- What is an HMO?
- What Counts as a Storey for Mandatory Licensing?
- Do I need planning permission for my HMO?
- A Practical Guide To The New HMO Planning Class In Wales
- Management of HMO Regulations 2006
- Minimum Standards of Licensable Property (NOT s.257 HMO)
- Minimum Standards for s.257 HMOs that require a licence (additional licensing)
- Fines And Penalties For Failing To Comply With HMO Duties
- Lacors Fire Safety Guidance
- Example Risk Assessment Form
From 25 February 2016, a new House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) class will be added into the use classes for planning permission purposes which will have serious consequences on landlords who wish to change to HMOs in Wales.
Contents
What are use classes?
Under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 several classes of use are defined for which planning permission needs to be obtained. If a use is not mentioned in the order they are know as a ’Sui Generis’ use. Examples are theatres, car showrooms and filling stations. A Sui Generis use still requires planning permission but is likely to be more specific than the generally more broad definitions contained in specific use classes.
A normal dwelling in Wales will currently be known as a “class C3 Dwellinghouse” which is a use for up to six people occupying as a single household only. Arguably some HMOs may need planning permission before the change because they won’t be being occupied as a single household or may have more than seven people residing. However, it was little enforced and in order for planning of this type to be needed (before change), there would need to be “… the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land …”. The question of what a “material” change in use is a difficult one.
The new classes
From 25 February 2015, Class C3 is slightly amended and a new class C4 is introduced. This brings the classes into line with England where C3 was changed and C4 has existed for a number of years.
Class C3 in Wales is amended to say:
Class C3. Dwellinghouses
Use as a dwellinghouse (whether or not as a sole or main residence) by—
(a) a single person or by people to be regarded as forming a single household;
(b) not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents; or
(c) not more than six residents living together as a single household where no care is provided to residents (other than a use within class C4).
Interpretation of Class C3
For the purposes of Class C3(a) “single household” is to be construed in accordance with section 258 of the Housing Act 2004(2)
The new class C4 introduced says:
Class C4. Houses in multiple occupation
Use of a dwellinghouse by not more than six residents as a house in multiple occupation.
Interpretation of Class C4
For the purposes of Class C4 a “house in multiple occupation” does not include a converted block of flats to which section 257 of the Housing Act 2004 applies but otherwise has the same meaning as in section 254 of the Housing Act 2004.
This has the effect that from 25 February 2015 any new change of use from a single household letting to a house in multiple occupation with 3 or more unrelated sharers would first need planning permission.
The change will also affect taking 3 or more lodgers as they too would make a property an HMO and require planning permission.
Permitted Development
In England, there is a permitted development to go from C3 to C4 without the need for planning. It is also a permitted development to go back from C4 to C3.
Wales has chosen to only allow the latter. Therefore, also from the 25 February 2015, it will be a permitted development (planning permission not necessary) to change the use from a C4 class (HMO) to a single household letting (C3). It will not be permitted to go back again though without planning permission first being sought.
This in our view is an utterly crazy decision and it is respectfully submitted Wales should have followed England and allowed a permitted development both ways. The larger HMOs (seven or more people) would still be caught and require planning. England tried this way at first but soon changed it to allow a permitted development both ways.
An example of a problem with this new ruling can be quickly illustrated:
If currently there are two female sharers in a house who are just friends, the property is not an HMO because there needs to be 3 or more occupying1. If one of the two females has a baby, the property immediately becomes an HMO and planning permission would be required or, to avoid prosecution, the landlord would have no alternative but to evict!2
Existing HMOs
As discussed earlier, it may well have been the case that some HMOs ought to have obtained planning permission before the change regardless. In which case, the change simply strengthens the requirement.
However, as a general rule if there is an existing HMO on the 25 February, there is no “change in use” occurring (because it’s already being used for that purpose). However, as we say, it all depends whether that use was lawful in the first place under the previous rules.
A landlord wishing to be certain can apply for a “certificate of lawful use” where an established use has been used for some time3.
- Two sharers are exempt by schedule 14 Housing Act 2004 ↩
- The reason it’s an HMO is because the two females are friends and so more than one household. If they were a couple “living together as married” and one had a child, the property would not be a HMO because all occupiers would be part of a single household. ↩
- The link is to England guidance as I couldn’t find a Wales version but they should be similar ↩
I am not sure your example of the two females with a baby is correct. The baby is related to one of the females, so that arrangement therefore does not constitute “three or more sharers who are not related,” as required under the C4 planning use definition.
I can assure you it is correct.
In my example all 3 are not related. There are therefore two households. We use this example in the accreditation and Rent Smart Wales training.
If Janet and Jane are friends (not a couple) and Jane has a baby it’s an HMO. This is because there are 2 households. Janet is one household and Jane and the baby is another household. The actual definition of an HMO is more than one household. However, under schedule 14 Housing Act 2004 there is an exemption where there are only two occupiers (without that exemption, two sharers would also be an HMO).
If however Janet and Jane are a couple (either married or living together as married) then all 3 occupiers are related to each other and therefore become a single household and not an HMO.
This is the definition contained in section 254 Housing Act 2004 as referred to in class C4.
Saying 3 or more unrelated sharers is just a quick summary of this type of HMO but more than a single household is the technical definition.
What a load of of complicated jargon. IS IT TWO separate people for a hmo OR IS IT THREE? Simple isnt it?
As an infant is part of one household. I would vigorously challenge that an infant is a third household as they cannot possibly rent on their own.
3 people and not all related to each other.
To add, the definition is “occupiers” not “tenants” which is why age is of no relevance.