(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered planning consent for houses in multiple occupation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I speak today about an issue that is deeply personal for people across my constituency: the rapid spread of houses in multiple occupation, or HMOs, and the growing frustration local communities feel at being powerless to manage their impact.
Let me be clear at the outset that HMOs have a place. They can provide flexible, affordable housing for students, young workers and those getting started in the housing market. For example, a constituent recently told me that, after moving out of her parents’ home, she found an affordable room in a well-kept, clean and safe HMO, which enabled her to save a deposit to buy her own property. It is important to recognise that HMOs have a place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. In September, it was alleged that more than 20 HMOs in Northern Ireland did not have appropriate consent. Does he agree that, whether the HMOs are student accommodation, private housing or Home Office housing, there must be planning consent, and planning enforcement must be swift to act on any breach, even if the party breaching planning rules is a Government body? Planning regulations apply to us all equally, without favour.
Steve Yemm
I agree that whoever falls foul of planning regulations should be held to account.
Although HMOs have a place, in Mansfield, as in so many proud towns across the country, we have seen what happens when the balance tips too far—when too many family homes are converted too quickly without proper local control or consideration. My constituents know the streets I am talking about in Mansfield Woodhouse, Forest Town, Warsop and parts of my town centre, where once-stable family homes are being turned into short-term lets or high-density HMOs almost overnight. The result is more noise, parking pressures, more rubbish and fly-tipping, higher turnover of residents, less community cohesion, and a growing feeling among residents that they have lost their say on what happens on their own street.
I have spoken to lifelong residents—people like myself who have raised their children and grandchildren in Mansfield—who remember when every family on their street knew every other family by name. In some areas, they now see bins overflowing, cars blocking their pavements and transient visitors who stay for a short while and are not invested in the area.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
We also have the phenomenon of HMO properties in my constituency. If someone were to apply to build a block of six apartments, they would have to go through a proper planning process, with things such as parking being considered. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the licensing regime needs to be significantly tightened to give local authorities the power to think about things such as parking and bin storage prior to an HMO licence being issued?
Steve Yemm
I agree, and I will turn to that later in my remarks.
Mansfield is built on community, and people look out for one another, but when planning makes it easier to convert family homes than to build them, the fabric of community life starts to fall apart a little. This is not an anti-HMO message; it is a pro-community message. Good landlords—I meet many of them—should be recognised and supported, but those who ignore rules should face real consequences, which speaks to the point the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) made.
Mansfield district council is doing all it can. It is using selective licensing powers to help address antisocial behaviour and poor housing in the private rented sector in certain designated areas, and I fully support it in doing so. It has also looked at using an article 4 direction to bring HMO conversions back under local planning control. I would also support that, but the process is relatively complex and costly, and feels a little stacked against local authorities.
Mansfield council would first have to gather extensive evidence to prove that uncontrolled HMO growth is genuinely harming the local area, whether that is parking pressures, waste issues or the erosion of family housing and so forth. That process alone involves months of costly data collection and consultation, and it puts more pressure on planning teams at a time when councils are recovering from years of cuts under the previous Government. We cannot expect them to do more with less while trying to respond to these real concerns from the community. Even with clear evidence—and Mansfield has plenty—councils have to jump through many hoops to justify what should be a straightforward decision giving local people a voice in what happens on their own streets.
So today I am asking the Minister to consider three things. First, we should simplify and strengthen the process for councils to use article 4 directions when there is a clear local need. Councils such as Mansfield should be trusted more and given the ability to protect their neighbourhoods. We should reinstate the principle that local authorities know their communities best.
Secondly, we should think about introducing a national framework that prevents over-concentration of HMOs in defined areas. Part of that could include the creation of a national register for HMOs, linking planning, licensing and council tax data so that local teams can more easily identify areas and locate unregistered properties.
Thirdly and finally, we should properly resource local authorities to enforce the rules they already have. Powers on paper mean nothing if councils do not have the people or funding to use them. We might consider, for example, the provision of ringfenced funding or allowing councils to use planning fees or licensing income to support enforcement.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for securing this important debate. As he said, the frustration among communities is felt deeply. Does he agree that whether it is HMOs, buy-to-lets, which are often problematic, or hostels, if there are breaches within them, or if landlords are not keeping to the rules, action should be taken swiftly by the authorities?
