Issue - meetings

The report of the Director – Development and Economic Growth is attached.

It was RESOLVED that Cabinet:

a)               confirms that there is insufficient evidence to meet the legal threshold to justify an Article 4 Direction to remove or restrict permitted development rights for Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in the Borough;

b)               requests that the number of HMOs and complaints received continues to be monitored; and

c)        requests that the matter is referred to Communities Scrutiny Group at the July meeting to scrutinise the following key lines of enquiry:

·                  Is there a robust evidence base demonstrating harm or risk of harm?

·                  What are the likely impacts – intended and unintended – of introducing an Article 4 Direction to remove or restrict permitted development rights for HMOs?

·                  Is making a Direction proportionate, enforceable and aligned with local and national policy?

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing, Councillor Upton, presented the report of the Director – Development and Economic Growth, which detailed the Article 4 Direction – Houses in Multiple Occupancy (HMOs).

Councillor Upton referred to the Council meeting on 18 September 2025, when this issue had been debated, and he referred to the subsequent work by officers to investigate and collate evidence, including any adverse effects on local amenities or well-being, to see if there was a case for introducing an Article 4 Direction, as detailed in paragraph 1.2 of the report.

Councillor Upton advised that at the present time, there was insufficient evidence to meet the legal threshold to justify an Article 4 Direction, and whilst understanding the emotion, and the call by some to have tougher HMO regulations in Rushcliffe, there was not enough evidence to support that. Councillor Upton stated that the report outlined the investigations that had taken place, together with details of an Article 4 Direction, as highlighted in paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4. Councillor Upton confirmed that an Article 4 Direction would not prevent development, it would require a planning application to be made, and unless there were compelling, adverse material considerations, as set out in planning legislation, it was likely that many would be approved. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) required that an Article 4 Direction should only be used when there was robust evidence and applied to the smallest possible geographical area. Councillor Upton outlined the number of licensed and potential unlicensed HMOs in Rushcliffe, as detailed in paragraph 4.10, which amounted to around 361, together with details of complaints received in 2024 and 2025, as referred to in paragraph 4.12. It was noted that levels of complaint were very low. Councillor Upton referred to some unintended consequences of introducing an Article 4 Direction, such as reducing the availability of lower cost accommodation for young professionals, students and those on a lower income.

Councillor Upton concluded by stating that most HMOs in Rushcliffe had not given rise to any complaints and there was no evidence to link them with anti-social behaviour. However, the situation might change, and it was therefore recommended that the following additional recommendation c) be agreed:

c)       that Cabinet requests that the matter is referred to Communities Scrutiny Group at the July meeting to scrutinise the following key lines of enquiry:

·                 Is there a robust evidence base demonstrating harm or risk of harm?

·                 What are the likely impacts – intended and unintended – of introducing an Article 4 Direction to remove or restrict permitted development rights for HMOs?

·                 Is making a Direction proportionate, enforceable and aligned with local and national policy?

In seconding the recommendation, Councillor Inglis advised that he had presented the original motion at Council, which had resulted in this investigation. He referred to the subsequent report, which confirmed that the legal requirements for robust evidence currently did not exist, and therefore an Article 4 Direction could not be justified. He was pleased that monitoring  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59