Policy KET8 Houses in Multiple Occupation

Supporting Text

39. It is recognised that HMOs play a key role in providing accommodation for students, but they also provide homes for those on lower incomes and those who are not in a position to rent or own their own individual home. However, an overconcentration in an area can lead to unacceptable impacts on neighbouring amenity which is considered harmful to local communities. Therefore, in striking a balance to ensure that housing need is met and to ensure that those HMOs which are subject to planning control (currently 7+ occupants) this policy legislates for the overall number and concentration in any given location to encourage a more even distribution across the neighbourhood plan area.
40. The mapping of HMOs within the neighbourhood area, as shown on the Policies Map, demonstrates that they are spatially concentrated in particular streets rather than evenly distributed. Evidence shows that where HMOs cluster within short distances, there are increased impacts on residential amenity, including parking stress, waste storage issues and pedestrian safety concerns. The Advisory Panel identified that a number of the streets with HMOs are very narrow. Due to excessive parking and inappropriate placement of bins, this leads to safety issues on the pavements for pedestrians forced into the road as footway access is restricted. There can be disturbance arising from the intensification of use of a home by the greater comings and goings associated with occupiers living independently of each other in comparison to a typical a family unit. This also results in a greater demand for on street parking where occupiers of HMOs would independently use their own vehicles, leading to a negative impact on amenity by the displacement of street parking available for other local residents within close walking distance of their homes.

41. The 100m radius has been selected as an appropriate and proportionate area within which to assess concentration, reflecting the scale at which such cumulative impacts are most clearly experienced. This approach provides a consistent and transparent method for decision-making.
42. The 10% threshold is intended as a precautionary benchmark to prevent harmful over-concentration of HMOs before it arises. It ensures that HMOs remain dispersed across the neighbourhood, thereby supporting mixed and balanced communities, whilst still allowing such accommodation to contribute towards meeting local housing needs. This approach is consistent with established planning practice, where numerical thresholds and proximity-based assessments are used to manage clustering and avoid adverse cumulative impacts. Overall, the policy provides a balanced and locally responsive framework that supports the delivery of shared housing while protecting the amenity, character, and functionality of existing residential areas.
43. The Town Council will continue to monitor trends in both planning applications and HMO licensing across the neighbourhood area and will assess whether the policy is influencing the size and distribution of HMOs, including any shift towards smaller (5–6 person) properties which would fall outside of the planning regime. Should monitoring indicate that the current approach is not effectively managing cumulative impacts, the evidence arising from this policy may be used to support a request to North Northamptonshire Council for the introduction of an Article 4 Direction to remove permitted development rights for smaller HMOs, such as that introduced in in Corby, to bring all HMO applications into the planning regime, irrespective of the number of occupants. It is recognised that such directions require robust and proportionate evidence to justify their implementation, particularly in relation to impacts on residential amenity, public safety and the maintenance of balanced communities.
44. In relation to Clause B “exceptional circumstances”, the intention of Policy KET8 is to manage the overconcentration of general market HMOs where this can lead to adverse impacts on residential amenity, local character, and community balance. It is not the intention of the policy to unduly restrict the provision of supported accommodation or to prevent organisations such as Kettering Mind from delivering essential services. We consider that providing clarity on “exceptional circumstances” with this approach will provide appropriate flexibility for supported housing providers, while ensuring that the overall objectives of the policy, to maintain balanced communities and protect amenity, are upheld.