Steve Yemm
I agree with the hon. Member, but we need to get the balance right between the failing landlords and the very many good landlords we see.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate and for the recommendations he has made. In the London borough of Bexley, we have an article 4 direction, but we are beginning to see landlords setting up charities and housing associations that do not appear to comply with the ethos of such organisations, simply to get around the rules. They do not then require planning permission, as we have recently seen in Highfield Avenue in Northumberland Heath. Does my hon. Friend agree that we also need to look at landlords setting up those organisations to get around the rules?
Steve Yemm
As my hon. Friend would expect, I am sympathetic to that suggestion. However, that is not an experience I share, because I have a local authority that makes virtually no use of article 4. Certainly, if people are circumventing it, there is clearly a case for reform there as well.
To conclude, my overall message is that we need to think about how we reform article 4 to make it easier to justify, quicker to implement and fairer to landlords and residents. It should also be anchored in local decision making, rather than just about top-down approval. And we must ensure that our councils are funded properly to undertake compliance.
All we are really asking for are the tools to protect our towns and make sure that every street remains a place where people can live, grow and thrive together. Let us act now, trust councils and residents and make sure that planning policy works for our people, not against them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Things have moved on since I made my announcement during the suspension a few minutes ago, so I am going to put a formal two-minute limit on speeches. Regrettably, I still cannot guarantee that everybody will get to speak, and I will have to intervene as soon as your two minutes are up.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
As a university city, Bath has an increasing number of HMOs, not only but mainly because of increasing numbers of students. As we have heard, constituents living around HMOs face increasing pressure on parking, noise issues and waste collection issues. Meanwhile, more and more valuable family homes are snapped up by developers to squeeze more profit from single dwellings.
Bath council has started to control the mass conversion of properties into HMOs by imposing a 10% cap in certain areas on the number of homes that can be converted, and it is also protecting some families from being sandwiched between two HMOs. However, we still lose too many homes to HMOs, and the shortage of affordable family homes—especially two and three-bedroom homes—is particularly stark in the city centre. Bath is currently consulting on a new policy to ban turning three-bedroom family homes into HMOs where there could be family homes, and I urge all Bath residents to take part in that public consultation. Bath council is also ambitious about building 1,000 more social homes for rent to ease the desperate need for affordable homes. It is still waiting to hear from the new Government how they can support it, and I would also be happy to hear a response from the Government on that.
I am asking the Government to create a new planning class for short-term rentals such as Airbnbs. We need a planning system that can help reverse the loss of family homes from the housing market, and we must be serious about the current housing crisis. HMOs are not the only cause of that, but they are part of it.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. If I had to choose three letters to sum up my inbox when it comes to planning matters, it would be HMO. Nowhere in my constituency illustrates that more starkly than Windsor Street. I first saw the challenges there when I served the area as a local councillor, and they have not gone away. On a street of around 40 Victorian terraces, as many as seven are now HMOs. For the 20 years that I have been involved in Hartlepool politics, HMOs have been a perennial source of concern for local people.
As we have heard, there are good HMOs, but there are also far too many bad ones—ones that are poorly managed, in a state of disrepair, magnets for crime and antisocial behaviour and a blight on communities, and that erode social cohesion.
There are two things I want to raise in my brief time. First, Hartlepool effectively has two planning authorities. The first is the council, which is democratically elected, with officers who understand the streets, our history and our needs. The second is the mayoral development corporation, which covers a large part of the town centre and outsources most of its decisions to a private company based in Manchester.
My first plea to the Minister is that she please review these development corporations and not allow local authorities to have their planning powers stripped and exercised by a private company. My second plea is around article 4. One of the perverse aspects of applying for an article 4 direction is the 12-month notice period. We are applying, but in those 12 months developers rush to get as many HMOs through as they possibly can before the direction comes into force. My second plea to the Minister is therefore to review that timescale and reduce it to a matter of weeks, so that democratically elected people in Hartlepool can protect their communities from bad HMOs.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
We are seeing more and more HMOs across Walsall borough and in my constituency, and it is leaving my local residents feeling that they have very little say on what is happening in their streets. Walsall council has worked on this. I welcome its new article 4 direction, which came into effect in October 2025 and is a much-needed step in restoring local accountability. However, the issue does concern me. The conversion of family homes into HMOs reduces the availability of affordable family homes and risks changing the nature of settled communities. There is also a growing fear and concern about the use of HMOs to accommodate illegal migrants or newly arrived asylum seekers, so once again I seek reassurance from the Government that, as those people are decanted from hotels, we will not see an automatic rise in the number of HMOs. The Government need to get a grip on this issue; a starting point would be a national assessment of the impact that HMO concentrations are having on community cohesion.
