Agenda item

The Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) Manageroutlined the details of the application to the Committee. 

He explained that the property had had the benefit of an HMO licence issued by the Housing Executive, in the name of Mr. John Macauley, with an expiry date of 2nd June, 2019.  On 19th April, 2019, an application was received in the name of Ms. Mary Macauley, which was subsequently granted with an expiry date of 2nd June, 2024.

On 8th May, 2024, an application was received from Mr. John Macauley.  On 16th May, 2024, the HMO office had requested confirmation of ownership from Mr. Macauley and on 21st May, 2024, confirmation was received from his solicitor that he had been the sole owner of the accommodation since 29th July, 2005.

The Committee was advised that Section 8 of the Houses in Multiple Occupation Act (NI) 2016 required an application for an HMO Licence to be made to the Council by the owner of the living accommodation in question, as the application submitted on 19th April, 2019, was not in the name of the owner, the provisions of Section 8 were not fulfilled.  As such, the Council was therefore obligated to consider the application submitted by Mr. Macauley on 16th May, 2024, as a new application.

TheHMO Manager outlined that, pursuant to the 2016 Act, the Council could only grant a licence if it was satisfied that:

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

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

c)     the proposed management arrangements were satisfactory;

d)     the granting of the licence would not result in overprovision of HMOs in the locality;

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.

The Committee was advised that, as it was a new application, the Council’s Planning Service was consulted. It had confirmed that a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development (“CLEUD”) was granted on 9th September, 2019.

It was reported that the NIHMO Unit had consulted with the Environmental Protection Unit in relation to nighttime and daytimenoise; the Public Health and Housing Unit in relation to rubbish accumulation/filthy premises; and the Enforcement Unit in relation to litter and waste and all had confirmed that there had been no relevant enforcement action required in respect of any of the issues in the HMO in the last 5 years.  The applicant had confirmed that they had not been convicted of any relevant offences pursuant to the 2016 Act.

For the purpose of Section 12(2) of the 2016 Act, the Council had determined the locality of the accommodation as being Housing Management Area (HMA) “2/22 Botanic, Holylands, Rugby” as defined in the document Council’s Local Development Plan Strategy, which was formally adopted on 2nd May, 2023.  It was reported that Legal Services had advised that there was a clear requirement in section 8 of the 2016 Act upon the Council to be satisfied that the granting of a licence would not result in overprovision.

The officers had had regard to:

a)     the number and capacity of licensed HMOs in the locality; and

b)     the need for housing accommodation in the locality and the extent to which HMO accommodation was required to meet that need.

To inform the Council in its consideration of the above provisions, the Council had taken account of the 2023 Strategy given that “Nurturing sustainable and balanced communities was a fundamental aim of the LDP’s housing policies.”  In particular, the Council had considered Policy HOU10, which stated:

“Within designated HMAs, planning permission will only be granted for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and/or flats/apartments where the total number of HMOs and flats/apartments combined would not as a result exceed 20% of all dwelling units within an HMA.”

The Committee was advised that, on the date of assessment, 15th October 2024, 88% of all dwelling units in policy area “HMA 2/22” were made up of HMOs and flats/apartments, which in turn exceeded the 20% development limit as set out in Policy HOU10.  There were 1131 (46%) licensed HMOs with a capacity of 4784 persons in that HMA.

It was outlined that there were a total of 2476 dwelling units in HMA 2/22.  The Committee was advised that the fact that the use of the property as an HMO was permitted for planning purposes was arelevant consideration in determining whether the granting of the licence would result inoverprovision. 

The Committee was advised that, on 15th October, 2024, out of 47 premises available for rent within the BT7 area on PropertyNews.com there were 12 licensed HMOs which represented 51 bed spaces.

The Houses in Multiple Occupation Manager reminded the Committee that there was a need for intensive forms of housing and, to meet that demand, HMOs were an important component of the housing provision. HMOs, alongside other accommodation options within the private rented sector, played an important role in meeting the housing needs of people who were single, who had temporary employment, students, low income households and, more recently, migrant workers and asylum seekers.

