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.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Mail​

9 hours ago

• Daily Mail​

Angela Rayner accused of waging 'class war' over her plans to cut funding for wealthier Southern areas so more can be spent in the North

Labour was yesterday accused of declaring 'class war' over plans to cut funding for town halls in the South and splurge it in its northern heartlands. Under Angela Rayner 's shake-up, wealthier southern households face a raft of raids to help pay for the giveaway in Labour's traditional working-class areas. These include hikes in council tax bills and fees, such as parking, planning and licensing charges. Town halls in the South also face having to cut existing services because of the raid on their coffers. Under the plans, unveiled yesterday, town halls with 'stronger council tax bases', which tend to be in wealthier parts of London and the Home Counties, will get less Government cash. Those with 'weaker bases', often in the North, will get more under the 'progressive' redistribution model. The Deputy Prime Minister Ms Rayner, who is also the local government secretary, has long argued that an overhaul of council funding is needed. Ms Rayner, the MP for Ashton-under-Lyne, has pointed to people living in the North who pay hundreds of pounds more in council tax than those in wealthier southern areas, calling it 'unfair'. But the plans, which affect councils in England and would begin for three years from next April, sparked a furious backlash. Greg Smith, the Tory MP for Mid Buckinghamshire, said: 'We're already massively over-taxed and council tax has already blown out of all proportion across the country. 'Anything that takes from the South to pay for the North is class war.' And Kevin Hollinrake, the Tories' local government spokesman, said: 'In reality, Labour's appetite for tax hikes knows no bounds. These new backdoor rises in fees and charges are nothing more than stealth taxes – punishing the very councils that have kept taxes low and responsible.' The new proposed formula for allocating money would take into account local needs, based on population, poverty and age data. This will lead to more cash going to deprived areas. And Government grants, which account for about half of councils' income, will now be based on calculations of what local authorities could raise if all areas charged the same rates of council tax based on their housing mix. This will mean steep falls in grant income for wealthier councils. Vikki Slade, the Lib Dems' local government spokesman, said: 'It would be a big mistake for the Government to force councils into unfair council tax rises. 'At a time when councils desperately need support, it beggars belief that Angela Rayner is considering reducing funding entitlements for many, including councils which already receive very little grant funding.' But ministers insist councils won't go bust as it would be phased in over three years, removing a potential 'cliff edge' if the redistribution happened in one go. They also say it will not lead to huge council tax hikes because these are already capped at 5 per cent, and most councils already raise it by this amount every year. However, they could apply to Ms Rayner, who is from Stockport, for special permission to raise it by more than this given the unprecedented pressure their finances could come under. They are also likely to look at cutting back on existing services and hiking other fees to help balance the books. It raises the prospect of councils being handed more powers to raise revenues by hiking such fees. Yesterday's new consultation, which will run until August 15, said ministers will now 'review all fees previously identified and consider where there is the strongest case for reform'. Kate Ogden, a senior research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said councils in 'leafier suburban and rural areas' in the South will be among the biggest losers. Local government minister Jim McMahon said: 'There's broad agreement across council leaders, experts, and parliamentarians that the current funding model is broken and unfair. 'This Government is stepping up to deliver the fairer system promised in the 2017 Fair Funding Review but never delivered.'

