Housing – House in multiple occupation (HMO) – Residents – Appellant owner of residential property charged with offence of breaching planning enforcement notice requiring him to cease use as HMO not falling within class C4 use – Magistrates making preliminary ruling that children under 18 included as “residents” within Class C4 – Appellant pleading guilty following ruling – Appellant appealing against preliminary ruling – Whether magistrates erring in ruling children under 18 within the meaning of “residents” – Appeal dismissed
On 24 February 2017 the appellant was charged with one offence of breaching a planning enforcement notice contrary to section 179(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which required him to cease the use of his property at 2 St George’s Avenue, Southall as a Class C4 house of multiple occupation (HMO) within Class 4 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes Order) 1987.
Class C4 covered the use of a dwelling house by not more than six residents as a HMO. There was no dispute that for at least some of the relevant period there were six adults and four children living at the property. The magistrates made a preliminary ruled that children up to the age of 18 were “residents” within the meaning of Class C4. Following the ruling the appellant entered a guilty plea and the case was committed to the Crown Court under section 70 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for confiscation proceedings to be considered, and sentence. The appellant appealed by way of case stated against the preliminary ruling. The hearing before the Crown Court was adjourned pending the outcome of that appeal.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
There was no need to consider a purposive interpretation of the word “residents” in Class C4. The Oxford English Dictionary defined “resident” as “a person who lives somewhere permanently or on a long-term basis”. That definition was clear and plainly included children, dependent or otherwise. In any event, para 4 of Part 3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 provided that, for the purposes of Class C4 a “house in multiple occupation” did not include a converted block of flats to which section 257 of the Housing Act 2004 applied but otherwise had the same meaning as in section 254 of the 2004 Act. The occupants of an HMO were referred to as “persons” in the 2004 Act.
Section 258 made clear that children were counted as persons forming part of the household under section 254(2). That being so, by reason of Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Order, the word “residents” in Class C4 was to be interpreted such that children were to be counted as residents for the purposes of Class C4. If Parliament had intended various categories of persons not to be included in the term “residents” it would have said so: Barnes v Sheffield City Council [1995] 27 HLR 719 and Rogers v Islington London Borough Council [2000] 32 HLR 138 considered.
Accordingly, the magistrates were right to rule that children under 18 were included in the meaning of the term “residents” in the case of property used for a Class C4.
William Webster (instructed by Direct Access) appeared) for the appellant; Laura Phillips (instructed by Head of Legal Services, Ealing London Borough Council) appeared for the respondents.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
Click here to read a transcript of Paramaguru v Ealing London Borough Council