|
Modernising the Private Rented Sector In Summer 2001, the housing charity Shelter set up a Commission on housing standards and supply in the private rented sector, supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Leeds HMO Lobby has written to the Chair, Lord Best (Director of the JRF). The Lobby Co-ordinator also addressed the Commission when it visited Leeds on 21 September 2001. The Lobby wrote again in March 2002. The Commission's Report was published on 16 May 2002, as Private Renting: a new settlement. The Lobby has responded to the published report. 11 June 2002 Dear Steve Leeds HMO Lobby would like to thank Shelter for producing the Report on Private Renting: a new settlement, and for sending us a copy (and on p15, for acknowledging our submissions). We welcome the Report's recognition of the significance of student renting, of the problems it poses and of the need for solutions. At the same time, we have our reservations about what the Report says. We would be obliged if you would forward the following observations to the members of the Commission which wrote the Report. First of all, we are pleased that the Report acknowledges that student renting has been significant for the growth of the private rented sector (pp17, 33, 34) and now constitutes one of the six broad groups comprising the PRS (p59). However, the Report does not recognise the local significance of student renting. In Leeds, for instance the Council's Housing Strategy 2002 identifies three components of the PRS (not two, as implied in the Report, p53), and student renting is by far the most important of these: it comprises half the PRS in Leeds. Furthermore, most of the properties (three-quarters of shared houses) are concentrated in one area, and now constitute half of the houses in Headingley. This means that half the population there is young, seasonal, and above all, transient. Secondly, we welcome the recognition that student private renting has an adverse impact on the wider community (p33). In particular, the Report notes that it prices other buyers out of the market and that it marginalises permanent residents (p35). However, this is hardly an adequate account of the impact of student housing on local communities. In Headingley and elsewhere in the country, in consequence of the demographic imbalance, concentrations of student housing have led, on the one hand, to increased problems, like crime, squalor and the development of a resort economy, and on the other, to the undermining of the local communities who could cope with these. Specifically, the indicators of the destabilisation of neighbourhoods identified by the Government are all present, not only in areas of low housing demand, but also in areas of high demand, where this comes from students (DTLR, Selective Licensing of Private Landlords, 2001, para 29). Finally, we are pleased to see solutions offered to these problems. Recommendation 11 proposes discussions between universities, councils and landlords (pp6, 38). (Leeds has in fact established a Student Housing Project Group.) The Report also suggests that accreditation schemes could be of wider relevance (Recomendation 26, pp35, 47, 51-52). However, 80% of Unipol properties in Leeds are within their accreditation scheme (p53) - evidently, to no benefit to the wider community. And 'discussion' alone is only meaningful if it is to some purpose. Leeds HMO Lobby has proposed a three-strand Grand Strategy (reorientation of student accommodation, resistance to further concentration, and revival of diversity in areas affected), with specific policies to pursue each of these. But such a strategy requires improved statutory powers. A search for consensus is laudable. But it is to no avail where interests conflict (as indicated by the Report's failure to agree on HMO licensing, p51). In such circumstances, intervention is necessary. The Lobby seeks to limit concentrations of HMOs (student or otherwise), through housing or planning legislation. To do this, HMOs must be identified, through some form of registration or licensing. And for this, we need much clearer definition of HMO in housing and planning law. One of the Report's stated aims (p3) is to enable the PRS to 'play a positive role in the development of mixed and reinvigorated neighbourhoods.' But the student segment of the PRS is profoundly destructive of neighbourhoods. We regret that the Report is unable to propose a 'new settlement' for private renting by students. Best wishes, Dr Richard Tyler, Leeds HMO Lobby 21 March 2002 Dear Lord Best You will remember that Leeds HMO Lobby wrote to you on 24 August last year. And I was fortunate in having the opportunity to speak to the Commission when it visited Leeds on 21 September. Since then, there have been a number of developments - the DTLR has published a Consultation Paper on Selective Licensing of Private Landlords, and another on The Use Classes Order, and the Minister for Housing & Planning, Lord Falconer, has visited us in Leeds (15 February). And I see from Shelter's Bedsit Briefing that your Report is due to appear in May. In the light of these, I wonder if I may make four points on HMOs for your consideration? 