Underpinning all this is the fact that our communities need to feel that they are being listened to. I urge the Government to take note and take action.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and a pleasure to join this important debate, called by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), which gives me a chance to raise an issue that really matters to my constituents in Halesowen—the rising number of houses in multiple occupation.
We all recognise the need for more housing, especially during a cost of living crisis, but it must be provided in an appropriate manner, and not in a way that undermines safety or community cohesion. In Halesowen, the biggest concerns that I hear regarding HMOs are parking, road safety and antisocial behaviour. Parking is already a challenge in our town; when HMOs are approved without adequate spaces, cars spill on to residential streets, causing frustration, congestion and preventable accidents. I am pleased that recent applications in relation to Nimmings Road and Olive Lane have been rejected for failing to meet those standards and for compromising safety.
Road safety is also an important concern. More cars on already narrow roads mean greater risk, especially where speeding is already an issue. Main routes such as Stourbridge Road and Long Lane are already gridlocked at peak times, and poorly planned HMOs cause further strain and risk making our roads less safe for local residents.
There is also the issue of antisocial behaviour. When HMOs are rushed through without proper consultation, they can change the character of our neighbourhoods. West Midlands police has found links between HMOs and increased reports of crime and drug offences, so these are genuine concerns that deserve to be taken seriously.
I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister two things. First, will the Government review planning guidelines for HMOs, to ensure that local authorities have the flexibility to consider parking, infrastructure and community impact before granting permission? Secondly, will the Minister consider introducing stronger licensing frameworks to prevent over-concentration of HMOs in particular streets or wards, so that growth is genuinely sustainable and in keeping with local needs?
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. It was in the Runcorn and Helsby by-election that I became aware of the issue of HMOs in our communities, and now I speak endlessly on this topic to highlight their impact on often deprived and forgotten communities that are bearing the brunt of the problem of housing people who are often asylum seekers.
In my Runcorn and Helsby constituency, there are 200 HMOs in the Halton borough council area; 127 of them are licensed, which means that they have more than five tenants. These are statistics that I can evidence. I also know, because the Home Office statistics tell me, that more than 600 asylum seekers are dispersed across the same area. It is not student accommodation in my local HMOs—that is not an issue in my constituency —it is an issue of asylum seekers. The impact on the community locally is illegal working; it is gangs; it is drugs; it is crime; it is the limiting of housing possibilities for local people; it is increases in rent prices because of the agreements that housing suppliers such as Serco have with the private landlords; it is antisocial behaviour. I have endless stories of criminal activity, sexual assaults and rape.
I urge that, under article 4, no new planning consent is given or granted in my constituency for HMOs. I urge the Home Office to give local authorities full power to act under article 4. Finally, I urge the Home Office not to send any more asylum seekers to my constituency.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this important debate on HMOs. Concerns around access to safe, good-quality and genuinely affordable housing have consistently been raised with me throughout my time representing my constituency. It is the No. 1 casework issue in my inbox. As a consequence of rising demand for affordable housing, alongside a cost of living crisis and regulatory changes, it is more profitable for landlords to operate houses in multiple occupation, and we have seen a year-on-year increase of HMOs in many regions across the country.
As we have heard from many other Members today, HMOs present difficult issues for tenants and wider communities if they are not properly licensed or managed. For some tenants, that may mean substandard housing facilities, without adequate access to toilet, bathroom or cooking facilities, or appropriate fire safety precautions. There is also the wider community impact: parking shortages, increasing levels of rubbish due to poor waste disposal and, sadly, the demise of family homes, just when the demand for good-quality family homes is rising.
Many of these issues go under the radar of local authorities if they are not reported, although many authorities recognise these issues and have taken action under article 4 directions, which relate to the removal of permitted development rights for HMOs and require planning permission to be sought. These can be targeted, but they are often challenged by landlords. Can the Minister provide an update on how the Government might be able to support councils to invoke article 4 directions despite challenges, so that they can effectively monitor and manage the number of HMOs in their areas? Is there any further update on how to tackle unlicensed HMOs, ensuring that tenants are not being taken advantage of?
