A councillor said that he felt there was a “proverbial gun to his head” when approving a planning application for a shared house.
The application, from student housing company Rivers Birtwell, is to convert 30 Bodiam Avenue, in Bevendean, into a six-bedroom HMO (house in multiple occupation).
Members of Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee were advised by council officials to grant planning permission because the application complied with planning law and policy.
No other houses within 50 metres have been registered as a licensed HMO and fewer than 6 per cent in the wider neighbourhood were counted as an official shared house.
Neighbours sent 24 objections, as did Labour councillor Jacob Taylor who represents Moulsecoomb and Bevendean ward.
Fellow Labour councillor Amanda Evans, who also represents the ward, addressed the Planning Committee to object to the application “in the strongest terms”.
She was speaking on behalf of residents and her two ward colleagues when the scheme went before the committee at Hove Town Hall yesterday (Wednesday 7 February).
Councillor Evans said that during the campaign for the local elections last May, she knocked on many doors and was certain that there were more shared houses in the area than were formally licensed.
She said: “The community’s view on the impact on amenities from parking, noise, waste disposal, GP services, right through to very serious concerns about the lack of family accommodation being the leading cause of the alarming drop in school numbers at the nearby primary school, is clearly very different indeed from non-resident officers.
“I know we have housing targets in the city and these are expressed in numbers but not all housing units are equal.
“And residents all over Bevendean feel very strongly their community is collapsing under the intolerable strain from the failure to stem the tide of official and unofficial HMOs that are changing and damaging their formerly cohesive communities beyond repair.”
Rivers Birtwell’s agent, Paul Joyce, from Lewis and Co Planning, said that the application complied with the council’s planning policies.
Mr Joyce said: “We appreciate the need for family homes but there is also a clear need for HMOs to come into the local housing stock.
“Shared houses play a key role in local housing supply by providing affordable and accessible housing to significant demographics including students, care workers and young professionals.”
Mr Joynce said that there was no concentration of HMOs in the area which made it a suitable location.
Labour councillor Tobias Sheard said that people in the area, including his ward, Coldean and Stanmer, felt “inundated” by shared housing with one purpose – to “pack students in like sardines” for profit.
Councillor Sheard said: “It’s a dire state we’re in for this to be something we have to look at to house the young people of our city.
“Unfortunately, it’s a corner we’re backed into with the proverbial gun against our heads.”
Fellow Labour councillor Paul Nann questioned the accuracy of the council’s HMO data, considering the ward councillors and residents were aware of more shared houses in the area.
He was told that the planning department only counted registered HMOs.
Green councillor Sue Shanks said that she had come across unregistered shared houses when canvassing.
Councillor Shanks, who voted against the application, said: “When you’re knocking on doors, as we did during the elections recently, you often find there are more people registered to vote but the house is not registered as an HMO with the council.”
She was told that data protection laws prevented the planning department from interrogating the electoral register to find unlicensed shared houses.
Any enforcement action would take place after an unlicensed HMO was reported to the council.
The committee granted the application by eight votes to one.
This was an interesting read. For the council to not have the powers required to make the necessary investigations to discover HMOs that are not registered seems like an absurdity on law.
I hope that all the houses the good councillors believed were HMOs were reported for investigation, at least.
Incorrect. Keep up.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/houses-in-multiple-occupation-and-residential-property-licensing-reform-guidance-for-local-housing-authorities/houses-in-multiple-occupation-and-residential-property-licensing-reform-guidance-for-local-housing-authorities
Calling them good for voting away another family home… thats not good thats a joke, i have so many local families stuck in unsuitable homes or being purged out of the city they were born and raised would kill for a home like this. They have kids who need to goto local schools, no wonder labour/the council are closing them all for greedy landlords, cllrs could have voted against like we saw. But decide to take officer recommendations .
Its hard to tell but it looks like a former social home also…
Realistically though, people are fighting over scraps because we’ve had insufficient house building in this country for over a decade.
You do a lot of work supporting homeless as an advocate Daniel, so I respect your opinion greatly when it comes to social housing. Even if you’re known for causing a bit of a scene sometimes, you’re true to your word!
How’s the skatepark in Whitehawk coming along?
Another thing worth considering as well, is that an HMO is six or more bedrooms as the threshold. Could have a whole street full of five bedrooms being used in the same way as HMOs, but are not subject to the same restrictions.
That’s incorrect. A property with three or more unrelated people sharing facilities is considered a HMO.
