New regulations introduced by housing minister Grant Shapps to allow landlords to rent out their properties as houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) without the need for planning permission are to be challenged at the High Court.
Lindblom J has granted permission for a judicial review challenge spearheaded by Milton Keynes Council. This claims that the changes – introduced by the government as part of its initiative to hand more power to local authorities – will make it more difficult for them to deal with the problems associated with HMOs, including traffic, crime and anti-social behaviour. The case will be heard later this year.
In September 2010, Shapps laid before parliament two draft statutory instruments, namely the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Amendment)(No 2)(England) Order 2010 and the Town and Country Planning (Compensation)(No 3) Regulation 2010.
These reclassified a change of use from C3 residential to C4 HMO as permitted development, enabling landlords to rent properties to multiple unrelated tenants without having to apply for planning permission.
Local authorities whose areas have high concentrations of HMOs would be able to use an article 4 direction to remove the permitted development rights.
However, Milton Keynes Council claims that authorities that have to use such powers would have to give landlords 12 months’ notice of their action, or pay compensation.
It says that the new provisions will empower landlords to introduce significant numbers of HMOs, contrary to the interests of local neighbourhoods.
The council, which is backed by Charnwood Borough Council, Oxford City Council and Newcastle City Council, says that it and its residents have suffered problems over many years following the conversion of single dwelling-houses to HMOs, often with short-term tenants.
It had previously been able to exercise a degree of control over HMOs, it argues, by either refusing planning permission or granting it subject to conditions limiting the number of lettable rooms, the amount of parking, the extent of on-site clothes-drying facilities and the number of bins and, in some cases, the need for sound insulation.
The council argues that the government failed properly to consult local planning authorities prior to issuing the SIs, and therefore denied them and their communities a voice.
Lindblom J ruled that the council has an arguable case, and granted permission for a full judicial review hearing.