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
The Government are rightly increasing regulation on social housing landlords, but we know that we have dodgy landlords in the private sector who are flouting the rules. As things stand in my constituency and across east London, we know there are huge problems with unlicensed HMOs, which are causing people to live in unsanitary and unsafe conditions. Does my hon. Friend agree that we also need to give councils more powers to tackle the scourge of unlicensed HMOs?
Rachel Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for making that really important point about unlicensed HMOs, and I thoroughly agree.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this debate.
HMOs can work for some people, such as students. With the average house price now more than 7.5 times the average salary, compared with the ’80s when it was three times, HMOs are increasingly becoming the default living arrangement for young professionals. After university or college, the last thing young people want is another year—or many years—sharing a space with others they do not know very well. It also does not mean that these people have significantly lower housing costs because, while cheaper than a full home, many of these places are still exorbitant. While HMOs have their place, their proliferation points to a bad housing market, one in which people are forced to share with strangers because other options are too expensive.
As we know, by default, a family home can be converted to a small HMO without needing an application for planning permission, meaning that an awful lot of HMOs, which put an awful lot of pressure on local services, are being created without planning oversight. Peterborough city council’s article 4 directions mandate developers to apply for full permission in parts of Fletton, Woodston and Hampton in my constituency, which is welcome, but that varies by council and area, meaning that HMOs can still build up in one place. That inevitably strains public services; it means difficulties for waste collection, oversubscription to local GPs and—this is one of the most visible issues—not having anywhere to park.
I join others today in calling for a simpler, stronger process for councils to issue article 4 directions. We need stronger regulation alongside a drive to build more appropriate housing, to increase supply and counter demand. We also need to have a real conversation about the housing mix that we are building. There are more and more single-person households now, who have nowhere to go other than the most expensive types of housing. Let us provide for them and slash the need for HMOs.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) has said, we should be looking to create streets in which our residents can live, work and thrive together. However, it is indeed the case that the in-boxes of Members in this Chamber are full of messages about HMOs. There are 1,018 HMOs in the Medway council area, 658 of them in the most socially deprived wards, and one in five of those 658 HMOs has issues relating to at least one serious hazard, including mould, fire safety and electrical problems. We know that many HMOs are well run, but a significant number are not.
It is welcome news that in my local area, Medway council is looking at the article 4 direction and considering selective licensing as a solution. We need to promote that as a policy to ensure that all our residents can live in safe and secure homes. I look forward to seeing that report from my council shortly.
I would like the Minister to answer some questions. How can we strengthen and streamline the article 4 process to allow councils to engage in it? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) has said, at the moment the process is onerous and can take many months. Can we look at introducing a national framework? Can we also look at unlicensed HMOs and ensure that our planning teams are resourced, so that we can ringfence money and support residents, and get the most appropriate type of housing for our communities?
Lastly, the process of completing an article 4 direction is cumbersome, as I know from experience. What more can we do to give statutory guidance to authorities to ensure that they engage with landlords to prevent bogus charities and other types of bogus operators, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield mentioned, from trying to get through the process?
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and I welcome the Minister to her new role.
In this debate, I have found myself feeling slightly envious, listening to hon. Members around the Chamber talk about the work their councils are undertaking to achieve better regulation of HMOs. Sadly, in Stoke-on-Trent we are far behind others in that process. My residents in Hartshill and Basford, in Penkhull, in Fenton and in Birches Head are seeing many three-bedroom family homes being converted to six-bedroom HMOs. Then, rather naughtily, those six-bedroom HMOs become eight-bedroom HMOs with a retrospective application, at which point the council says, “Well, we only really have to consider the additional two bedrooms, because they had the right to do the six in the first place.”
That puts unimaginable strain on communities, such as the community in Claridge Road who now have exactly that—an eight-bedroom HMO sitting within a residential family area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) said, HMOs have a really important part to play in the housing mix in towns and cities, but they have to be in the right place and controlled.
I have asked my council how many HMOs we have, but it cannot tell me; it does not keep a register, because it has never had to. I also asked my council how many six-bedroom HMOs we have and how many are licensed. Again, the council cannot tell me because it has never had to keep such a record.
I am working with Councillor Daniela Santoro in Hartshill Park & Stoke, and with Councillor Shaun Pender in Basford & Hartshill, to try to launch a pilot to cover those two wards and the Penkhull ward and to demonstrate that, if we could map even some of that housing stock, it would show a huge proliferation of out-of-family homes. We are pushing Stoke-on-Trent city council to introduce a saturation limit and to say that, although permissions might still be granted, certain streets would have a certain threshold over which the number of HMOs could not go.