Telegraph

14 hours ago

• Telegraph

Will you pay more council tax to fund the North? Use our tool to find out

Households across southern England that pay less than £2,000 a year in council tax are facing an increase in their bills to fund the North. Angela Rayner is cutting the amount of central government funding that local authorities which set low bills will receive. The Tories accused the Deputy Prime Minister of 'punishing' these councils and putting them under pressure to either cut services or increase council tax to cover the funding shortfall. The changes could lead to bills rising across southern England to enable more money to be sent to northern cities. About half of council income comes from central government, and Labour claims that the way it is shared between councils is unfair. There are 13 councils that charge less than £2,000 a year in council tax, all of them in London. However, town halls can only put up council tax by a maximum of 5 per cent unless a local referendum approves a higher rate, or the Government gives them permission to do so. The plans for what Ms Rayner believes is a 'progressive' redistribution were unveiled in a consultation document published on Friday. It will change the way that central government grants are shared out, based on calculations of what local authorities could raise if all areas charged the same rates of council tax based on their housing mix. The document states: 'The Government is proposing to set a notional council tax level that achieves the objective of full equalisation. 'To fully equalise against the council tax base, we set the notional council tax level at the average Band D level of council tax in England in scope of these reforms (c£2,000 in 2026-27).' The Government will also introduce a new formula for accounting central government funding based on local needs, including population, poverty and age. Ms Rayner believes it is unfair that people living in the North often pay hundreds of pounds more in council tax than those in southern areas. For example, a three-bedroom semi-detached home in Hartlepool generates a council tax bill higher than a 10-bedroom home in Westminster valued at £80 million. The combination of the two changes will mean steep falls in grant income for wealthier councils, mainly in London and the South East, forcing them to either raise council tax rates to make up the shortfall or cut public services. Ms Rayner also unveiled changes to council tax collection to stamp out 'unacceptable, aggressive' practices. To help households manage their finances, she proposes to change council tax billing from 10 months to 12 months. Council tax bills tend to be paid through 10 instalments (from April to January) and the majority of the 25 million council tax bills issued each year in England are paid by this method. But 12 month instalments could help households to spread the cost of their bills over a longer period. The Government is also looking at enforcement processes, including 'a more appropriate and proportionate time frame' before councils can demand a full bill from households. When someone fails to pay council tax, a reminder can be sent seven days after a missed payment. Following that, if the bill remains unpaid seven days after the reminder notice has been issued, the full amount due for the year becomes payable.

The Independent

15 hours ago

• The Independent

Why is Angela Rayner shifting the council tax burden from north to south?

When Angela Rayner took over her department, the first thing she did was to delete 'levelling up' from its name. But she insisted that she was committed to the idea behind the phrase, and now she is about to announce a change in local government funding to prove it. The new funding formula is expected to allocate money from central government according to local needs, including population, poverty and age, with extra weighting for rural and coastal areas with higher transport costs. The effect will be to force local councils in London and the home counties to put up council tax. Many of them are expected to increase tax by the maximum 5 per cent a year for several years, and more than before will ask Rayner for permission to hold a local referendum on an increase greater than 5 per cent. Councils in the north, the Midlands and east London, on the other hand, may be able to cut their council tax, or at least increase it by less. Is this fair? Labour argues that the Conservatives have fiddled the funding formula for 14 years, resulting in artificially low council taxes in places such as Westminster and Wandsworth – former Tory councils that attracted disproportionate media coverage in local elections. In the end, this attempt to cook the books could not hold back the electoral tide, and Labour won control of both councils in 2022. Clobbering those councils is going to make it harder for Labour to retain control, so it could be argued that Rayner is motivated purely by wanting to rebalance the national distribution of resources according to need. The new system will probably be fairer than the current one, if not perfectly fair, but any attempt to adjust local government funding throws up winners and losers – and the losers always make more noise than those who quietly pocket their gains. How quickly will the change happen? Even if the change were totally fair in principle, any sharp fall in central government funding and big increase in council tax is likely to cause hardship. That is why Rayner is expected to adjust her new formula by putting a limit on how much any council's income from central government can fall in a year. David Phillips, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, says: 'It's been 20 years since we've had an effective system to allocate funding between councils so it is out of whack and the changes are going to be big.' That means any changes will probably be phased in over several years. What could possibly go wrong? If Rayner delivers a funding system for local government that is more closely aligned with local needs, she could deliver more radical policy substance than the Conservative slogan of 'levelling up' ever managed. But Phillips points out a philosophical problem. The more the government tries to redistribute resources from 'leafier places' to deprived areas, the more 'it is making a trade-off to prioritise need over incentives for councils to tackle need and grow their council tax base', he says. If councils receive more funding the higher their indicators of deprivation are, there is a danger of perverse incentives for them to keep those indicators high. Shouldn't council tax be revalued from scratch? Of course it should. It is based on notional property values in 1991 (in England; in Wales the reference date is 2003), so it is hopelessly out of date. But revaluation would produce even more dramatic individual winners and losers than changing funding for whole council areas. Rayner's redistribution is already what Sir Humphrey would describe as 'very brave, deputy prime minister'; a full revaluation would be several times braver – in other words, a guaranteed political disaster. The most that is likely to be politically feasible would be to revalue council tax for more expensive properties, such as the one in 20 UK homes currently on the market for more than £1m. A similar policy, called a mansion tax, was considered by the coalition government – George Osborne and the Liberal Democrats wanted it but David Cameron vetoed the idea, saying the Tory party's donors wouldn't wear it. Given that Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is likely to be looking for new sources of revenue in the autumn Budget, this may be an option. She did rule out a mansion tax before the election, but I don't think it has been mentioned since. Look out for even greater 'fairness'.