Preferred Options

Introduction
We have had the benefit of seeing a draft of a similar submission which is being made
to you by the National Landlord's Association (NLA) and we endorse what they say.
As we support their submission we do not intend to repeat the matters which they
have put to you. Our comments are confined, by and large, to certain specific issues
which we believe the Council need to consider before taking this proposed policy any
further. As indicated in the heading this response relates only to Policy P06 : Mixed
Communities and wide choice of housing.

Lack of justification
It is important that this proposed policy is considered in the light of the National
Planning Policy Framework ("the Framework"). Not only must the Framework be
considered but also the outcome of two public examinations on similar policies put
forward by both Portsmouth City Council and Manchester City Council.
As is clear from paragraph 50 of the Framework the underlying planning purpose
underpinning any such policy restricting HMOs is about "mixed communities", i.e.
mixture in the tenure, type and range of properties. It is not about balanced
communities i.e. people who live in them. Only affordable housing can be based on
the concept of a balanced community.
As provided for in the Framework the needs and demands of all sections of the
community must be met and catered for through planning policies i8ncluding young
people such as young sharers Following the introduction of the new Class C4 and
Use Classes Order, it is also clear that such a policy cannot just be about students.
Shared accommodation and bedsit accommodation are primarily residential
accommodation for mainly young people but also across all sections of the
population. Occupants include not just students but also young professionals,
working people, benefit customers and so on. The proposed planning policy is
intended to inhibit the provision of shared accommodation for students particularly in
those areas where students want to live, but it has much wider ramifications.
Restrictive planning policies can be justified in certain circumstances but only by the
impact of concentrations of HMOs so long as there is resulting adverse impact on
residential amenities such as anti social behaviour, litter, lack of internal repairs, car
parking problems and loss oflocal amenities (such as schools and shops). As the
NLA rightly point out no such evidence has been produced in this instance of any
residential disamenity. Importantly, it is the concentrations of HMOs and resulting
adverse impacts on residential amenity which is the justification; not concentrations in
themselves. Your planning policy is, however, purely aimed at restricting such
concentrations for their own sake. If you pause for a moment you need to think that if
we were dealing purely with an area of owner/occupation then there would be no wish
for interference. In this instance, however, it is about young people and a different
approach is therefore being pursued, which is not permissible.
If there are adverse impacts due to concentrations then dominance of concentrations
of HMOs as a tenure may be contrary to Framework policie~ for mixed developments
thus providing justification potentially for planning policies to intervene. What this
can then do is justify a wider distribution of HMOs in different areas because the
need/demand for such accommodation can still be met. It is important to stress,
however, that it must be founded on evidence. No consideration is given to alternative
areas where the demand is to be met and no doubt the residents of those areas would
then raise concerns if HMOs were to start appearing in their neighbourhoods.
Any such policy must be justified by and underpinned by a credible objective
evidence base. You need to demonstrate the evidence that there is residential
disamenity. As already pointed out there is no such evidence.
When it comes to formulating policy there must be clear evidence to justifY the nature
of the restriction and the areas to which it is applied. The Planning Inspector in
Manchester indicated that there is a need for flexibility for different percentages and
different areas. There must also be a proper assessment of the effectiveness of the
applicable percentage limits to assess their effectiveness so as to promote social
harmony.
Importantly, there must be a proper assessment of need/demand such as a strategic
housing market assessment which provides detailed evidence or a similar study of this
nature.

Locational policy
In the justification of the policy it is indicated that the plan will need to include a
locational policy to determine planning applications for shared houses as well as other
types of HMOs. The plan itself contains, at the moment, no preferred option for ay
such plan so it is very difficult to make comments upon it. Also it is not clear whether
you are able to deal with this by a local plan document or through a Supplemental
Planning Document. We consider that a matter of this kind which is of such
importance should be dealt with via the development plan document route which
would enable it to be subject to proper independent examination.
Conclusion
It is very difficult to comment at this stage on the proposed policy because of the lack
of detail. Nevertheless, we have very serious concerns about what is proposed and
would urge the Council, as local planning authority, to think again. Clearly, the
Council has to have proper credible evidence to justify its intended course of action.
There is also a misconception on your part around what is intended in the light of
national planning policies as set out in the Framework.