Agenda item

To receive and consider an update from the Executive Member for Highways and Planning on Council Policy on Houses of Multiple Occupation.

Councillor Miall declared a personal interest in this item.

Claire Lawrence, Head of Development Management and Regulatory Services, introduced two reports that had been circulated.  The first dealt with the legislative background to Houses in Multiple Occupations (HMOs).  She outlined the different definitions of HMOs under licencing and planning legislation and the different types of ‘nuisance’. 

The second document outlined Wokingham Borough Council’s policy in dealing with problems related to HMOs.  In the first instance they try to reach amicable solutions and involve neighbourhood officers in reaching solutions.

She described what would be involved in using Article 4 Directions to increase the Council’s control.  This would be contrary to general Government policy which is to favour deregulation and it could be quashed by the Secretary of State.  She described feedback she has had from other councils regarding use of Article 4 Directions which indicated that they were more likely to succeed if they were small in scale and it is essential that they are evidence-based.  However, the time and resources required are significant and a one-year notice period is required.

In the meantime, she reminded Members that Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE) has been sought by the Borough and when that is available it will increase the Council’s powers to tackle parking problems which appear to be the main current problem with HMOs.

John Kaiser said that he believed that the numbers of HMOs are likely to increase as rents rise and it becomes more profitable.  Parking problems arise because the old regulations on parking provision in areas like Shinfield were inadequate.  He believed that some of the green space in Council ownership could be provided for parking but that the Council did not have money to pay for the parking provision.

Members sought clarification on the licencing and planning definitions of HMOs.  Clare Lawrence agreed that the definitions left a lot of grey area and there was a great deal of case law involved.  She believed that genuine families were easily identifiable but that it can be extremely difficult to know who is living in shared houses and HMOs where, for example, partners may stay occasionally or may be resident.

Michael Firmager pointed out that it is likely to be 18 months before CPE comes in and he asked what can be done in the meantime.

John Kaiser replied that there can be three ways to deal with parking enforcement: by the police, by the management companies and by residents.  He said that there was a permit scheme operating for social housing in the Shinfield area.

Chris Bowring asked if it was mainly a problem relating to rented accommodation.  Clare Lawrence responded that planning regulations deal with the use of a property and not whether they are owner-occupied or rented.

Alison Swaddle asked if the installation of bollards might help to prevent illegal parking.  John Kaiser responded that bollards had their own problems.

Parry Batth, Mayor, thanked the Officer for the report.  He said that he had sympathy with the residents of Shinfield who were subject to unhelpful behaviour by some of their neighbours.  He noted that WBC had refused planning permission for this development but it was successfully appealed.  He believed that the Council should try to stop continuing conversion of properties to HMOs and hold any current applications in abeyance as well as expediting CPE and providing more parking spaces.

The Chairman invited two residents to speak: Ms. Helen Yeo and Ms. Doreen Couzens.  They outlined the problem of family homes being converted to five or six bedroom HMOs.  They said that there were only 7 licenced HMOs out of 310 properties so they believed that most HMOs are unlicenced.

There was also a problem of people parking in their area in order to avail of the frequent bus service to Reading.  In addition, there could be problems around the Shinfield Players Theatre.  The residents said that parking could be provided by using a currently derelict road or some of the green space.  The Council could make money if they charged for the parking provided.

The Chairman asked if parking was the big issue here.  The residents said that there were other more minor problems but agreed that parking was the main concern of residents - in Shinfield and elsewhere.  There was some permit parking for social housing but that itself caused an overflow problem.

John Kaiser expressed concern that the result of consultation on a potential Article 4 might be that most residents oppose it, if there are so many HMOs there already.  He also asked if the licencing system was working.  Residents said that they got no response to emails to licencing staff.

Pauline Jorgensen said that there was a meeting of the Joint Services Review Panel taking place next week which includes licencing and anyone with evidence of poor service should submit it.

John Kaiser suggested that the Parish Council might have the money to pay for the provision of parking and he felt sure that the Borough would be happy to provide the land.  He also said that he would work with his enforcement officers to see if anything can be done regarding any unauthorised HMOs.  He asked if resources were available to the shared licencing service with West Berkshire to do a test project on licencing of HMOs in Shinfield Park.

RESOLVED:  The Committee noted the report and requested that

1)      The planning and licencing position regarding HMOs in the borough generally and Shinfield Park specifically be monitored and reviewed and that a report be brought to the Committee in six months;

2)      The Mayor contact the Parish Council with regard to the suggestion that the Borough provide land and the Parish Council fund the provision of parking;

3)      The Executive Member for Resident Services consider the issue of the licencing of HMOs particularly in the Shinfield Park area.