Read our Development Management Practice Note to find out how we decide on planning permission applications for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs).
Purpose of this Practice Note
This Development Management Practice Note (‘the Note’) has been produced in order to ensure a consistent approach to decision making in relation to planning applications relating to houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) across the city.
The Note does not have the status of adopted policy or guidance. It sets out the Council’s reasoned approach to interpreting Core Strategy policy H6 and the supporting text to H6 and is intended to be used by the Council’s Development Management officers to assist consistent decision making across the city.
The approach as outlined in the Note has been in use by Development Management officers since March 2017 and has been put forward by the Council in support of a number of planning appeals since this time. Feedback from Planning Inspectors to date has been that this has assisted in their understanding of the Council’s approach. As such the Note should be used to assist Inspectors at appeal.
In the interests of providing greater transparency of decision making for applicants, planning agents, landlord organisations and other interested parties this Note has also been made available on the Council’s website.
HMO Locations in Leeds
HMO’s are predominantly located in the inner areas of the city with the largest concentrations existing in inner north west, inner south and inner east Leeds. New HMO growth is however being seen in most parts of the city.
The Council has four main sources of data for HMO locations which Development Management Officers are able to use for decision making purposes:
- Council Tax data
- The Council’s HMO Licensing Register
- Planning histories
- Site Visit Surveys
None of the four data sources are infallible and the Council does not have a complete record of every HMO in Leeds. However, by using the four sources above this should give a strong indication of HMO occupancy in a street/ area.
Core Strategy Policy H6
Core Strategy policy H6 relates to HMO’s, Student Accommodation and Flat Conversions. Part A of the policy is relevant to new HMOs. The general approach of
Part A can, broadly speaking, be said to encourage new HMO growth outside areas of existing high concentrations of HMOs, subject to the consideration of detailed development management considerations such as impacts on amenity and parking.
Part A is set out in full below:
A. Within the area of Leeds covered by the Article 4 Direction for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), Development proposals for new HMOs will be determined:
- To ensure that a sufficient supply of HMOs is maintained in Leeds,
- To ensure that HMOs are distributed in areas well connected to employment and educational destinations associated with HMO occupants,
- To avoid detrimental impacts through high concentrations of HMOs, which would undermine the balance and health of communities,
- To ensure that proposals for new HMOs address relevant amenity and parking concerns,
- To avoid the loss of existing housing suitable for family occupation in areas of existing high concentrations of
The supporting text to the policy also includes reference to (1) an ‘exception test’ aimed, in part, at preventing residents being subject to scenarios where they may find their dwelling as the last C3 use in a street and (2) expresses support for C3/C4 flexible use class permissions, which would consist of granting planning permission for a dual use in order to prevent property owners ‘losing’ their lawful HMO use when allowing occupation as a C3 use, such as a family, on a temporary basis.
Interpretation of policy H6A – Some Basic Principles
Part A sets out five criteria, each of which should be given weight as part of the decision making process. Part A requires a judgement to be made as to the extent to which a HMO proposal would meet the objectives set out by the criteria and does provide for a proposal to be found to be in compliance with Part A even if one or more of the criteria are not satisfied. Clearly therefore appropriate weight needs to be attached to each of the criterion when coming to a balanced judgement on whether a proposal complies with Part A of the policy.
The policy should also be considered as a whole in terms of its wider objectives, one of which is to encourage an appropriate housing mix and prevent further housing imbalance where it exists at present. This is consistent with objectives as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2019) including at paragraphs 8 (a social objective to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities), 61 (housing need) and 91 (aiming to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places).
It is important to note therefore, regardless of whether other impacts of high concentrations of HMOs (as noted in the supporting text below) exist, that it is (in itself) a legitimate planning objective of the Council to plan for an appropriate housing mix.
Those harmful impacts of high concentrations of HMOs referred to in the supporting text to policy H6 are taken from the government published the report ‘Evidence Gathering – Housing in Multiple Occupation and possible planning response – Final Report’ in September 2008, and are included below:
- Anti-social behaviour, noise and nuisance
- Imbalanced and unsustainable communities
- Negative impacts on the physical environment and streetscape
- Pressures upon parking provision
- Increased crime
- Growth in private sector at the expenses of owner-occupation
- Pressure upon local community facilities and
- Restructuring of retail, commercial services and recreational facilities to suit the lifestyles of the predominant population
The Council and other bodies hold information which can be of assistance in demonstrating these impacts, including:
- Supporting evidence put forward by the Council at the time of the introduction of the Council’s Article 4 Direction in February 2012
- Information, including maps, produced by the Council’s Licensing Team showing instances of anti-social behaviour and crime, and location of licensed premises.