He reported that the Ulster University Director of Campus Life, in December 2022, had advised the Council’s City Growth and Regeneration Committee that there was an “increase in competition for HMOs particularly from NIHE, Immigration Services and statutory agencies and there were increasing accommodation issues across the housing sector which required a holistic view and should include the consideration of international students, families and graduates looking for professional accommodation.”

However, the QUB Director of Student Plus had confirmed that the current trend indicated a significant move of students to purpose-built student accommodation blocks. She had advised the Members that there were 7,000 purpose built managed student accommodation (PBMSA) rooms in the city, the majority having been built since 2018, and approximately 5,000 in the city centre.

The Committee was reminded that recent monitoring information produced by the Council’s Planning Service for PBMSA indicated that 2055 bedspaces were currently under construction with an operational date of 2024, 92 bedspaces approved but where construction had not yet commenced and a further 1426 bedspaces going through the planning process.

Therefore, with the continued expansion of the PBMSA sector and students transitioning from private rentals to PBMSAs, it was too early to tell whether the increased competition from non-students for HMOs was a temporary problem which could be managed by the contraction in students residing in existing HMO accommodation within the locality, or evidence of an emerging long-term supply issue.

TheHouses in Multiple Occupation Manager explained that, in assessing the number and capacity of licensed HMOs, as well as the need for HMO accommodation in the locality, officers could not be satisfied that the granting of the HMO licence would not result in overprovision of HMO accommodation in the locality of the accommodation for the purpose of section 8(2)(d) of the 2016 Act.

The Committee was advised that no objections had been received in relation to the application. 

            On 12th August, 2024, the accommodation had been certified as complying with the physical standards for an HMO for 5 persons by a technical officer from the NIHMO service.

On 15th October, 2024, pursuant to Paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 of the Houses in Multiple Occupation Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, officers had issued a Notice of Proposed Decision to the Applicant advising that it was proposing to refuse the licence on the grounds of overprovision. 

            On 6th November, 2024, representations were received on behalf of the applicant from McCann & McCann Solicitors.  The correspondence stated that Mr. J. Macauley had been the sole owner of the property since 29th July, 2005 and that the original HMO registration had been taken out in Mr Macaulay’s name and had been renewed by the Council in that name.  Mr Macaulay had used an Agent to run the HMO, that Agent being Property People, and they were involved in the applications.  Property People also acted for Mr Macaulay’s mother, Mary McAulay, in relation to a number of different properties.  When the new HMO Act 2016 had come into effect in 2019, a Certificate was issued for 15 Agincourt Street in the name of Mary Macaulay.  Mr Macaulay was unclear as to how the Council had managed to issue a licence in the name of Mary Macaulay when he was always the owner and the HMO Applications were always in his name.  He had asked the Council to check their records to confirm how the issue had arisen but it had been unable to do so.

            Mr. Macaulay applied to renew his HMO Licence for the above property in 2024 and his application was accepted. The HMO Unit had then indicated a Notice of Intention to Refuse a Licence on the basis that it was treating the application as a new application rather than a renewal.  Mr. Macaulay submits that the HMO Unit should treat the application as a renewal rather than a fresh application as clearly an administrative error had taken place while the HMO regime was being operated by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which had led to his mother’s name being placed on the registration, and subsequently the Licence, through no fault of his own.

            The basis of the refusal was over provision whereas, if it was treated as a renewal, then the issue of over provision would not arise.  Mr. Macauley maintained that the Council would be acting unreasonably if they refused to treat the Application as a renewal, given the administrative error that had occurred through no fault of his own.

            The Chairperson welcomed the applicant, Mr. J. Macauley, to the meeting.  He reiterated a number of the points which had been made through the correspondence from his solicitor.  He also advised the Committee that he had spent a considerable amount of money investing in the upkeep and maintenance of the property.  He stated that he kept the rent at an affordable rate and that he had complied with all legislative and regulatory requirements for HMOs since 2006. 

            He queried how someone who did not own a property could submit an application for an HMO licence and be approved.  In response the HMO Manager explained that they were aware of the issue and that officers were considering imposing a new requirement for applicants to provide a proof of title letter as part of the process.

            After hearing from the applicant and following some queries from some Members, the City Solicitor confirmed that officers would be content to reconsider the details of the application, if the Committee agreed.

            The Committee agreed that officers should reconsider the details of the application, in light of the issues which had been raised.