Unfortunately, we are getting nowhere. I ask the Minister this: where councils are reticent to undertake such work themselves, could there be a mechanism whereby local communities could trigger a process so that, where people know there is a problem, it can be addressed from a grassroots level?
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this debate.
In my constituency, the rise of HMOs has been nothing short of dramatic. In particular, streets in Gillingham that were once lined with family homes are now dominated by houses in multiple occupancy, which have often been converted at speed and without proper oversight. Permitted development rights have enabled this trend, coupled with relatively low-cost housing and a limited licensing regime. In fact, my town was rather scrupulously promoted by one website as being among
“the four hottest HMO investment areas.”
I understand that behind each of those conversions lies a simple market logic. However, I also fear a quiet erosion of the social balance, which will change the shape of our communities.
Like other Members, I do not oppose in principle the existence of shared housing, or HMOs—we need them. The demand for HMOs exists among students, key workers and professionals, who are often priced out of traditional tenures. However, the problem is that when such conversions happen en masse in one area, and when the planning system is unable to manage that pace or even to track the number of HMOs, the cumulative impact is the fury that we all see at our surgeries and in our inboxes.
Members will be aware that the root of this issue is structural. Conversions can take place under permitted development rights and therefore they can bypass planning consent altogether. Once councils such as mine, Medway council, have a mountain of evidence to support them, they can issue an article 4 direction, a licensing scheme and supplementary planning documents. However, by that time half the street has already been converted.
We all know that saturating an area with one housing tenure type is never a good idea; it can create not only social challenges, but problems in the local housing market. That is why now is the time for a strategic approach. We must empower our councils to act.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this important debate.
In my constituency, the rise of HMOs is a growing concern. As other Members have said, HMOs provide vital accommodation for key workers, students and single people; however, we must confront the reality on the ground. In Leigh town centre alone, there are over 30 registered HMOs that we know of. Residents are rightly worried about overcrowding, noise, waste issues and pressures on public services, which is why I joined local councillors to campaign for a borough-wide article 4 direction. That is now in effect, giving communities a voice, and some applications have rightly been refused.
We also need national action. Councils are asking how they hold the landlords of smaller HMOs accountable. What powers do they have to intervene? How can they get a sense of the scale of the issue when, currently, smaller HMOs can escape scrutiny? This must change. Will the Minister consider giving councils the power to retrospectively require all HMOs to join a register, and support comprehensive licensing for HMOs, regardless of their size?
A full register would improve oversight, uphold safety standards and help to reduce antisocial behaviour. It would also allow planning departments and residents to understand the true cumulative impact, especially in areas that are at risk of oversaturation. But this will require resources. Councils need support from the Government to implement and enforce changes.
Ultimately, HMOs must be safe, respectful and properly regulated. They must not erode our communities or compromise the wellbeing of residents. People in Leigh, Atherton, Tyldesley, Lowton and Golborne deserve a say in shaping their neighbourhoods.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.
On roads where people have raised families for decades, homes are being bought up, divided and converted into HMOs, often in what feels like a matter of days, and often by scalpers from out of town who are looking to turn a quick profit. My constituents tell me that they wake up one morning to find a skip outside, walls being knocked down and new tenants moving in next door—with no consultation and no conversation. That is what happens when planning rules overlook communities.
It should be about balance, respect and the right of communities to have a voice in the places they call home. People are worried about noise, parking, waste and antisocial behaviour, but they are also worried about something deeper: the fabric of their streets and communities. A new mum told me that she can no longer open her baby’s window at night because of the constant comings and goings next door. Another resident said they felt powerless, like they were watching their community disappear before their eyes.
At the same time, young families are being priced out of the very homes that once offered their parents a start in life. These are not isolated frustrations; they are warning signs that planning rules have not kept pace with reality. Right now, a family home can be turned into a small HMO without the need for planning permission, and that loophole has left councils and residents powerless to manage overconcentration without entering a laborious process.
I welcome the steps that Warrington borough council is taking, with an article 4 direction for the central six wards, but that still leaves the rest of my constituency without the additional layer of protection. Local councils need the power to plan with purpose, not just to react after damage is done. A national framework and a change to the rules that respects local communities would give residents faith that development is something done with them and not to them.
Yes, we need affordable rooms, but not at the cost of affordable homes. Fair rules, good homes and tidy streets— that is the foundation of trust that local communities deserve. Until planning rules catch up with the reality on our streets, communities like mine will keep paying the price. It is time the system worked for the people who call these streets home.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.