- Supporting evidence put forward to support the Council’s Cumulative Impact Assessment and Cumulative Impact Policy documents.
- Information produced by the Leeds Anti-Social Behaviour Team (LASBT), Environmental Health Team
- West Yorkshire Police Crime Reports and
- Surveys of land uses and ‘local offers’ in town and local
- Previous planning appeal
Methodology – Interpreting Relevant Policy
On receipt of a planning application for a new C4 ‘small’ HMO or sui generis ‘large’ HMO there are a number of relevant considerations which Development Management Officers should apply.
The methodology to applying these considerations is set out below under the following headings:
How is a ‘study area’ identified for the purposes of identifying high concentrations?
The overall objective of the local policy approach is to prevent imbalanced “communities”. The supporting text to Core Strategy policy H6 states at paras 5.2.18 and 5.2.23 respectively:
“HMOs tend to be grouped together in certain inner City areas, becoming the dominant type of housing which can lead to social and environmental problems for local communities”
“Core Strategy policy needs to balance the need for growth in HMOs with the need to avoid high concentrations which cause loss of amenity and undermine the health and stability of communities”
The H6A policy text at criteria iii states:
“To avoid detrimental impacts through high concentrations of HMOs, which would undermine the balance and health of communities”
This is also consistent with the relevant sections of the NPPF which state: (Paragraph 8)
“to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering a well-designed and safe built environment, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being”.
(Paragraph 61)
“the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups
in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies”
Therefore the appropriate starting point for defining an area would be to consider this at a ‘community’ level, i.e. to define the ‘community area’ in which an application site falls in and use this as the area of study.
It is recognised that a community area is often difficult to define geographically but this would generally be considered to go beyond an existing street or the immediate locality surrounding an application site. Indeed in order to assess harmful impacts on a ‘community’ for the purposes of interpreting the policy, whether in terms of housing/
population balance or those other impacts identified at para 4.4 above, it is immediately apparent that a wider search area would be appropriate.
Methodology
Identifying the community area in which an application site is located should follow a reasoned approach. An appropriate boundary should be identified for an area of study (i.e. the ‘community area’) which should be identified and then subsequently justified in officer reports. This could be distinguished by obvious physical or historical boundaries.
In some parts of the city the local community have looked to define their own ‘community’ boundary through Neighbourhood Plans/Forums and/or Neighbourhood/Village Design Statements. These self-identified boundaries form a useful starting point for development management case officers.
In the absence of the above sub areas of well recognised districts (i.e. Headingley, Beeston, Harehills) or Council wards can form a sensible starting point to identifying an appropriate study area.
How is a ‘high concentration’ defined in relation to that study area? And how are harmful impacts identified for the purposes of Development Management decisions?
The Council does not currently identify a threshold figure above which a concentration of HMOs in an area could be considered to be “high”. There are recognised difficulties in introducing such an approach in Leeds and, in the absence of a threshold based approach, this can make identifying what a high concentration is considered to be challenging.
It is generally recognised that what could be considered to be a ‘high’ concentration may be different in different areas and/or circumstances. The Council’s approach to identifying whether a concentration of HMOs is high should therefore be evidence led,
i.e. if there is evidence which demonstrates or strongly indicates that harmful impacts are occurring in an area as a result of concentrations of HMOs in that area then the concentration which exists – whether this be (for example) 20%, 90% or any other proportion of the total housing stock – can considered to be high for the purposes of interpreting the policy. It is also important to take into account local character. The different areas of Leeds have different characteristics, in terms of the nature and density of the housing stock for example, and these variations in character may make some areas more appropriate for higher concentrations of HMOs to be accommodated than in other areas.
A number of harmful impacts which result from high concentrations of HMOs have been identified by the Council. These include:
- Adding to existing identified housing/ population imbalance which harmfully impacts on the Council’s objectives to foster sustainable and mixed communities which cater for all parts of the population
- Anti-social behaviour, noise and nuisance
- Imbalanced and unsustainable communities
- Negative impacts on the physical environment and streetscape
- Pressures upon parking provision
- Increased crime
- Growth in private sector at the expenses of owner-occupation
- Pressure upon local community facilities and
- Restructuring of retail, commercial services and recreational facilities to suit the lifestyles of the predominant population
Methodology
As noted above, in order to identify whether a concentration of HMOs in a community ‘study area’ is high, development management officers must identify whether harm in respect of the nine criteria above can be demonstrated or strongly suggests that this is likely to be the case.
