Development of residential property to HMO use

[hastingsheritage]

Dear residents of Hastings - please can you advise what is more important:

Preserving the character of unique Victorian houses or developing them into Houses of Multiple Occupancy?

There is currently a case running on Linton Road, which can be followed on the below link. Neighbours v Landlord.
http://publicaccess.hastings.gov.uk/onl ... APR_101391

Would be interested to hear your views. What is more important - One man's financial gain or preservation of Hasting's historic buildings?

Thanks

[Richard]

Scrolling down and reading the "documents" link provides interesting information.
Basically the owner is justifying his intention to convert large spacious houses into multiple flats to supply the need for more student accomodation, as the council has already acknowledged more student housing is now arising as Hastings is transformed into a "University" town.

The usual objections based on noise, rubbish, parking and social nuisance as well as the multiple occupancy density and an element of work being carried out, allegedly, without necessary planning permissions.
The owner portrays himself as a young entrepreneur being attacked also on account of his foreign background and because most of the neighbours complaining in writing (who additionally raised a petition of objection) are the types who would object to almost any change.
He implies that the students will add value to the town and this fits in with the council's own wishes.
The owner, who lives in the basement of one of the houses in the row, is clearly a sort of buy-to-let-developer who already has several other properties under his belt.

I would hope that with such a large number of objections being raised that the council will have to take note of the community feeling and will take the objections seriously.

[Richard]

I would not like the multiple coming and going of several flat dwellers when before I was used to only one family in a property and would see it as the place going 'down-market'.
Also once properties are divided up into flats there is no going back.
The multiple flats are intended by the owner mainly for students but he sees no objection to housing families on benefits as long as they behave !!

A step in the wrong direction in my opinion, let's restore the old Victorian properties rather than carve them up for the ambitions of yet another very ambitious 'buy-to-let' landlord.

[Gerry Glyde]

Under planning law the objectors seem to have very general rather than detailed specific evidence of unreasonable disruption that may make it difficult for the council to refuse planning permission.
However the council housing HMO team have some reasonabke arguments againt a HMO licence. In addition local residents may also be able to use the HMO management regulations to find if he will have suitable policies in place for the day to day management of the blocks. It is quite possible the family will move when it is up and running.

If the landlord also has other employment he may not have suffient time to manage that number of rooms. Residents may like to look up or obtain the Management Regulations from the internet or council. It is my opinion that an objection to the licence may be stronger than planning.
I also think that the new students who will bring money to the town have to live somewhere and they will be neighbours to somone in the borough and Linton is not unreasonable.

[Richard]

Mandatory HMO licensing is required by law but only applies to properties that are:
Three or more storeys high, and let to five or more persons who form more than one household and who share an amenity such as kitchen, bathroom or toilet.
So this may not even apply in the case of Linton?

I think there is another form of licensing applicable to properties, with three or more persons forming more than one household, which can be applied, but this is discretionary as the council can decide to apply it in certain parts of town, example:
Castle, Gensing, Braybrooke and Central St Leonards wards.
Or, anywhere it sees that housing conditions are of a particularly poor standard.

In other words the council will apply the mandatory license conditions generally, as required by law, but may additionally apply stricter license rules if the HMO falls outside the remit of the mandatory license rules, both by designated 'ward' and as it sees fit elsewhere.

http://www.hastings.gov.uk/housing_tax_ ... ion/which/

I guess you need a solicitor who is versed in such matters to put an expert opinion and that of course costs big money.

[Gerry Glyde]

The HMO Management Regs apply to any HMO regardless of whether it is a mandatory or Additional licence, or a non licensed property. The rules for compulsory licensed properties are more strict than non licenseable properties. All properties are subject to the Housing Health Safety Rating System (HHSRS) that concern space, cooking facilities (they have commented on that: eg hot plates or cookers) fire and access/egress, problems with falls, eg stairways, flooring within 29 set categories of hazard.

Those regulations are enforced by Housing or Environmental Health departments, depending on the organisational arrangements for the Council, not Planning although Planning will take into account any representations that they seem to be doing in this instance.

Hope that helps

[Richard]

It just looks to me that once he gets planning permission (and the objections are not substantial) the rest is a relatively simple matter for the landlord to get his act together.
If he already has several other prop's under his belt then he will know the score regarding the subsequent licensing and regs.

But then ask yourself why the council can allow such developments in some areas but refuse them in others - and on what grounds?
I suspect it would have to rest primarily at the planning level and that would squash any further activity.

[Richard]

Correction,

3 and 4 Linton Road are currently licensable HMOs, but neither are licensed, although there is an application pending for 3 Linton Road.
After looking more closely, the owner of the proposal, asking for retrospective planning permissions ,after he had split 4. Linton into flats and citing other HMO's in the area, is now being told licensing and regulations will apply to his proposal, as it was not previously an HMO.
Thus his plans to provide minimal kitchen facilities of two hotplates, a fridge/ freezer, a cupboard space and a sink "will not be sufficient to comply with the standards, which (according to Team Leader, Bill Frost, HBC) in addition require to be provided in each room the following":
• a cooker provided with an oven and a grill in addition to a two burner hob.
• There must be installed a secure fixed worktop with a tiled splashback for the preparation of food.

Bill Frost also points out the following:

"The proposals fail to comply with the Council's standards adopted for houses in multiple occupation in the following respects;
It is proposed to have 8 rooms sharing one kitchen situated on the first floor of the premises.The standards require that a kitchen should not be shared by more than five persons. It will therefore be necessary to provide a second shared kitchen elsewhere in the property."

"Fire safety measures should be incorporated in the building to include a protected means of escape from fire, a suitable automatic fire detection and alarm system and emergency lighting within the escape routes. As the proposals represent a change of use, I presume that these matters will be provided in compliance with the requirements of the Building Regulations."

As well as retrospective permissions the owner of 4. Linton has submitted planning permissions for proposed ground floor extension where four bathrooms, one bedroom and a boiler room are proposed to be built.

So, it does seem that the owner had not done his homework properly.
It all conjures up a strange picture of people living in flats and dropping down to kitchens and then below to bathrooms.
Makes me wonder why each flat could not have been self-contained, or is that normally the case with HMO's?

[Gerry Glyde]

As I wrote prevously there is possibly more scope for objection under , Env Health HMO regs than planning. I expect that the owner was hoping to avoid HMO reg but even if he had tried to convert to self contained flats he would possibly be caught by yet another type of HMO under Section 254 that can impose some but less restrictive rules.

It seems that the Council is following the correct path even if at the end that do allow both planning and licence. If a licence is granted the Council has power to impose special conditions that apply to that particular landlord/property. Residents may have groubds for later objection

[Richard]

yes! you are right GG, and now it looks as if his assumption that he could go ahead if PP were granted was all he needed to worry about.
whereas he is now coming under scrutiny regarding the HMO regs - which is no bad thing as health and safety must come first and foremost - although perhaps he would be advised to wait until PP had been granted before scurrying around trying to comply with them.

However, if the council had a strong objection to PP then surely they would not be examining the HMO regs and applying them before the PP decison had been considered and made known to him?