I previously served as a councillor in the New Bilton ward on Rugby borough council, and I campaigned partly on a petition on HMOs. I called for an article 4 direction, and other councillors, including Councillor Richard Harrington, have since taken up the baton. Residents raised massive concerns with me about litter, antisocial behaviour, parking, the impact on house prices and the fundamental change in the nature of the community when family homes for two adults and two children are transformed into homes that house four, five, six, seven or more adults, each with a car.
I was a councillor on the planning committee, and although residents came before the committee to express their concerns, it did not count for anything because those concerns were not material planning concerns. I concluded that HMOs are a flawed, market-based solution to a flawed market, despite them being, in some cases, a good form of housing for some people. People feel powerless as their community is transformed. An article 4 direction does not prevent conversions; it just ensures that the applications come before the planning committee, which then has to apply the law, and that often means the application is approved.
The problem in Rugby was that the previous Conservative administration did not refer to HMOs in the local plan, which meant that everything defaulted to the national planning policy framework. The current Labour-led council has introduced an article 4 direction and has a radius-based approach in the current draft plan. That should help, but it will take time to be implemented.
Will Ministers take another look at the guidance and the powers that may be available to local authorities in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, in other legislation and in the national planning policy framework? This is about empowering local communities and enabling them to have pride in place, by controlling the over-concentration of HMOs in the urban areas of our communities.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I commend and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this important debate.
Reading constituents are concerned about this issue. We are lucky to live in a beautiful Victorian town, but sadly many historical streets and local communities are blighted by HMOs. I support more housing, but HMOs are not necessarily the most effective way to provide it. Issues include antisocial behaviour, bins overflowing and parking problems on very narrow Victorian streets. I have heard dreadful reports of noise from student parties linked to HMOs. The noise often carries, particularly in the summer when windows are open at night, and it can cause disruption to many residents over a wide area.
I support and commend Reading borough council for introducing article 4 directions. I should declare an interest: I was a councillor in Reading, and I was consulted on implementing HMO article 4 directions. Might it be possible for the Minister to look again at the process for implementing the directives and the way that they work in practice? My experience is that they can be very helpful—councils are often brave to take on HMOs, and I thank Reading borough council for its work on them—but there is still the possibility of HMOs being created within an article 4 direction area.
Is it possible to tighten up the article 4 regime to make it even harder for HMOs to operate in such areas? I appreciate that there is a need for them in certain parts of towns, but the clustering effect, particularly on certain streets where there are serious parking and bin issues, among other issues, can be overwhelming for residents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield quite rightly said, HMOs can change the nature of a settled community. Residents often know all their neighbours by their first name and have wonderful relationships on a street, and to have transient residents can cause real challenges.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing this important debate on a matter that clearly resonates, as we can see from the number of Members present. I recognise entirely the concerns that he and other hon. Members raised about the impact of high concentrations of houses in multiple occupation and their effect on local housing and local housing markets. When family homes rapidly convert into houses in multiple occupation, it can fundamentally alter the character of a neighbourhood and put genuine pressure on affordability for families who want to put down roots in an area. Those concerns are legitimate, and they need to be taken seriously.
Antisocial behaviour can also have devastating impacts on individuals and neighbourhoods. That is not and should not be regarded as a low-level issue. Whether it is excessive noise, discarded rubbish, parking difficulties from overcrowded properties or more serious issues of intimidation and disorder, these real issues affect people’s daily lives and their sense of safety in and around their own homes. No one should have to live with that. I know the frustration of residents who see neighbourhoods change in ways that make them feel less secure and less able, as other Members have said, to affect the future of their neighbourhoods.
The loss of family housing stock is a particular concern for local communities. When properties that once housed families, with the children attending schools and people contributing to the fabric of the community, are converted into transient accommodation, it erodes the stability that makes neighbourhoods thrive. That is why many councils and residents are looking for solutions.
The issue is far greater than just HMOs themselves. Often people living in HMOs are those on the lowest incomes, who simply cannot afford to live elsewhere. They do not always choose HMOs as their preferred housing; they are there because they cannot access affordable housing and because the housing market fails them. Statistics on social housing tell the story starkly. There are 1.3 million households—many of them families —on the social housing waiting list who need affordable, stable homes and cannot access them.
