Newport house granted lawful status for six-person HMO
An application for a Lawful Development Certificate (Existing) for 88 Caerleon Road, Newport, was approved on May 29.
This decision followed a previously unsuccessful attempt in March 2018.
The property, a mid-terraced two-storey dwelling, has been confirmed for use as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) for six people.
The decision was made after considering a range of evidence provided by Hilary Edwards, the current owner, and Morgan Stewart, the previous owner.
This included statutory declarations, HMO licences dating back to 2014, tenancy agreements, rent payment summaries, property maintenance invoices, and Council Tax records.
All this documentation confirmed the property has been used as a six-person HMO continuously since July 2014.
The application also included confirmation from Newport Council's Licensing team of HMO licences covering the periods from June 30, 2014, to June 30, 2019, January 20, 2020, to January 19, 2025, and January 20, 2025, to January 19, 2030.
The decision was based on the balance of probabilities that the property has been in continuous lawful use as a six-person HMO for ten years prior to the application.
No objections were noted in the decision report.
The property is located in the St. Julian's ward of Newport.
The assessment of the application was based on the lawfulness of the property's use rather than planning merit, meaning planning policies were not applicable in this case.
The determination also considered implications under the Equality Act 2010, Welsh Language Act, and Newport's Well-Being Plan 2018–2023, concluding no significant impact.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
2 days ago
- The Sun
I'm being forced to pay extra £3k council tax & threatened with debt collectors because of a TOILET
A CANCER survivor is locked in a bitter battle with his local council who are demanding he pay thousands of pounds of tax on his utility room because it has a sink and toilet. Andy Fields says a valuation officer visited his farmhouse in Tiverton in Devon and insisted the boot room was a separate dwelling because it has a sideboard and sink. 5 5 5 They also pointed to an outside toilet which Andy and wife Anja put in for beekeepers who use part of his 20 acre wildlife haven. The former internet business owner, 61, has now been threatened with debt collectors over around £3,000 in current and backdated council tax. Andy, who has contacted his local MP Rachel Gilmour over the issue, said: 'The woman from the valuation office saw the house and I could tell it was envy, she thought, 'he can afford it'. 'But I'm skint, I earn £10-a-day. 'It's ridiculous, it's not a separate dwelling, you have to go through my front door to get into it. 'The only food preparation we do there is for the birds and animals. 'I told her everyone around here has utility rooms and she said 'give me their names and I will do them as well'. 'I told her that the utility room had existed for 150 years and she even suggested that they should backdate the payments for 150 years as well then. 'I couldn't believe it.' Andy said the decision could set a dangerous precedent for homes across Britain which have utility rooms attached to their homes. Ex-England star declared bankrupt after 'burying head in sand' over £36k tax bill After being diagnosed with head and neck cancer in 2018, Andy quit his internet business and temporarily set up the utility room to live in while he was ill so he could be close to the kitchen. After beating the disease the couple briefly advertised it online for people to stay in despite it having no washing facilities. Two years ago he converted the room, which has an upstairs storage area, back into a utility room for use in their house. But he says someone working for the council spotted the B&B listing and he was hauled into a Valuation Office Agency hearing last December which he did not attend. He was deemed to have lost the case and the council is now demanding he coughs up. The plot, called Bradford Farm, was built in 1881 and is valued at around £1million. It also has a children's nursery onsite run by Nanny Bears, and has a bee keeping club. Andy said that after beating cancer 'you look at things a bit differently' and decided to turn his land into a nature reserve which now hosts otters, water voles and a nesting stork. He added: 'All I try and do is help and give back and be friendly. 'It's utter lunacy that they are trying to charge me for this utility room. How a property is deemed to be a dwelling According to the government's website, a property will be banded for council tax if it 'qualifies to be a dwelling' – which is seen as a self-contained accommodation used as a home. And to be classified as a dwelling, the local council will check to see if the property is either 'habitable or capable of repair'. It also adds: 'If a property is occupied, it's generally assumed to be habitable and the band will not be deleted, even if significant repair or renovation works are underway.' In some circumstances a council tax band could be deleted. This means the property will not have a council tax band and the taxpayer will not pay any council tax 'until the property is entered into the list again following completion of work or service of a completion notice by the local authority.' Check your Council Tax band in England and Wales or Scotland. If you have any concerns regarding the assessment of your Council Tax band contact the VOA. 'I'm not going to pay, they can take me to court. 'The room shares heating, water, and electricity with the main house, so it doesn't qualify as a separate dwelling. 'I've checked dozens of local new builds, and every one of them has utility rooms with food prep areas, an external door and even microwaves - none of which are taxed separately. 'If this approach becomes policy it could set a worrying national precedent, triggering a widespread backlash.' A spokesperson for the Office of Rachel Gilmour MP said: "We are supporting our constituent in their complex casework. 'We are hoping for a speedy resolution which is able to let all parties move forward with clarity and a suitable settlement to this matter." A spokeswoman for the Valuation Office Agency told The Sun last night: 'We can't comment on individual cases. 'If a self-contained unit of a property is capable of being used as separate living accommodation it must be given its own Council Tax band. 'Customers can contact the VOA if they think part of their property has been banded incorrectly and we will review their case. 'If they are unhappy with our decision they can appeal to the independent Valuation Tribunal.' Andy previously made headlines when he was embroiled in a row with a neighbour over a fence. Andrew and Anja wanted to build a car park as they turned their farm into a nature reserve, but neighbours Michael and Sandra Blakemore opposed the move, saying the lights from cars using it would shine directly into their bedroom. The Blakemores, of Bradford Barn, built a wooden fence which restricted Andy's right of way but were later ordered to tear it down and pay compensation. 5 5
South Wales Argus
2 days ago
- South Wales Argus
Newport house granted lawful status for six-person HMO
An application for a Lawful Development Certificate (Existing) for 88 Caerleon Road, Newport, was approved on May 29. This decision followed a previously unsuccessful attempt in March 2018. The property, a mid-terraced two-storey dwelling, has been confirmed for use as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) for six people. The decision was made after considering a range of evidence provided by Hilary Edwards, the current owner, and Morgan Stewart, the previous owner. This included statutory declarations, HMO licences dating back to 2014, tenancy agreements, rent payment summaries, property maintenance invoices, and Council Tax records. All this documentation confirmed the property has been used as a six-person HMO continuously since July 2014. The application also included confirmation from Newport Council's Licensing team of HMO licences covering the periods from June 30, 2014, to June 30, 2019, January 20, 2020, to January 19, 2025, and January 20, 2025, to January 19, 2030. The decision was based on the balance of probabilities that the property has been in continuous lawful use as a six-person HMO for ten years prior to the application. No objections were noted in the decision report. The property is located in the St. Julian's ward of Newport. The assessment of the application was based on the lawfulness of the property's use rather than planning merit, meaning planning policies were not applicable in this case. The determination also considered implications under the Equality Act 2010, Welsh Language Act, and Newport's Well-Being Plan 2018–2023, concluding no significant impact.
