Togetherness in bedsit land
But even if numbers are kept below that figure, you will still lose your existing use if the residents are not “living together as a single household”.
Notwithstanding the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in R (on the application of Hossack) v Kettering Borough Council [2002] EWCA Civ 886; [2002] 27 EG 141 (CS), it is suggested that that condition is unlikely to be satisfied where vacant rooms are advertised and filled in the normal way.
Hossack has to be treated with caution because: (a) it merely decided that the council were not bound to rule out a single household on finding that the only link between the occupiers was their common need for accommodation and support; (b) unlike the owner in that case, you will not be seeking occupants who require some kind of care; (c) the matter was, in any event, remitted to the council for fresh consideration.
The importance of Hossack lies in the strong declaration that the test is the same as that applied by health and safety officers when a deciding whether a property has become a house in multiple occupation (HMO) for the purpose of Part XI of the Housing Act 1985. If they do so decide in your case, then you may have to budget for some expensive works to comply with safety requirements: see generally
For HMO purposes, there is no (numerical) ceiling on the number of occupants who can call themselves a single household, although, clearly, the greater the number the more difficult the task becomes: see Rogers v Islington Borough Council [1999] 3 EGLR 17.
Togetherness in bedsit land
Q My six-bedroom house is no longer needed for family accommodation, but I would like to keep it as an investment property. Targeting students and young professionals, the plan is to provide a number of bedsits with common kitchen and bathroom facilities. I am told that I should have no bother with the council so long as the number of residents does not exceed six. Is this correct?
A You have been given only part of the story. As a matter of planning law, you will certainly need permission if the number does exceed six, as the use will, for that very reason, fall outside the existing use, Class C3 (dwellinghouses).
But even if numbers are kept below that figure, you will still lose your existing use if the residents are not “living together as a single household”.
Notwithstanding the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in R (on the application of Hossack) v Kettering Borough Council [2002] EWCA Civ 886; [2002] 27 EG 141 (CS), it is suggested that that condition is unlikely to be satisfied where vacant rooms are advertised and filled in the normal way.
Hossack has to be treated with caution because: (a) it merely decided that the council were not bound to rule out a single household on finding that the only link between the occupiers was their common need for accommodation and support; (b) unlike the owner in that case, you will not be seeking occupants who require some kind of care; (c) the matter was, in any event, remitted to the council for fresh consideration.
The importance of Hossack lies in the strong declaration that the test is the same as that applied by health and safety officers when a deciding whether a property has become a house in multiple occupation (HMO) for the purpose of Part XI of the Housing Act 1985. If they do so decide in your case, then you may have to budget for some expensive works to comply with safety requirements: see generally Houses in multiple occupation Estates Gazette 31 August 1996.
For HMO purposes, there is no (numerical) ceiling on the number of occupants who can call themselves a single household, although, clearly, the greater the number the more difficult the task becomes: see Rogers v Islington Borough Council [1999] 3 EGLR 17.