The Council has already identified a number of areas within the city where concentrations of HMOs are considered to be high as a consequence of the resulting harmful impacts through previous planning related exercises. The supporting evidence used in demonstrating harm in these exercises can therefore be used for the purposes of current development management decisions.
The supporting reports for the Article 4 Direction identified existing high concentration areas in 2011. The reports also identified those areas with sizeable numbers of HMOs, which at the time of introducing the Direction were noted to be growing (i.e. potential future high concentration areas). Recent assessments indicate these areas, already identified through the Direction making process, have not seen any significant reduction in HMO numbers since 2011, and indeed many HMO numbers in these areas have either stayed constant or grown since this time. As such officers can justifiably identify these areas as including ‘high concentrations’ as a result of the impacts historically identified.
Some parts of the city are identified as having an existing housing/population imbalance through previous and existing planning policies. For example the former Area of Housing Mix (now deleted UDP policy H15) identified long standing housing/population imbalance in inner north west Leeds. It is also the case that emerging Neighbourhood Plans are identifying areas of housing/population imbalance in some parts of the city.
Where areas of HMO growth are more recent and have not yet been formally identified in the form of a formal local planning policy officers should refer to those sources identified in paragraph 4.5 above to identify harm. In addition to this officers are able to compare other parts of the city with similar characteristics to an application site area and make conclusions that similar harm is likely to exist. Officers should also take a common sense approach in areas where HMO concentrations are so high that it is immediately apparent that a housing imbalance exists.
How should the more localised impacts of HMOs be taken into consideration?
Alongside the consideration of those impacts associated with high concentrations of HMOs noted above, it is also important to consider the more localised impacts of individual HMO proposals in relation to immediate residential neighbours. Such considerations should take into account local character and housing density. Such considerations should also take into account the cumulative impact of HMOs in a more localised context.
Harmful impacts within a more localised context are likely to predominantly relate to impacts on amenity. These impacts can result from an intensification of the use of a property and include the potential for increased noise, disturbance, anti-social behaviour and parking congestion which can be expected, for example, from a none cohesive group of occupiers of a property as opposed to a family.
It is important when considering such impacts to consider the suitability of a particular property for a HMO use within its immediate context. It may be the case that a particular property has qualities which make it favourable for conversion and any such benefits should be weighed against any wider concerns as part of the overall planning balance. The attractiveness of a property to future family (C3) occupants should also be considered.
Methodology
The more localised impacts of HMO proposals should be established on a site by site basis taking into account factors such as the size and layout of a property, the density of the local housing stock, the availability of off-street car parking provision and the proximity of neighbours including those likely to lead different lifestyles to potential HMO occupants.
Any positive qualities of an individual property to accommodate a HMO and/or the likelihood of a property being attractive to occupiers of a future C3 use should be weighed against any wider harm identified.
Does the ‘Exception Test’ Apply?
The supporting text to policy H6 makes reference to two exception tests as follows:
- “In the interpretation of H6A iii) it is recognised that some streets (or a part of a street) may already have such a high concentration of HMOs that the conversion of remaining C3 dwellings will not cause further detrimental harm”.
- “Also, in the interpretation of H6A v) it may be the case that the remaining C3 dwellings would be unappealing and effectively unsuitable for family occupation. In such circumstances Policy H6A would not be used to resist changes of use of such dwellings to HMOs”.
Exception Test 1
The first exception test essentially asks whether the lack of any significant additional detrimental localised harm to a street or part of a street would be reason to allow a new HMO to be created even though this may lead to wider harm in the wider
community area. The supporting text is unspecific about how the phrase “will not cause further detrimental harm” should be interpreted. However, given that it is most likely that the exception test will be relevant in locations of very high concentrations of HMOs, granting planning permission for a new HMO in such scenarios would inevitably add to the overall concentration in the wider community and the harmful impacts listed in paragraph 5.14. It may be the case however that the concentration on an individual street (or part of a street) is so high that there would be no further localised ‘detrimental’ harm (i.e. within that street) from granting planning permission for a HMO in that street. The localised and wider harms are a matter of judgement which will need to be weighed within the planning balance.
