To consider the report of the Director City Development.
Additional documents:
Decision:
Agreed:
RECOMMENDED that Council approves:-
(1) the making of the Article 4 Direction (including the Article 4 area plan) attached at Appendix A of the report with non-immediate effect; and
(2) the adoption of the Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document attached at Appendix B of the report.
RESOLVED that delegated authority be granted to the Director of City Development, in consultation with the Council Leader and Portfolio Holder for City Development, to agree a change to the date of the confirmation of the Article 4 Direction attached at Appendix A of the report, if required.
Reason for Decision: As set out in the report.
Minutes:
The Executive received the report which summarised the results a of six-week public consultation undertaken by the Council during the summer period on a draft Article 4 Direction, to restrict permitted development rights of dwellings to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) with the related HMO Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The report also explained how the consultation had supported the final versions of the Article 4 Direction and HMO SPD.
Particular reference was made to the policies, which would help to manage the concentration of HMOs and suspending committed development rights to enable HMOs to be created. The consultation process had received more than 300 responses, with the preferred option being to expand into areas where there were 20% or more HMO properties. The consultations also addressed some minor revisions to the accompanying SPD, which clarified the Council's position with regard to applications for HMOs in that Article 4 area.
Members were advised of the next set steps of the process, with a notification process and then implementation of the revised Article 4 direction set for February 2025.
Councillor M. Mitchell, as an opposition group leader, spoke on this item and considered that more could still be done, given the growth of the University, which was an issue in certain Wards, and may need to be revisited.
Councillor Jobson, as an opposition group leader, spoke on this item and enquired about the legal differences between bringing the SPD into effect and having to wait for the implementation of Article 4 Direction. What would the implications be on planning applications for HMOs given the revised Article 4 Direction wasn’t yet in place?
Councillor Moore, as an opposition group leader, spoke on this item and welcomed the recognition on the imbalance in the local community threshold and enquired how a balanced community was defined? She further enquired on the basis of the calculation and whether that could be recorded with the documents and when the policy would be reviewed?
During the discussion the following points were made:
· many of the respondents to the consultation were from the Pennsylvania Ward who had welcomed the consultation and appreciated the work that had been undertaken by officers;
· the feedback favoured option 2, which was also the Council’s preferred option and was a fair compromise between control and making provision for non-student HMOs;
· was there a formula in relation to the postcode and output areas where an exceedance of 20% HMOS were expected?
· the work undertaken was a large step forward for residents and a lot of hard work had been undertaken in a very short time; and
· the report was welcome with great outcomes.
The Portfolio Holder for City Development highlighted that the Council had listened to residents and thanked Members who raised the issues and engaged with the process. She also thanked the officers involved who have worked hard on bringing the matter forward.
The Leader requested that the questions raised by opposition Leaders be submitted, so a response could be provided.
RECOMMENDED that Council ... view the full minutes text for item 118