Description of HMOs prescribed by the Secretary of State
4. An HMO is of a prescribed description for the purpose of section 55(2)(a) of the Act if it—
(a)is occupied by five or more persons;
(b)is occupied by persons living in two or more separate households; and
(c)meets—
(i)the standard test under section 254(2) of the Act;
(ii)the self-contained flat test under section 254(3) of the Act but is not a purpose-built flat situated in a block comprising three or more self-contained flats; or
(iii)the converted building test under section 254(4) of the Act.
Suggest you look at BHCC website which will make things clear for you, and has been described by Nick in his comment below.
https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/housing/private-housing/houses-multiple-occupation
Rather look at the primary legalisation for the legal definition, as stated, thanks Nige.
The council introduced additional licensing over a decade ago. This means all shared houses of 3 or more people must be licenced in areas including Bevendean (although currently lapsed so only technically applies to 5 or more. Council looking to lower back to 3 once again and has consulted on this)
What’s worrying is that after a decade in place, the council still apparently hasn’t identified many HMOs. Well, that’s the claim of the ruling party’s councillors. And residents too. So what is going on? Is there really a large and illegal market in HMOs alongside a regulated (and more expensive) legal market?
HMOs also provide valuable homes for adults who can’t afford to get onto the housing ladder and will never see a council flat in their lifetime either, or who find themselves split up or divorced. It is not just students who live in HMOs. Look at the Moda living flats going up near Hove Station for rental only. Over £2k per month just to rent a furnished living pod, though they are very coy about revealing prices unless you sign up all your data to their website.
They won’t be able to afford to get onto the housing ladder if landlords can take normal houses, cram in extra bedrooms and get £3-4 grand a month in rent – the ability to convert houses into HMOs underpins Brighton’s sky high houses and rents.
The application states that this is for student housing not working people. The upshot will be that the constant noise and disruption will eventually force the neighbours to move and the property will then not be suitable for anything but more student housing and we will see the domino theory put into practice..
The new law banning foreign students bringing family with them will reduce demand for places at the universities.
I have met a number of Nigerian MA students who confirm this. One said “They will look for another country”. They are also surprised that housing here is so bad & the UK not entirely as expected.
Soneone else from another country is in an HMO with central heating that cannot be turned on and a landlord ignoring pleas to repair.
Foreign students are prey for unscrupulous landlords – and yes, are they all registered HMO!s as queried here!?
The idea that univerity degrees are a must is changing which may also cut the unis back diwn to size as applications reduce.
If working adults replace stdents in HMO’s lives will hopefully not be so disrupted locally.
Regarding housing for students, there’s currently not enough, but yeah, if admissions go down, we very well may see these properties return to the regular market.
How difficult can it be to make things work properly, seems to be like most things in this country, that more time and money is spent on how to make sure nothing works the way it should, maybe a question should be in the direction of who has a vested interest in these conversions to HMOs, anyone in local Government ???? family or friends of ???
Bevendean sort your Neighbourhood action plan out and prioritise families with kids for family homes, this looks like a former council home also. All these student homes going up, a majority council has power when they want to use it. Well done Amanda E for voting against on principle, but sad her other colleagues even a neighbouring cllr from coldean voted for this.
Look to the marina one its very well written, does not mean I agree with the contents
Take note Bevendean Voters…
So the councillors and residents are aware of local houses that appear to be unregistered HMOs. Where are the details of the investigations into these? Have the councillors who spotted them reported them? If not, why not? Have the councillors themselves broken any rules by not doing so? Can they really be aware of illegal and potentially dangerous homes and not report them? The councillors can complain and grandstand, but if they don’t give the evidence to the enforcement teams then can they really complain if there isn’t enforcement?!
There is something very wrong with this decision. The plans did not meet minimum planning standards, there is another hmo less than 50 yards away, residents engaged and objected. A previous hmo app 5 years ago was denied, why does Rivers Birtwell get his applications approved by bhcc but others don’t for the same property? Bevendean needs to find another way to stop Rivers Birtwell from destroying family homes. They’ve had 28 between them, all within walking distance to the school, all objected to. This is corrupt.
Another issue, B&H council, buy back RtoB houses and flats. These flats and house’s, are not made available to people on the council housing list. But to to another department Temporary Accommodation Department. Where those, on the waiting list, loose out, and established communities come under pressure
If there has to be 50m between HMO start looking at all houses in the avenue, Brighton is a joke it’s not welcome to Brighton and hove it should be welcome to university campus where we have ruin the lewes rd and the town with student accommodation