Agenda item

The Executive Advisory Board (EAB) considered a report which provided information regarding the viability of applying further controls to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and reviewed the potential amount, and recovery of, costs incurred by the Council in relation to HMOs.

Due to the level of evidence required to bring forth further HMO controls, the report considered the nature of HMO occupiers and examined HMO spread, density and connection to complaints from the public, including reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) to both the Council and the Police.

The report was led by data which had been collected and analysed prior to the evaluation of the options available to extend HMO controls and this data had informed discussions in respect of the feasibility of further HMO controls in the Borough.  The report discussed legal responsibilities, potential cost gaps and suggested methods to close any potential cost gaps in relation to topics such as waste collection and Council Tax / Business Rates.

The report detailed several areas of risk to the Council and significant challenges to both resourcing of Place Services and Environment & Regulatory Services and in addition, to the effectiveness of either an Article 4 Direction (requiring planning permission for the change of use of a flat or house to an HMO where 3 or more unrelated people would occupy the dwelling) and / or additional licensing controls would have if implemented.  The spread and density of existing HMOs could not be controlled by an Article 4 Direction.

The data analysed in the report did not support the theory that HMO density was causational to ASB.

The data indicated that reports to the Council or Police relating to HMOs were not sufficiently significant or frequent to warrant extending additional controls to the HMO marketplace and the evidence suggested that application to the Secretary of State to either enact Article 4 or to extend HMO licensing in Guildford, to include areas of additional licensing schemes, would not be successful.

The report contained recommendations to the Executive that an Article 4 Direction and additional HMO licensing should not be pursued as these measures were not supported by current data.  It was further recommended that the Council may wish to consider encouraging a change in national legislation to require private domestic landlords to pay business rates and that landlords be free to choose between the private and public sector to comply with their legal duty to have accumulations of commercial waste removed from HMO properties.

The reason for the recommendation was that an HMO review report considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 29 June 2021 had prompted further review by the EAB of the options available to the Council to control the spread and density of HMOs and to evaluate potential cost gaps of HMOs to the Council.  In addition, to identify if the Council could successfully implement further controls by analysing the relationship between the current HMO spread and density with links to ASB and complaints to the Council and HMOs.

The following points arose from related questions, comments and discussion for drawing to the attention of the Executive:

1.           There was some doubt as to whether the EAB had fully addressed the questions in respect of HMOs that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had forwarded to it for attention.  However, considerations in this regard were hampered by a lack of information and the limited ability to acquire such information utilising the available resources.

2.           Without a clear evidence base of mismanagement of HMOs demonstrating a serious and significantly detrimental impact on local communities and related amenities, it would not be possible to successfully obtain approval for an Article 4 Direction from the Government or pursue additional licensing in relation to smaller HMOs.  The tests relating an Article 4 Direction could include elements such as issues relating to parking and school places.  It was unlikely that such issues alone would merit additional controls and therefore evidence of significant ASB, noise and other forms of nuisance would be required.  Reports of nuisance received in respect of licensed HMOs over the past decade had been comparatively low and therefore it was envisaged that issues connected with unlicensable smaller HMOs were equally low.

3.           It was suggested that spread and concentration of HMOs, and the associated negative impact on the quality of life of nearby residents, were monitored in the light of the experiences of other councils with similar issues.

4.           Whilst Council Tax exemption was an indicator of an unlicensable HMO housing students, this factor was difficult to confirm.

5.           There was concern amongst councillors that some local residents were of the view that they were surrounded by HMOs leading to a reduction in local property values, a reduction in the availability of family homes and a wish by families to relocate to other areas.

6.           It was felt that students may be best housed in student accommodation therefore lessening the need for HMOs which reduced the number of homes available for family use with an associated impact on the property market.

7.           Parking was an issue associated with HMOs, particularly in the Park Barn area of Guildford.  However, planning parking improvements would be challenging to achieve.

8.           In addition to noise and other nuisances, issues with landlords and tenancy disputes were monitored as possible indications of problems associated with HMOs.

9.           Councillors were assured that the Council worked closely with the University of Surrey to monitor any issues associated with HMOs within the University’s ownership and there was some potential for closer working in this area.  It was felt that the collection of related data should include partners such as the University.

10.        It was suggested that the Council should publicise the methods by which residents should submit complaints associated with HMOs in order to capture related issues.

11.        The need to be proactive in gathering relevant data to ensure informed decisions was highlighted.  In this connection, attention was drawn to the need for resources to undertake information gathering such as street surveys and questionnaires

In conclusion, it was agreed that an update report, focusing on alternative means of data collection and associated results, would be submitted to the EAB in approximately twelve months’ time when it was anticipated that the impact of Covid-19 would have lessened and the property market may have stabilised.  On-line reporting forms and other relevant documentation could be forwarded to the EAB.