1. The Need for Control of Concentrations of HMOs The Paper on Selective Licensing identifies four indicators of destabilisation in a community (para 29) - (1) high recorded crime, (2) extensive dumping & litter, (3) high turnover of residents, (4) complaints of neighbour nuisance. When Lord Falconer visited Leeds, we drew these to his attention. And we pointed out that, though Headingley is an area of high demand, because that demand is for HMOs, then all four of these indicators are present here - precisely because the concentration of HMOs has the effect of destabilising the community. Indeed, in two indicators, we lead the country - our burglary rate is the highest (HOSB 12/01), and we think our turnover probably is too (50% pa, according to the Electoral Roll). In his words, Lord Falconer was 'chilled' at what he saw and heard of the problems caused by concentrations of HMOs. We are not alone: these problems are common to most university towns, and to many coastal towns too. Clearly, as in areas of low demand, there is an urgent need for government intervention. 2. Definition of HMO With the best will in the world, local authorities like Leeds find it very difficult to intervene. In England, definitions of HMO are inconsistent and unclear. Housing and planning use different definitions. And they rely on imprecise terms, such as 'single household'. (A couple of weeks ago, at an Inquiry in Leeds by a Planning Inspector, regarding a dispute over a HMO, we spent a whole day arguing whether eight students in a house, who happened to be friends, but could not sit round a table together, constituted a 'single household'.) The Use Classes Order consultation paper avoids redefinition of HMO, while the Selective Licensing paper proposes a new tighter definition (closer to that in Scotland). In the light of the recent Enforcement Concordat, it is urgent (a) that there is a single coherent definition of HMO, used in both housing and planning legislation, and (b) that this definition is tighter and clearer than at present. 3. Licensing of HMOs If concentrations of HMOs are to be addressed, we need first to be able to define them. And then we need to identify them. This is where mandatory licensing becomes essential. We are confident that the government intends eventually to act. We are discouraged that action is so far off. With every month that passes, the situation in communities like Headingley deteriorates. Shelter's report Licence to Let on licensing in Scotland demonstrates its value. But in order to be able to identify houses which are HMOs (as well as for other reasons), it is urgent that licensing of HMOs is introduced into England. 4. Control of HMOs In the interests of tenants as such, licensing of HMOs (with appropriate standards) is sufficient. As we have seen, however, HMOs present problems, not only for their tenants, but also, where concentrations develop, for the communities in which they are situated. The characteristic demographics of HMOs, in concentrated numbers, are profoundly destabilising. We argue that conversion of a dwelling from a single household to HMO is a material change of use, as significant as conversion to hotel or home. However, the consultation paper on the Use Classes Order, though it recognises problems with HMOs, recommends no change at all in the relevant Use Class. Concentrations of HMOs could be controlled if it was possible to refuse planning permission. In order to be able to control HMOs, therefore, it is urgent that planning legislation is provided, such as a revision of the Use Classes Order. In your Report on Modernising the Private Rented Sector, may
we urge you to consider these issues. In summary, where high concentrations
of HMOs develop (whatever the level of demand) - Leeds HMO Lobby looks forward to the publication of your Report, and to proposals for solutions to the HMO problems which blight many communities around the country. Yours sincerely Dr Richard Tyler, Co-ordinator, Leeds HMO Lobby **************************************************************************************** 24 August 2001 Chair Dear Lord Best I am writing on behalf of Leeds HMO Lobby, which is an alliance of fifteen or so community associations in Leeds who share a concern for the impact of Houses in Multiple Occupation on their communities. We wish to raise some issues which we would like you to include in the considerations of your Commission. First of all, we feel that it is a pity that the Commission (as reported in Shelter's Bedsit Briefing) brings together a range of people, such as landlords and students, but has no community representation - even though its aims include 'the role of private renting in assisting social inclusion and mixed communities.' Clearly, all parties in the private rented sector have a perspective on this, but each is partial. We believe that the perspective of the community as a whole is equally important. Our own concern is a case in point. We are interested in the HMO element of the private rented sector. This is of course widely recognised as problematic, hence the government's proposals for