Agenda item

Question No. 2 - Houses in Multiple Occupation, Wimpey Estate, St Peter's

Minutes:

Councillor Matterface asked Councillor Nicholson the following question:

 

“Have investigations been concluded into the number of HMOs (houses of multiple occupation) on the Wimpey estate in St Peter’s ward”

 

Councillor Nicholson responded:

 

“Housing Regeneration and Enforcement were tasked to investigate allegations of HMO’s containing student occupants in the premises on the Wimpy estate. The information that was received via Councillor Wiltshire initially referred to 35 premises to investigate.  Of those 35 premises, 19 were found to be lawful HMO’s, and the remaining premises were found to be family homes.  Of the 19 lawful HMO’s, three were found not to be on the Wimpy estate and five were on the periphery.  This information was investigated by sources including council tax records, the M3 protection database and door to door calling.  Following further communication with Councillor Wiltshire we received another list alleging another 76 student HMO’s, this was checked against the existing list of 35 and it was found that some of the addresses had been duplicated.  The total premises remaining was 69.  Of these 69 premises on this list, 19 had previously been investigated and were either lawful HMO’s or family homes.  There were also two addresses that did not exist.  The remaining 50 premises were investigated between the 17 October 2014 and 6 November 2014.  None of the addresses supplied were found to be student HMO’s.  In this case the evidence was confirmed by council tax records, talking to the named occupants at the address (where no answer was received a letter was left explaining why the Council had called), and by talking to neighbouring premises either side or in the vicinity of the address.  The local people on the Wimpy estate were asked if they had experienced any problems with student HMO’s and we received varying responses from ‘no problems at all’, to ‘some problems’ stating anti-social behaviour and noise issues.  Overall only a small percentage said they had any problems with student HMO’s.  All that were spoken to were advised that they can call Environmental Health in relation to noise problems and Community Safety in relation to anti-sociable behaviour.  Where we left a letter at the premises, people were understanding of why we had called and were happy to confirm the current status of their premises.  However a small percentage were upset, and slightly distressed to think that they had been targeted or noted as a HMO.  In the course of this investigation it was highlighted that some properties on the Wimpy estate do have, now or in the past, foreign students staying at their homes for a short term.  Overall 104 premises have been investigated and after looking through all the information, there are 16 HMO’s that are all lawful.”

 

Councillor Matterface then asked a supplementary question:

 

“What controls does the Council have in place to deal with HMOs?”

 

Councillor Nicholson’s reply to that supplementary question was as follows:

 

“The council bought in the Article 4 Direction in February 2012, no new HMO that is occupied by three or more people can lawfully come into being without being subject to a change of use application.  Small HMO’s of three to six persons in use before this date will have permitted development rights and will therefore be lawful.  Had the Council not had the Article 4 Direction in place landlords on the Wimpy estate could have turned their properties into HMO’s without obtaining any formal permission at all.  This is because the mandatory HMO licensing scheme does not apply to any property on the Wimpey estate as there are no properties above two stories.  However HMO management regulations do apply, and we carefully monitor and deal with any complaints and issues raised by people in relation to HMOs.  We cannot bring in any additional HMO licensing at this time as there are several matters laid down in guidelines by the government that would probably make it very difficult to bring anything in.  This is because there is no evidence of a problem to the degree required to trigger additional regulation.

 

Supporting documents: