Development of residential property to HMO use

[Gerry Glyde]

As a direct reply to hastingsheritage, there is not a direct answer to the question you pose of heritage -v-landlord profit. When those houses were built between (my estimate) of 1890-1910 the demographic make up of Hastings and the UK were very different. Those properties may have been lived in by two parents, four or five childen, and maybe the sister or brother of the parents. They may have also had a live in maid, a job that was relatively common pre 1914 for some people of middle incomes.

Very few young people lived away from the parental home before marriage, unlike more modern times, although increasing numbers in the last decade are returning to the parental home, perhaps unwillingly, is a change to that trend. However they are often living away during periods of full time education. In addition the UK is one of the main destinations for overseas students. In addition the number of single parent households, and single person households means that the larger houses are no longer in demand.

In the 19th C Hastings was a town that attracted students but they lived on school premises and not as house shares. They lived in some of the bigger properties in the town that following the decline of that type of exclusive education had to find alternative uses such as Hurst Court as a conference centre, residential homes, apartments or demolition.

All of the properties on Wellington Sq, built for single use are now multi occupied as both homes and business. Many properties built in the 19th C are no longer sustainable in the form for which they were built and society has different needs eg Hastings now has a University Centre and so things have to adapt sad as that may be.

The authorities attempt to manage that change and the HMO regs were introduced in recognition of the need.

Some people however seek to get every £ possible out of change and this landlord is perhaps trying to squeeze as many residents as he can into each square foot in order to maximise his profit. Some buildings will go and others will be subject to a change of use. Some major companies are utilising buildings that may otherwise be redundant in their existing form eg Weatherspoons and the dreaded Tesco whether we like it or not. Some 1500 residents, myself included objected to a late 19th century pub with very unusual design features that had been empty for 5 years is a now a Tesco store. Will hastingsheritage shop in that type of shop? I will not, but regrettably it is always busy.

[Gerry Glyde]

Apologies
Have not been able to edit and correct.

[Richard]

It depends on what is meant by "preserving their character"

One family alone may not easily have the means to look after the original feautures in any case.
The good news is that HMO's can be sold, when the market rises, and converted into multiple self-contained private flats.
To expect them to be preserved as a single unit, as part of our heritage, when times have changed, is perhaps asking too much.
If conversion to private flats is not seen as a viable option then we can expect a landlord to move in to exploit the situation and the council typically can only react by enforcing rules and regulations as indicated by GG.
It is likely that if the HMO development route is followed then the fabric internally may be altered in a way that does not reflect the original layout, but in that case,it is subject to planning laws or regulations not imposed on a private owner who may have a relatively free hand in the matter.

So there may be arguments both for and against private versus tenanted properties in respect of the 'character' being preserved.