Schedule 5 \u2013 Condition 1<\/strong> of the draft licence requires a complete redesign and reinstallation<\/strong> of the first-floor shower room and even proposes removal of an existing amenity<\/strong> if certain arbitrary spacing measurements are not met.<\/p>\n This condition is:<\/p>\n Unlawful<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Irrational<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Disproportionate<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Procedurally defective<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Inconsistent with the Housing Act 2004<\/strong>, national standards, and established public-law principles<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n It is crucial to emphasise that this bathroom:<\/p>\n Has been used in the exact same configuration for more than 20 years<\/strong>, without incident;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Has been repeatedly inspected and approved<\/strong> by Building Control and by the Council\u2019s HMO officers in 2018, 2019, and 2020<\/strong>, all without objection;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Was expressly included in the 2020 HMO licence<\/strong>;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Has been safely and satisfactorily used by hundreds of tenants<\/strong> over decades; and<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Matches bathroom layouts widely used and licensed in HMOs throughout England<\/strong>, including multiple other licensed properties under the Applicant\u2019s management.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Across all those years, authorities, and licences:<\/p>\n No enforcement action has ever been taken;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n No redesign has ever been requested;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n No such condition has ever been imposed\u2014<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n because the layout is standard, safe, accepted, and compliant<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Nothing in the property has changed. The only<\/strong> change is the identity of the officer, whose personal, subjective opinion<\/strong> now drives a requirement unsupported by legislation.<\/p>\n Under Coughlan<\/em>, Hanif<\/em>, Mohamed<\/em> and basic fairness principles:<\/p>\n A public authority cannot<\/strong> reverse a previously accepted configuration under unchanged law<\/strong> simply because a different employee holds a different subjective view.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Subjective judgement is not<\/strong> a legal standard.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n A licensing condition cannot invent new statutory requirements.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n If this condition is not struck out, it would create a dangerous precedent<\/strong>:<\/p>\n An unchanged property under unchanged law could be declared \u201cnon-compliant\u201d solely due to an individual officer\u2019s preferences<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n The property\u2019s sanitary provision would be reduced<\/strong>, despite exceeding statutory requirements for a 7-bed HMO (which needs only two bathrooms<\/strong>).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Longstanding, functional amenities could be lost, harming tenant welfare for no lawful purpose<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Councils would effectively gain the ability to make law by opinion<\/strong>, in place of statutory standards.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Under:<\/p>\n LACORS Housing Standards (2010)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n HMO Management Regulations 2006<\/strong> (as amended)<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Mandatory Conditions for HMOs (England) Regulations 2018<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n the minimum standard is clear:<\/p>\n For 6\u201310 persons<\/strong> \u2192 TWO<\/strong> bathrooms\/shower rooms required.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n There is no legal requirement<\/strong> anywhere in England for three<\/strong> bathrooms in a seven-person HMO.<\/p>\n 63 Canwick Road contains:<\/p>\n Three fully functioning bathrooms<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Each with WC, basin and shower<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n All lawful, long-established, and previously approved<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Even if the first-floor bathroom did not<\/strong> exist, the property would:<\/p>\n Still meet and exceed statutory requirements.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Therefore, the proposed redesign condition serves no statutory purpose<\/strong> and cannot be enforced<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Under ss. 64<\/strong>, 67<\/strong> and 72<\/strong> of the Housing Act 2004<\/strong>, enforcement is only available where:<\/p>\n The HMO fails prescribed national standards; or<\/p>\n<\/li>\n A licence condition is necessary<\/strong> to ensure suitability.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Because:<\/p>\n The property already exceeds<\/strong> required bathroom provision; and<\/p>\n<\/li>\n It remains fully compliant irrespective of any redesign,<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n non-compliance<\/strong> with this redesign condition cannot create an offence<\/strong> under the Housing Act.<\/p>\n A condition cannot create criminal liability where the underlying statutory requirement is already fully satisfied<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Sections 64(3)(a)<\/strong> and 67(1)(b)<\/strong> Housing Act 2004 require that licence conditions be:<\/p>\n Necessary<\/strong>, or<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Appropriate<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n to ensure suitability.<\/p>\n Here, the HMO is already suitable<\/strong> without the redesign. Therefore, the condition is:<\/p>\n Not necessary<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Not appropriate<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Not authorised by statute<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Ultra vires<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n This falls squarely within R (Peat) v South Hams DC<\/em> [2008] EWHC 1076 (Admin), where the High Court held that councils cannot impose conditions requiring structural alterations when no statutory need<\/strong> exists.