Agenda item

The Private Sector Housing Manager introduced the report submitted to the Committee.  He confirmed that the Assistant Director, Planning Development, had co-authored the report.  The Committee was advised of the background to the report and informed that the two most common measures to control and further regulate Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) were additional HMO licensing and an Article 4 Direction.  The Private Sector Housing Manager reminded the meeting that Guildford Borough had mandatory HMO licensing only and that HMOs of 3-4 persons did not require a licence to operate lawfully. 

The Private Sector Housing Manager informed the Committee that the data within the report did not support the introduction of additional HMO licensing or justify an Article 4 Direction in Guildford at the current time.

During the ensuing discussion a number of issues were raised and responded to:

·       A member of the Committee questioned why the report had been prepared without any consultation with residents.  He suggested that the views of residents be added into the report. 

·       In addition, the same Committee member advised the meeting that the ward he represented had numerous HMOs due to its proximity to the University of Surrey and the Royal Surrey County Hospital and he suggested the data presented in the report underplayed the number and density of HMOs.  As an example, the Committee member contrasted the HMO figures in the report for Beckingham Road and the Ashenden estate with student residency information for the same areas provided to him by the University of Surrey and suggested that there were many HMOs not captured by the data used for the report. 

·       In reply, the Private Sector Housing Manager stated that the information within the report reflected HMOs that were known to exist.  He suggested that perhaps the information provided to the Committee member by the University of Surrey was less reliable and could reflect students living with parents rather than an additional HMO.  He stated that if there was a re-writing of the report in future then new data sources could be considered. 

·       The Assistant Director, Planning Development acknowledged that the report was a snapshot pulled together from various sources and was not the definitive position on the concentration of HMOs across the Borough.  She suggested that if controls were to be explored further then a completely reliable source of data to identify HMOs would need to be established and maintained going forward. 

·       With reference to section 12.1 (iv) of the report, entitled ‘HMO Decline (2022-2023)’, members of the Committee questioned why a slowing of applications for new HMOs had been presented within the report as a decline, especially since the overall number of licensed HMOs had continued to increase.  In response, the Private Sector Housing Manager indicated that the report was intending to show that the annual rate of HMO applications was returning to pre-2018 levels.  He advised that Figure 4 within the report was intended to show that the potential impact of an Article 4 Directive had become less significant over time as fewer new HMOs were being created each year.

·       A Committee member noted that the report classified some streets as at high risk of HMO densification whereas the data within the report showed over half of the properties in the same streets were known to be HMOs.  He suggested that these areas could be better described as having reached saturation point rather than as being at high risk.  He asked what could be done to address the high density of HMOs recognised in the report. 

·       The Assistant Director, Planning Development, suggested that the fundamental question to consider was whether HMOs were a form of tenure needed within the Borough and whether they contributed to the needs of the community and supported the economy of the Borough.  She told the meeting that the available evidence showed HMOs were needed and did support the local economy, and that they were likely to increase due to rising property prices and the pressures caused by the cost of living.  A Committee member asked whether there was evidence to show turning homes into HMOs did support the economy. 

·       A member of the Committee queried why the key risks section of the report focused on the Council’s resourcing and financing of the Article 4 Direction and additional HMO licensing schemes and did not discuss the impact on communities of high concentrations of HMOs.  With reference to the resourcing of additional HMO licencing, the Private Sector Housing Manager stated that the Council would need more resources to be able to deliver proactive full property inspections, undertake licensing and documentation checks, and ensure compliance.

·       A Committee member suggested that the report should have included consideration of the problems caused from high densities of HMOs and how they might be addressed, rather than restricting its focus to whether two ways to limit HMOs would work; he stated that the main issue was not one of HMO mismanagement, but of how high densities of HMOs with higher levels of transient residents and fewer long term households and established families impacted communities.  The Private Sector Housing Manager advised that the merit of introducing additional licensing could only be assessed against evidence of HMO mismanagement.  The Assistant Director, Planning Development, advised that creating and maintaining mixed and balanced communities was a planning measure and not relevant to additional licensing of HMOs.  She indicated that whether there was a need to limit the number of HMOs could be looked at through the mechanism of the Local Plan Review.

·       The Lead Councillor for Planning attended the meeting remotely.  She indicated the need for evidence to support any decision on changing HMO licencing, introducing an Article 4 Direction, or amending policies through the updated Local Plan.  The Lead Councillor for Planning stated that to obtain this evidence required resources and suggested the Committee might wish to make a recommendation on the matter.  She indicated that there would be a resource issue if officers were to gather further sources of information.

