Houses in Multiple Occupation: Planning Consent

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.