STV News
2 days ago
- STV News
Couple lose legal challenge over cuts to winter fuel payment
A North Lanarkshire couple who challenged a decision to scrap the winter fuel payment for pensioners have lost their bid to sue the UK and Scottish governments. The challenge was brought by Florence and Peter Fanning, from Coatbridge, who were being represented by former SNP MP Joanna Cherry and the Govan Law Centre. They took their case to the Court of Session in Edinburgh in March, alleging that both governments failed to adequately consult with those of pension age and did not release an equality impact assessment on the changes. In April 2024, the provision of a winter fuel-related payment was devolved to Scottish ministers who proposed a new benefit – the pension age winter heating payment (PAWHP) – causing an adjustment to the block grant funding provided to the Scottish Government by the UK Government. Scottish ministers proposed the payment would be universal, and not means-tested. After Labour swept to power at Westminster in July 2024, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the winter fuel payment would no longer be available to those not in receipt of pension credit or other means-tested benefits, resulting in a reduction to the block grant estimated to be around £160m. The court heard Scottish ministers considered they had no option but to replicate the decision of the UK Government with regards to the PAWHP. The Fannings, who received the WFP in 2023 but were not eligible for PAWHP in 2024, challenged both decisions, claiming neither government had considered the Equality Act 2010 and had both 'failed to consult' with pensioners. They sought to quash the decisions of both governments, and sought a finding they both acted in a way which was 'irrational and unreasonable'. On Friday, it was confirmed the pair had lost their legal battle following the decision of the Outer House of the Court of Session. A spokesperson for Govan Law Centre said: 'While our clients have lost their case at first instance, we have no doubt that this litigation has been influential in securing the partial U-turn made by the Scottish Government last November and the major policy U-turn confirmed by the UK Government earlier this week. 'We hope the Scottish Government will now follow suit and restore the Scottish pension age winter heating payment in full for people such as our clients. 'It is important to appreciate that this challenge was always one of process; the speed of the decision and the fact that it was made allegedly without any equality impact assessment (see repeated public utterances by various UK Government ministers). 'Even had the petitioners won, the most the Court could have done would have been to order each Government to go back to the drawing board to reconsider the cuts made to the winter fuel payment, following the correct processes in law. 'The fact that they have already reconsidered, vindicates our clients' decision to bring this litigation. 'We are particularly pleased that the court found for the petitioners on the issue of standing against the UK Government and dismissed the argument that to enable the challenge to proceed against them was to ignore the existence of the devolution settlement.' The court heard Scottish ministers considered they had no option but to replicate the decision of the UK Government with regards to PAWHP. The Fannings, who received the WFP in 2023 but were not eligible for PAWHP in 2024, claimed neither government had considered the Equality Act 2010 and had both 'failed to consult' with pensioners. They sought to quash the decisions of both governments, and sought a finding they both acted in a way which was 'irrational and unreasonable'. The Fannings also sought a finding that both decisions were unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, Judge Lady Hood rejected all six requests. In her decision, published on Friday, Lady Hood found neither government had failed to exercise their duties under the Equality Act 2010, and neither government was under a duty to consult. She also held the decisions were neither 'irrational nor unreasonable' and did not breach the Human Rights Act 1998, and she ruled they were 'in pursuit of a legitimate aim'. In a written judgment, Lady Hood said: 'In this case, the decision which each respondent faced as to whether the payment of WFP, or PAWHP, should be made on a universal or means-tested basis fell within the field of socioeconomic policy. 'It was a policy decision involving questions of the allocation of resources, and practical and political assessments that this court would not be well-placed to judge. 'That the policy decisions could result in hardship for those falling on one side of a brightline rule is not enough to render it irrational in the legal sense.' Lady Hood added: 'The petitioners asserted that elderly people suffering from disabilities rendering them vulnerable to cold temperatures constituted a group in our society which has suffered considerable discrimination in the past… However mere assertion is not enough to bring a group within that definition, and the petitioners did not sufficiently demonstrate to the court that this cohort of the population did do so.' The petition was refused on all grounds. Lady Hood's judgment concluded: 'I shall therefore repel the petitioners' first to eighth pleas‑in‑law, and refuse the petition.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
