Agenda item

To consider the report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

Agreed:

RECOMMENDED that Council:-

(1)   note the content of the petition and the concerns raised regarding the potential impacts of Houses in Multiple Occupation on the local community; and

(2)   recognise the continued commitment to preparing the Local Plan to the agreed timescales whilst identifying additional resources to support a review of the Article 4 Direction.

Reason for Decision: As set out in the report and amended at the meeting.

The Executive received the report on the Exeter Article 4 Direction for Houses in Multiple Occupancy (HMO), following the receipt of a petition at the meeting of the Council on 21 July 2021. The petition requested an extension of the Article 4 restrictions for HMO’s to the remainder of the Sylvan Road, Sylvan Avenue and Moorview Close areas. In line with the Council’s petition scheme, a report had been brought to the Executive for further consideration.

The Portfolio Holder for City Development moved an amendment to the recommendations as follows:-

2.2 to recognise the continued commitment to preparing the Local Plan to the agreed timescales whilst in parallel identifying additional resources to support a review of the Article 4 Direction.

It was explained that the reason for the proposed amendment followed meetings held with residents and Members to understand their concerns.

The Leader invited the petition organiser, Mr John Danvers to speak on this matter. Mr Danvers thanked the Executive for the opportunity to speak and to the Leader for the proposed amendments to the recommendations. He explained that he was representing 150 residents of Sylvan Road, the surrounding streets in the Pennsylvania Ward and of the signatories of the petition. In June 2021, a letter was submitted to the Planning Department requesting changes to the current Article 4 Direction. A petition was submitted on 8 July 2021, followed by a revised letter to support the petition. Following productive discussions with Councillors, the Leader and Deputy Leader, residents had been contacted by a growing number of concerned residents and had gathered additional evidence to support the original request to review the Article 4 Direction on the conversion of family homes into HMO’s and student accommodation.

It was explained that residents would be submitting another letter containing the updated evidence, highlighting the concerns of residents on how communities in north Pennsylvania were being affected by the frequent conversions, some of which did not appear on the Council register. Mr Danvers highlighted that in 2016 there was just one HMO in north Pennsylvania and now there were more than 14. Local residents had reported incidents of landlords and tenants, who had made life miserable for their neighbours. The community value for the area was being affected by excessive noise, litter, antisocial behaviour with an increase to the number of cars, impacting the wider community.

The increase in the number of HMO’s had reduced the available number of houses available for younger families. Mr Danvers concluded by highlighting that residents did not have any issues with students and acknowledged that most were well behaved, however there was a small minority that had adversely impacted the community area. Many residents felt that there was an indifference from the Council and University and requested that their concerns be taken seriously with consultation and engagement to resolve the concerns. It was requested that the Council immediately engage in a full consultation process on the conversion of future homes into HMO’s in Pennsylvania and to review all plans for citywide student homes and HMO’s with the inclusion of a buffer zone around any Article 4 areas.

The Chair thanked Mr Danvers for attending the meeting.

The Deputy Chief Executive presented the report and recognised the concerns of residents in the affected area and the issues that had been raised. The report highlighted that officers, to date, were unable to find sufficient evidence to undertake a review of the Article 4 provisions in the area, but more in-depth work would be needed to fully explore this issue. Due to the focus on delivering the new Local Plan to the agreed timescale, it was not possible to resource a full review of the Article Four area. The proposed amendments would allow officers to develop a costed proposal to undertake a review, which would be presented to Members for their approval and to agree the resources required.

Councillor K. Mitchell, as an opposition leader, welcomed the proposed amendment to the recommendations and sought clarification on whether the changes to Article 4 Direction would include other areas in the city. The Leader in responding confirmed that additional resources would be for a review of the overall Article 4 Direction.

During the discussion the following points were raised:-

·         the acknowledgment that there was a balance to be struck between the passion of the community and available resources;

·         any responses from residents would be carefully considered and analysed by officers;

·         the comments provided by Mr Danvers and residents’ views were welcomed but there was a challenge for the Council, to also house students, particularly with the University population increasing each year and that a balance was needed to be achieved; and

·         there had been productive meetings between Ward Councillors, the Leader and Deputy Leader, which highlighted that there was no indifference to residents’ views or to addressing the implications of undertaking a review.

The Portfolio Holder for City Development in summarising the amendment, thanked officers for the work included in the report and welcomed the fact that there was no risk to the timescale for developing the Local Plan.

Following the discussion, Councillor Bialyk moved and was seconded by Councillor Wright to amend the recommendations in the report to include the proposed amendment, which were moved and voted for unanimously.

RECOMMENDED that Council:-

(1)  note the content of the petition and the concerns raised regarding the potential impacts of Houses in Multiple Occupation on the local community; and

(2)  recognise the continued commitment to preparing the Local Plan to the agreed timescales whilst identifying additional resources to support a review of the Article 4 Direction.