We are deeply concerned that the Government’s target of 20,000 social homes a year is not sufficient and is nowhere near enough. The Liberal Democrats have pledged a target of 150,000 council and social rent homes a year, because a massive public house building programme is exactly what is required to address this crisis. A fundamental lack of social housing to support those on lower incomes is driving people into HMOs in the first place. I am sure that many HMO occupants and residents would far rather be in secure, affordable housing.
We support and respect the use of article 4 directions by local communities to require planning permission for HMOs in certain areas, where necessary, to preserve the character of neighbourhoods or to protect a dwindling stock of family housing. We agree with the hon. Member for Mansfield that streamlining those processes would be worth while. Will the Minister consider removing the requirement for the Secretary of State to approve article 4 directions, so that councils can put them through more easily and quickly? After all, local authorities know their areas best, and they should have the tools to manage development in a way that reflects their priorities and concerns.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) so eloquently pointed out, in areas with high levels of second homes and holiday lets, such as Cornwall and the Lake district, councils lack the powers to control housing stock. The last Government promised to legislate to make planning permission a requirement for change of use to holiday lets, as is already the case in Wales. Will this Government deliver on that issue, which is vital to particular communities around the country?
On controlling the proliferation of HMOs, article 4 directions are ultimately a blunt, short-term instrument. They may prevent conversions in one area, but they can shift the problem elsewhere. Vulnerable people must not be pushed into even more precarious housing situations. The only way to genuinely relieve pressure on family homes is to increase the supply of social housing. If sufficient social homes were available, those on the lowest income would not be forced into the private rented sector and HMOs. Family homes would remain available to families and the housing market would function more effectively. That is the fundamental solution.
Where there are genuine problems with antisocial behaviour, waste or parking, councils should use the powers at their disposal. Acceptable behaviour contracts, pioneered in 2003, can be effective in that regard. Additional licensing for HMOs for three or more tenants, which many councils have introduced, sets standards for management and gives authorities real teeth against rogue landlords, but the processes should be simplified for that avenue of action, too.
A comprehensive approach is needed. That means building far more social housing to meet demand, properly licensing and regulating HMOs, and using article 4 directions as part of a wider housing strategy. We must not lose sight of the fundamental need for more social housing.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Dowd, and to speak in this debate called by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm). He gave a clear exposition of the issues facing his constituents, which mirror the experiences of mine. I was out at the weekend talking to people in Lovett Road and Ash Grove in Harefield who told pretty much the same story that hon. Members on both sides of the House have set out. I have huge sympathy for the Minister and the Government because that story encapsulates the housing challenge: everybody is generally in favour of providing more housing, but they are not very keen on this specific form of more housing when it has an impact on their constituency.
The Opposition recognise that HMOs have always been a helpful source of additional housing. They have provided for temporary workers over the years and are a key plank of our student housing market. They are extremely important, especially for people who may be trying to put their lives back together and make the first step into social housing. Their numbers have grown in a housing market where, although private rented homes have the highest level of occupier satisfaction of any type of housing, there is none the less an acute need to ensure that people are found homes and are off the streets. There is a high degree of commonality and agreement, but I am sure we all recognise that that need will remain a significant challenge in the context of a collapsing housing market, especially here in London where the mayor is on track to deliver less than 4% of the housing target set by the previous Government.
The Opposition support the Government in bringing forward new provisions to improve the licensing process for HMOs, which several hon. Members on both sides of the House have called for. Historically, we have always sought to make that process as straightforward as possible to swiftly meet rising local demand for housing. However, we recognise that there has been growing pressure, particularly because of the unneighbourly behaviour that we have seen from some landlords, that needs to be swiftly and robustly tackled.
We also support a more straightforward implementation of article 4 directions. We recognise that where they have been implemented, their operation was restricted to ensure that the supply of this type of accommodation was not choked off by blanket application. When I was a councillor, my local authority applied one in very restricted areas where it was seeking to protect the student housing market, rather than using a whole-borough approach, but it is now considering implementing that more widely to address the kinds of concerns that hon. Members have highlighted.
The Government have just gained Royal Assent for the Renters’ Rights Act. As they look at leasehold legislation, as well as the devolution Bill, which contains housing elements, and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, about which I think the Commons is due to receive Lords messages next week, I encourage them to look at the opportunity for further amendments to those pieces of legislation that would enable local authorities to more effectively address these concerns through different routes.