<\/p>\n Under Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corp<\/em> [1948] 1 KB 223, a decision is unlawful if it is:<\/p>\n Irrational;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Based on irrelevant considerations; or<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Taken without regard to relevant statutory factors.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Requiring redesign of a fully functioning bathroom when:<\/p>\n The HMO already exceeds<\/strong> statutory amenity minima;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n The bathroom has operated safely for decades<\/strong>; and<\/p>\n<\/li>\n The redesign would have no effect on legal compliance<\/strong>,<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n is legally irrational<\/strong> and should be struck down.<\/p>\n Sections 64(3)(a)<\/strong> and 67(1)(b)<\/strong> of the Housing Act 2004<\/strong> restrict licence conditions to those:<\/p>\n \u201cnecessary or appropriate<\/strong>\u201d for A requirement to:<\/p>\n Redesign<\/strong>,<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Remove<\/strong>, or<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Reconfigure<\/strong> long-established, lawful amenities \u2014 Authority:<\/strong> R (Peat) v South Hams DC<\/em> \u2013 licensing powers cannot compel arbitrary, aesthetic, or subjective alterations<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The first-floor bathroom has existed in essentially the same configuration for over 20\u201325 years<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n The Council accepted and licensed<\/strong> this configuration in 2020<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n No change<\/strong> in national legislation or standards regarding sanitary layout has occurred since 2019\u20132020.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Therefore:<\/p>\n The legal framework now is identical<\/strong> to that under which the bathroom was previously approved.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n A reversal of position without legal change<\/strong> violates the principle of legitimate expectation<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Authority:<\/strong> R v North & East Devon HA ex p Coughlan<\/em> [2001] QB 213.<\/p>\n Council and Building Control records confirm:<\/p>\n 2018<\/strong> \u2013 Building Control inspected during loft conversion; no issue raised<\/strong> regarding the first-floor bathroom.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n 2018\u20132019<\/strong> \u2013 HMO officer Mark Sherwood<\/strong> inspected the bathroom several times; no concerns raised<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n 2020<\/strong> \u2013 Bathroom included in the approved HMO licence plans with no objections<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n These inspections are official acts<\/strong> of the Council.<\/p>\n The Council cannot now contradict its own prior approvals solely on the basis of a new officer\u2019s opinion<\/strong>.<\/p>\n In 2024 the Council wrote:<\/p>\n \u201cWe do not consider the space and layout of the first-floor shower room to be adequate \u2026 A practical solution would be to remove either the shower cubicle or the WC\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Our response correctly identified that:<\/p>\n \u201cWe do not consider<\/strong>\u201d = an opinion<\/strong>, not law;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Hundreds of users have safely used this bathroom for 15+ years<\/strong>;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Earlier officers and Building Control formally accepted the layout;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n There are no statutory minimum space requirements<\/strong> in UK law;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Even guidance does not<\/strong> refer to \u201cstanding clearance\u201d rules;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n The bathroom is fully usable and comfortable.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n There is no hazard<\/strong>, no evidence<\/strong>, no legislative breach<\/strong>.<\/p>\n If required, the Applicant will provide:<\/p>\n An independent engineer\u2019s report<\/strong> confirming that the bathroom is:<\/p>\n Safe<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Properly ventilated<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Structurally sound<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Fully compliant; and<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n Multiple witnesses (tenants and professionals) confirming decades of safe and comfortable use<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
\n
\n
Nothing in the law has changed.
Nothing in national amenity standards has changed.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n2. Statutory Amenity Standards \u2013 Condition Is Legally Unenforceable<\/h2>\n
2.1 Statutory Minimum for Seven Occupants<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
2.2 The Property Exceeds the Statutory Minimum<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
2.3 No Offence Can Arise Under the Housing Act 2004<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
2.4 Ultra Vires \u2013 Condition Exceeds Council\u2019s Legal Powers<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
2.5 Wednesbury Unreasonableness<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n3. Statutory Limits on Licence Conditions<\/h2>\n
\n
(a) regulating the management of the HMO; or
(b) ensuring the property is reasonably suitable<\/strong> for occupation.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
to satisfy design preferences not found in any legislation<\/strong> \u2014 exceeds<\/strong> those powers.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n4. Long-Standing, Lawful and Previously Licensed Configuration<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n5. 2018\u20132020 Inspection & Building-Control History<\/h2>\n
\n
\n6. Council\u2019s Own Statements \u2013 Opinion, Not Law<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n7. Engineer\u2019s Report and Witness Evidence<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n8. Contradictions and Irrationalities in Schedule 5 \u2013 Condition 1<\/h2>\n