licensing. HMOs have a number of implications for a number of parties. Their standards are of concern to responsible landlords. Irresponsible landlords are of course of concern to tenants (who are well represented by Shelter's Campaign for Bedsit Rights), including students. HMO occupancy can be of concern to immediate neighbours, and this is recognised by the government's discussion paper on Management Standards for HMOs. But in addition, quite regardless of the quality of landlords and tenants, concentrations of HMOs have serious implications for the communities in which they are located - both for HMO tenants themselves and for other local residents. The issues raised by HMOs are both qualitative and quantitative. The quality of HMOs is of concern to tenants and immediate neighbours. Quantities of HMOs are of concern to the community as a whole. It is this aspect of the private rented sector which we wish to draw to the attention of the Commission. Headingley and its neighbourhood in Leeds is a typical, if extreme, example of the problem. This problem is shared by most other university towns (and also, for different reasons, and in different ways, by many coastal towns). As a result of its proximity to the two universities in the city, and of the recent expansion of Higher Education, Headingley has been the focus of an explosion of demand for student accommodation. This has been met by the private rented sector. Family homes have been bought in great numbers and converted to shared housing. As a consequence, three-quarters of the city's shared houses are in this area, and at least half the population of Headingley consists of students. We have a massive concentration of shared housing. This development has had a profound impact on Headingley: it has completely disrupted the demographic balance. As a result, on the one hand, there has been a rise of distinctive environmental, economic and social problems; and on the other, there has been a decline of the community, which otherwise would have dealt with these. We see squalor throughout the neighbourhood (litter, rubbish, flytipping), dereliction of property (by landlords and tenants), blight in the streets (flyposting, grilles, etc.). Local shops see a wildly fluctuating market between term and vacation, and a distortion of demand towards fast-food and drink. We experience anti-social behaviour (from a resort ethos), record crime levels (especially burglary), and prohibitive property insurance as a result. These problems arise from the tenants of the private rented sector, who (being students) are transient, seasonal and immature. This passing population dominates the permanent population. The older generation is isolated (many streets are almost entirely shared houses). There are fewer active adults to support community involvement. And the proportion of children (the community of the future) is a third of the norm. A bad situation gets worse, as spiralling property prices encourage sales and prohibit newcomers. In the worst-hit areas, there is no permanent community left. What was a very diverse community (working class, professional, Asian, student) is rapidly becoming a student monoculture. Thus, real problems arise as a result of concentrations of HMOs. We do not blame students (except for an irresponsible minority): it's not them, but their sheer numbers which are the problem. Nor do we blame landlords (again, except for the irresponsible minority): again, it's not individuals, but the pressure of numbers. (We support Codes of Conduct for both, as in our Council's Accreditation Scheme.) We identify four principal factors.
So,
Our problem is commonly dismissed. Comparatively small numbers in Leeds (and nationally) are affected; and our problems are seen as less than those of other deprived areas (which we would not dispute). Nevertheless, the problems we experience are acute, not to be dismissed, and nationally amount to significant numbers. Furthermore, we fear for the long term. The situation in Headingley (and in similar areas) is volatile: at present, the student accommodation market remains viable - but only just. A small shift could see the balance collapse, and real problems develop for the Council. (For instance, the government's plans to expand HE even further are alarming.) We hope your Commission will recognise that there is a distinctive problem posed for communities like Headingley by the private rented sector, and we hope you will be able to give it consideration. For further information, you may like to visit our website (www.healheadingley.org.uk/hmolobby). We should be pleased to put you in touch with other community associations who share our problems, for example in Birmingham, in Nottingham, in Southampton, and so on. Certainly, we should be pleased to discuss further with you any of the points we have made. Far from assisting a mixed community in Headingley, the private rented sector is destroying it. We hope you hear the voice of that community. Yours sincerely (Dr) Richard Tyler |
Leeds HMO Lobby
Cardigan Centre, 145 Cardigan Road, Leeds LS6 1LJ
Email: hmolobby@hotmail.com
Website: www.hmolobby.org.uk