The Council acknowledged, at the time of the examination of the Core Strategy, that policy H6 could penalise owners of houses in streets where the battle had already been lost and where there was little point in blocking the conversion of the last ‘family’ house in a street.
Whilst the supporting text to policy H6 identified above at paragraph 5.25 refers to remaining C3 ‘dwellings’ (plural) it is considered that in order for the exception test to apply the property in question must be the last (the approach identified by the Council at examination as referenced in the Core Strategy Inspector’s report), or at least ‘approaching the last’, property on a street. To apply the test more liberally would only serve to undermine the policy. This approach, and it’s reasoning, has since been set out consistently to Planning Inspectors as part of appeals for HMO proposals who have raised no issue or concerns in relation to the Council’s approach.
This issue was also explored by the Planning Inspector in a Public Inquiry appeal relating to Victoria Road in Headingley (situated in a high concentration HMO area) in 2016. In his decision letter the Planning Inspector agreed with the concerns being raised at the appeal (by the Council and local community representatives), that:
“the evidence suggests that the Council’s application of [the exception test] is likely to further increase rather than reduce the concentration of student [HMO] accommodation in such [high concentration] streets”.
Exception Test 2
The second exception test essentially asks whether a property is so unappealing as a potential C3 use that this would serve as a reason to allow its conversion to a HMO. The Council has previously advised that this exception test could be applied on compassionate grounds, i.e. to prevent the last or approaching the last remaining C3 unit in a street being subject to the scenario as a result of the property being unattractive to potential C3 use if they wished to sell. This remains the pragmatic test on which to apply exception test 2. Where a property is effectively unsaleable with a C3 use, and this can be reasonably demonstrated, this would serve as reason to outweigh the wider harm created by the addition of a further HMO in a high concentration area.
In order to demonstrate that a property is effectively unsaleable with a C3 use the Council would require evidence to demonstrate this is the case. The Council advises applicants that at the very least, evidence of sustained marketing for a reasonable
period of time (i.e. a period of time which is reflective of the time similar properties in the local housing market would be expected to be on the market before gaining a sale) and at a reasonable market price (which has been independently assessed by a local estate agent or property expert to be appropriate for a C3 use) should be provided to support such a case.
Methodology – Exception Test 1
The study area for exception test 1 should be either (1) an individual street, (2) part of a street where the length of a street is so great as to apply 1 impractical or (3) where 1 or 2 is not practical, the immediate local area.
The exception test should only be considered to be met where the property in question is the last property, or approaching the last property, in the study area (1, 2 or 3 in para 5.32 above). The justification for applying the exception test should be on the basis of paragraph 5.26 above.
Methodology – Exception Test 2
The exception test should only be applied in an area recognised to have a high concentration of HMOs.
The exception test should only be considered to be met where evidence of a sustained marketing campaign has been provided which demonstrates that the property is effectively unsaleable to with a C3 use at a reasonable market price for a C3 property over a reasonable marketing period.
Other Matters
C3/C4 flexible use class permissions
The matter of flexible use class permissions between the C3 and C4 use classes, is raised in the supporting text to policy H6 which states:
“In order to encourage landlords to experiment with lettings of HMOs to non- HMO occupants, the Council will consider granting flexible C3/C4 permissions for new and existing C4 HMOs. This will enable a C4 HMO to convert to a C3 dwelling house without losing the potential to revert back to C4 use within a fixed period (normally 10 years). If a property has a lawful C4 use when applying for a flexible permission this will then be a material consideration when the Council considers the planning application. The permission will enable flexibility to let a property between C3 and C4 uses during the specified period. On expiry of the dual use period, the use of the property at that time would become the permitted use of the property”.
Flexible use class permissions have a number of benefits including that it allows greater flexibility in the housing market by allowing landlords to respond more quickly to a rapidly changing need. It also allows landlords a transitional period in which to facilitate the return of a property to C3 use. In light of this, applications for flexible use class permissions for existing HMOs should be supported by the Council where this can meet short term need and/or where this can assist in encouraging the conversion of these properties to C3 use in the longer term in areas of existing housing and population imbalance.
Planning applications for flexible use class permissions should seek a temporary flexible use of an existing HMO property (for both HMO and C3 uses) for a defined period (the Council recommends ten years). Where planning permissions are granted on this basis this should be controlled by way of an appropriate planning condition.
