Agenda item

The Committee noted the applications that had been issued under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation.

Before presentation of the aforementioned applications commenced, the Committee agreed to consider the three applications together.

            The Committee was reminded that responsibility for HMO’s had been transferred to local district councils in April 2019 with the introduction of a new licensing regime. The HMO Unit Manager advised that any existing registrations under the old NIHE Registration Scheme operated were deemed to be licences at the point of transfer. He stated that licences were issued for a 5 year period with standard conditions, however, where it was considered necessary to do so, the Committee could also impose special conditions.

            He explained that the purpose of the Houses in Multiple Occupation Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 (‘the 2016 Act’) was to enable better regulation of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO), by introducing a system of licensing, a fitness test for applicants and new provisions about standards of housing.

            He pointed out that, following the publication of the three applications, an objection had been received in relation to the applications which raised general concerns about the overprovision of HMO’s, the antisocial behaviour associated with HMO’s, their effect on communities and issues around planning permission. He confirmed that none of the issues raised had concerns specific to the premises in the three application premises.

            The HMO Unit Manager advised that, as a valid objection had been received, the applications must be considered by the Committee and highlighted that, pursuant to the 2016 Act, the Council may only grant a licence if it was satisfied of the following:

a)    the occupation of the living accommodation as an HMO would not constitute a breach of planning control;

b)    the owner of the living accommodation, and any managing agent of it, were fit and proper persons;

c)     the proposed management arrangements for the living accommodation were satisfactory);

d)    the granting of the licence would not result in overprovision of HMOs in the locality in which the living accommodation was situated;

e)    the living accommodation was fit for human habitation and—

                                 (i)    was suitable for occupation as an HMO by the number of persons to be specified in the licence, or

                                (ii)    could be made so suitable by including conditions in the licence.

            He explained that the issues which could be taken into account when considering the fitness of an applicant were set out at Section 10 of the 2016 Act and included offences concerning fraud or dishonesty, violence, drugs, human trafficking, firearms, sexual offences, unlawful discrimination in, or in connection with, the carrying on of any business; or any provision of the law relating to housing or of landlord and tenant law. It also permitted the Council to take into account any other matter which the council considered to be relevant. Section 20 of the 2016 Act stated where the holder of an HMO licence made an  application for renewal, the council must apply the above provisions except for (a) and (d); namely whether the use was a breach of planning control or would result in overprovision.

            He pointed out that Legal Counsel had advised that councils could not take into account the absence of planning permission through the prism of fitness. On the basis of this advice, Legal Services had confirmed that this also applied to issues around overprovision.

Representations

            The Committee received a representation from Mrs. B. Ruddy, a Holylands resident, in objection to the three applications. She suggested that there had been an overdevelopment of HMO’s in South Belfast for 20 years and the situation had not got any better with the introduction of the new legislation.  She highlighted that there was a negative impact from the overdevelopment of HMO’s on the local community, anti-social behaviour and criminal activity, pressure on public services, such as the dumping of rubbish in alleyways, together with pressure on the water and sewerage service network. She implied that the densification of inner south Belfast was overwhelming. She suggested that overprovision should be a consideration of HMO renewals, and the change in definition under Clause 1 of the HMO policy which allowed apartments to be developed, would also lead to densification of area.

            Mrs Ruddy stated that the new categorisation of the Holylands and Lower Ormeau as a Special Action Area status, to reduce the number of HMO premises was contrary to the HMO policy and Certificates of Lawful Use. She suggested that anti-social behaviour policies were also needed for HMO’s and highlighted the confusion and lack of detail in the current newspaper advertisement notifications.  She requested that the Committee should place a temporary halt to HMO renewal’s and certificates’ of lawful use and the Council should raise the need for a review of the HMO policy with the Minister for Communities.

            The Committee received a representation from Mr. E. Cameron in support of the application for 15 India Street. Mr Cameron provided an overview of his families’ ownership of the house and explained that, after renovations, it had been rented-out since 2009 and had complied with all NIHE housing checks.  He stated that the location of the property was close to Botanic Avenue, which was a very commercial area which did not generate a community. He implied that the over-population raised by the objector was questionable, as prior to being rented, the premises had been occupied by nine people. He advised that the waste was collected regularly and the alleyway was kept clear.   He suggested that parking was impacted by commuters and visitors using the spaces rather than residents. He indicated that anti-social behaviour could be attributed to customers of local social establishments rather than residents. He stated that there were no grounds for the Committee to refuse the application.

            The Committee received a representation from Mr. N. Jordan in support of the application for 22 Elaine Street. He advised that the location of the premises in Stranmillis had been used by students for decades and standards of housing were kept high. He stated that there were only a few problematic premises and more stringent HMO legislation would help alleviate these issues. He implied that the objection was a broad generalisation and could not be used. He suggested that the application met with the criteria and the premises also had planning approval. He advised that he managed the premises with regular inspections and ensured the front entrance and alleyway were kept clean and tidy.

            During points of clarification, Mrs. Ruddy confirmed that her objection was not directed at the aforementioned applications, however, implied that this was just part of the picture and the whole situation needed to be reviewed, together with the conflicting legislation.

            During discussion, the Divisional Solicitor assured the Committee that when officers had written to the objectors and suggested that their objections were not considered to be relevant, these remarks were written in terms of the legislative scheme and were intended to be helpful and not dismissive of the issues which had been raised by the objectors.

            She reminded the Committee that it was required to decide whether or not to grant the renewal applications and in doing so, had to assess whether the applicants were fit and proper persons and if the premises were suitable. She confirmed that assessment of the applications must be in accordance with the requirements of the legislation.

            She highlighted that the People and Communities Committee had set up a Special Action Group for the broader HMO issues and the draft Local Development Plan, which included detailed HMO policies to assist in providing balanced communities, was currently going through the statutory process for approval. 

            After discussion, the Committee considered the three aforementioned applications: