Contradictory Definitions of Habitable

 

The definition from the Planning Portal is as follows:

“Any room used or intended to be used for sleeping, cooking, living or eating purposes. Enclosed spaces such as bath or toilet facilities, service rooms, corridors, laundries, hallways, utility rooms or similar spaces are excluded from this definition.”

There are 2 areas where I think either the definition or its usage need to be improved,  the first is in relation to HHSRS and the 2^nd is in the definition of Mandatory HMO’s.

I am increasingly seeing EHO’s reporting ‘Category 1 (Risk of Death) Excess Cold Hazards’ in centrally heated houses because there is no fixed heating in the kitchen or perhaps an internal toilet. Whilst we can debate whether a small kitchen with a cooker, hob and boiler actually needs a radiator, my reading of the definition is that toilets are excluded and this hazard is therefore not valid in that case.  Kitchens are definitely included in the ‘habitable definition’ as they meet the criteria of ‘used for … cooking’ so you could argue it is the application of HHSRS which is at fault here rather than the planning definition.

However, I think we can fix the HHSRS issue by removing the word ‘cooking’ from the definition of habitable.  If a kitchen is actually a kitchen/diner or is one with room to sit and eat then yes, it probably will be used as a ‘living room’ in some way and will need fixed heating separate from a boiler or a cooker. This is covered by having the word ‘eating’ in the definition. However, all of those small kitchens with no room to sit and eat which only get used for cooking and cleaning, will not result in a ‘severe risk of death’ (as implied by HHSRS cat 1 hazard classification) simply because there is only a boiler or a cooker for warmth….

Removing the word ‘cooking’ from the definition allows one to distinguish between a room where cooking and eating occurs which needs heating and one where just cooking occurs which, whilst it may be uncomfortable, probably does not need fixed heating to avoid significant (Category 1 HHSRS) risk.

A Mandatory HMO is defined as being  “of three or more storeys and occupied by five or more persons forming more than one household.”  So where does the habitable definition come into this? Well, it doesn’t directly but in recent months I have seen a small uninhabitable cellar which houses nothing other than the utility meters being classed as a 3^rd storey as well as an unused loft space which, whilst boarded and accessible, was no way habitable. I think the ‘3 storey’ element came from fire safety experiences where multi-floor stair wells act as chimneys and greatly increase the risk to people should a fire occur and the damage when it does, coupled with experience dealing with hostels, lodges and the like where the probability of fires is greater. What we have today are EHO’s looking for reasons to include buildings within the definition when they should be looking for genuine fire risk.

 I’d argue that the situation could be improved if the definition were updated to read, “A dwelling with habitable rooms on 3 or more storeys occupied by 5 or more people” Note the addition of the word ‘habitable’ – this ought to exclude the 1^st and 2^nd floor maisonette with a front door on the ground floor being included which is one of the issues today. Also, note, I am assuming my new definition of habitable here, not the original one.

 

Or you could turn it around and go with HHSRS speak and say that because the cellar has no fixed heating, it is not a habitable room and thus there is no 3rd storey...

 

Does this help or am I missing something?