It is very clear that there is a degree of community concern, particularly given the backdrop. We have heard the Government say that they are committed to shifting the asylum accommodation estate away from hotels, the use of which has grown very rapidly in the last 12 months, towards other types of accommodation. We have heard a lot about houses in multiple occupation and former military bases being put to use for that purpose.
I therefore encourage the Government to consider the Opposition’s proposals for a specific use class for asylum accommodation so that there is an effective public consultation, and so that residents understand the purpose of the HMO change. That would help to allay concerns and allow time for the local authority to consider in advance the impact of having families with children who need education provision and the impact on the NHS of providing support for people who may have war injuries or have suffered other circumstances that brought them to our shores as asylum seekers, for example. It would also enable representations to be made to the provider if it was clear that a locality was not able to provide the support needed by a household or class of users. Introducing an additional use class would bring about a higher degree of transparency and ensure that many of the genuine community concerns that hon. Members on both sides of the House have outlined could be effectively addressed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing today’s debate. I appreciate his speaking about this important issue with force and passion on behalf of those he represents. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate.
I acknowledge the concerns that my hon. Friend raises on behalf of the residents of Mansfield about the concentration of houses in multiple occupation in some parts of his constituency. As he mentioned, houses in multiple occupation provide relatively low-cost accommodation for rent and can play an important part in the housing market, as hon. Members from both sides of the House acknowledged. However, it is right that local authorities should be able to take action where necessary to minimise any negative impacts that concentrations of such accommodation might have on local areas.
As we have heard, national permitted development rights allow existing homes to change use to a house in multiple occupation for up to six people without the need for a planning application. Such smaller HMOs are also able to change to a standard family home under similar rights, but we acknowledge that those nationally set permitted development rights are not necessarily suitable in all areas. Therefore, local authorities can remove permitted development rights in a specific area by introducing an article 4 direction after consultation with the local community and an assessment of the local evidence that such a direction is required.
The introduction of an article 4 direction would mean that any change of use to large or small houses in multiple occupation would require an application to the local planning authority for planning permission. All applications for planning permission are considered by the local planning authority, in line with the development plan for the area and in consultation with the local community. A clear policy for HMOs can support the assessment of future applications. Indeed, when I served as a ward councillor on Cheshire West and Chester council, we took through an article 4 direction relatively smoothly and with the support of the local community, and it is still in force in that area.
Whether or not Mansfield district council chooses to consult on introducing an article 4 direction to remove the permitted development right that enables existing homes to change use to a smaller HMO will be a decision for the council to take locally. It is not something the Government should seek to influence. Having experienced it myself, I can say that the process is not costly or burdensome. Approximately 75 other councils have put in place article 4s for HMOs in parts of their boroughs. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield to continue to discuss this issue with the council if he believes that such a direction would be appropriate.
None the less, if the existing powers are not working—we have heard evidence of that today from hon. Members on both sides of the House—we want to engage and find out why. It is important that HMOs are managed well, which is why all HMOs are subject to management regulations. Those regulations set out duties for managers to take safety measures, maintain the supply of gas, electricity and water, and maintain common parts and living accommodation.
In addition, all local authorities are required to license HMOs with five or more people from two or more separate households who share facilities such as a kitchen or bathroom. Through additional licensing, local authorities also have the power to license HMOs with three or more people from two or more separate households who share facilities. That means that most HMOs can be licensed, providing local authorities with the means to address concerns around how they are being managed.
I note that Mansfield district council recently introduced selective licensing in designated areas, and since 12 June this year landlords have been able to apply. I hope that that begins to improve the issues that we have heard about today. Local authorities have strong powers where landlords breach HMO regulations. These include powers to prosecute, to impose penalties of up to £30,000 as an alternative to prosecution, and to seek banning orders for the worst offenders.
I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield for a useful and constructive debate. I hope that I have set out the measures that we have in place to enable local authorities to control HMOs in their areas, and that I have made it clear that the Government are keen to engage to see how the existing powers are being exercised and how they can be improved.
Steve Yemm
I thank everyone who has participated in today’s debate. I think it comes down to something quite simple about fairness and local control. No one is saying that HMOs do not have a place—they do—but in many parts of my community people think that they deserve the right to shape their own street and protect their own community. I want to fix this issue, whether that means giving councils the right tools or getting them to utilise the tools they have, together with giving them the funding and the trust to act. Our planning should be about people and communities. Mansfield, like all our communities, deserves nothing less than that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered planning consent for houses in multiple occupation.