Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Proposed Direction by Council to Restrict Conversion of Private Houses into HMOs
Those of us who have long been concerned about the free-for-all which there has been in changing the use of houses from single family houses to houses in multiple occupation will be pleased that the Council has finally made a proposed Direction under Article 4 of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development Order) 1995.
The effect of this Order will be to require that once the Order comes into effect, any future changes of use will require planning permission. Up until now, it has been possible to change the use from private dwelling to HMO without planning permission, provided that no more than 6 people at a time were resident in the dwelling. The Direction will change that.
Further details are available via the Council's website on http://www.haringey.gov.uk/policy_and_projects Click on "Article 4 Direction" in the side-bar.
There is a consultation period which will run from the 30th November 2012 to the 11th January 2013. Details are again available via the above link.
Although this Direction is to be welcomed, it must be remembered that it does not touch upon those cases where houses are divided into self-contained units (as opposed to houses where facilities are shared, these being HMOs in the truse sense of the term). In cases of subdivision, planning permission is already required, but problems have arisen where the sub-division has been made more than 4 years before enforcement action has begun. As before, therefore, it is necessaary to keep an eye out for unauthorised sub-divisions and to report them promptly, in order to ensure that they can be undone.
David Schmitz
Liberal Democrat Councillor for Harringay Ward
Tags for Forum Posts: HMOs Article 4, hmos, new hmo controls, 2011
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ian on
-
speaking from the point of view as married with 2.5 kids and mortgage, everyone still has a right to affordable housing, even single people. HMO's serve a purpose as long as the people occupying them are respectful of the enviroment and people living around them.
-
Permalink Reply by Geoff on
-
Part of the problem is that in the Harringay Ladder area, for example,the number of HMOs and illegal conversions has spiraled way out of control over the years because of ineffective controls or a lack of will on the part of the Council to control such development and changes of use. The result is that the area has been over-saturated with HMOs and conversions, many illegal - contravening the housing density set out for the area. This new directive and the action of Councillors and many residents who have suffered for too long the undesirable effects of such unwelcome activity, esp at the hands of unscrupulous landlords and developers, is most welcome and will help put in place much needed controls to continue to improve the quality of life in the area.
-
Permalink Reply by David Schmitz on
-
I think these are important points.
It is certainly the case that HMOs serve a purpose. After all, most of us have lived in HMOs ourselves at various points in our lives. That is why as a general rule it is unnecessary to require planning permission to change from single family use to HMO use by 6 people or fewer.
The difficulty arises, however, where there are so many HMOs that they distort the market so that single families are priced out. Also, every area needs people who put down roots and create a community, and this becomes difficult if the population becomes predominantly transient.
In short, the question is not one of family houses good, HMOs bad. It is a question of balance, and when the balance is being lost, regulation is needed to restore it. Hence the Article 4 direction.
-
-
well said David. Hopefully these new regs are introduced based on evidence and it does not one day extend to restrict normal families and the number of people resident within a dwelling.
However as a home owner I would like to think we should be able to have a certain amount of personal freedom to determine how we use our homes. As an example, If I fell on hard times I would like to think that I could hire out all rooms within my home while still living there in order to make ends meet without powers determining that I must lose my house because I am not allowed to rent all rooms within my house.
-
Permalink Reply by Alexander Smith on
-
That's exactly what I was thinking Ian, and you explained it so well.
-
-
Thanks Ian.
In answer to the points you've made, it is always a question of fact and degree whether or not any particular pattern of occupation breaches an obligation to use a property as a single family dwelling. Relevant matters would include the number of people who come to stay, the extent to which they are involved in the day-to-day life of the family (such as sharing meals), and whether they were known to the family before they moved in as opposed to them coming in answer to an advert.
As a rule of thumb it might be said that there would be no infringement of such an obligation if a family were to have a friend to stay and share expenses, but that it would be another matter to have two people staying who did not themselves have a family tie and who were no more than paying guests. If a family were to have one paying guest only and if they were not sharing their accommodation with anyone else, this would probably not involve an infringement.
Of course three further things must be remembered. First, many leases contain covenants prohibiting house sharing, and advice needs to be taken with regard to the meaning of any such covenant. Secondly, mortgages often contain restrictions. Thirdly, in planning terms, regulation does not mean outright prohibition. One can always ask for permission.
David
-
-
Now you've got me worried David.
Quite a lot of houses in Haringey are fairly large and could easily accommodate more than one lodger as well as the owner and his/her family. If they asked for planning permission for, say, two paying guests, won’t they be taking a risk that, in future, if they had more children for example or needed to take in an aged parent, permission might then be refused for their home to revert to a “single family dwelling”?
-
-
This directive is not directed at families who take in a lodger - if your whole house became a rental house then it would be a different matter, of course, because that would effectively be a change of use, it would have a commercial aspect to it, and would impact in different ways in an area which is already stressed because of over-saturation of unauthorised HMOs, conversions and rental properties mentioned previously.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
