is
adopted in both housing and planning legislation; and (b) change
of use to HMO becomes subject to planning permission. (Both these
steps have been taken in Northern Ireland's Planning [Use Classes]
Order [Northern Ireland] 2004 [Statutory Rule 2004 458].) Such
revision would enable local authorities to control proliferations
of privately rented HMOs, to ameliorate the detrimental use of
private renting, and thereby preserve part of the housing supply.
|