·       The Lead Councillor for Democratic and Regulatory Services attended the meeting remotely.  She spoke of young professionals requiring HMOs and the broader need to deliver affordable housing in the Borough.  The Lead Councillor for Democratic and Regulatory Services noted that not all problems associated with HMOs were caused by them and observed that HMO tenants were also residents.  She concluded by asking the Private Sector Housing Manager and the Assistant Director, Planning Development how much additional resource would the Council need to allocate to be able to address this issue appropriately and in more detail.

·       The Private Sector Housing Manager indicated that extra resources would be required to explore other information sources and that a significant amount of resource would be needed to deliver an additional licensing scheme involving two-phase licensing documentation, compliance checks, and enforcement.  He indicated that quantifying the resources required for additional licensing of HMOs would not be possible until the number of HMOs across the Borough was established. 

·       The Assistant Director, Planning Development, stated that an Article 4 Direction would likely lead to an increase in planning applications and that there would not be a planning fee attached to such applications.  She advised the meeting that there would be a cost and resource issue arising from the additional work of supporting and delivering an HMO Article 4 Direction.

·       A member of the Committee advised the meeting that the University of Surrey representative on the HMO Stakeholder Group had recently left their post and the post had not been filled. 

·       With reference to the resources needed to gather information on HMOs in the Borough, a member of the Committee suggested the value in using social media to engage with communities and collect relevant data.  The Private Sector Housing Manager welcomed the suggestion and agreed it would be worthwhile exploring social media in future.  He indicated that a difficulty of online surveys was analysing responses and ensuing data was robust.

·       In reply to a question, the Private Sector Housing Manager, confirmed that there was no mechanism to regulate landlords buying properties to create HMOs and that as a Council it would be injudicious to seek to influence the market. 

·       The Chair suggested that the extra costs to landlords from introducing discretionary licensing of smaller HMOs would likely be passed on to tenants.

·       The Chair suggested the Committee might consider recommending additional HMO licensing on some wards close to the University of Surrey and the Royal Surrey County Hospital.  With reference to other local authorities, he informed the meeting that the numeric threshold for introducing an Article 4 Direction varied markedly between localities.  In reply, the Private Sector Housing Manager advised that Council committees could act against officers’ recommendations about additional HMO licensing but that such action would risk the Secretary of State refusing the application due to a lack of evidence of HMO mismanagement.  The Assistant Director, Planning Development noted that if the Council directed serving an Article 4 Direction, then relevant planning applications would have to be assessed against adopted policy, and that the relevant policy in Guildford’s Local Plan was subjective rather than numeric.

·       A Lead Councillor suggested that it was desirable to have mixed communities in all parts of our Borough, and that a high density of HMOs tended to lead to separate communities.  He proposed the advantages to tenants of introducing an additional licensing regime for smaller HMOs to bring them up to the standard of the larger, mandatory-licensed HMOs.  The Councillor spoke of the importance of students to the Borough and cautioned against perceived student-bashing in discussions of HMOs.

·       A Lead Councillor suggested that the nature of HMOs meant that regulation was widely agreed to be necessary, but it was important that regulation was proportionate and targeted.

The Chair indicated he did not support additional HMO licensing or making an Article 4 Direction at that time but felt there was a need to actively plan to gather further data to definitively establish the location of unlicensed, 3-4 bedroom HMOs in the Borough.  He suggested the possibility of a task force as one method to advance this piece of work.  In response, the Private Sector Housing Manager agreed the value in determining the number of HMOs in the Borough and updating the Committee.  He advised the meeting that he would look to progress measures, including a possible funding bid, to find the number of HMOs in the Borough. 

A Committee member proposed that the Committee members be updated by email on what further data would be required to investigate Article 4 Directive options.  The Private Housing Sector Manager agreed the value in such an update and indicated that residents’ groups, the University of Surrey, and targeted door knocking were potential data sources.  He suggested the findings from all data sources be reported to the Committee.

RESOLVED:  (I)  That the Executive be recommended to support further measures necessary to establish the number of HMOs in the Borough.

(II)  That the Executive ensure that for subsequent HMO reports the public are consulted on the impact and ongoing issues associated with HMOs in the Borough.

(III)  That Committee members be provided with an update on what further data would be required to explore Article 4 Directive options.