Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Link to further information in the Council’s Constitution

There were no declarations of interest made.

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 January 2026 were agreed as a true record and signed by the Chair.

To answer questions submitted by citizens on the Council or its services.

The following questions were submitted to Councillor Upton.

Question from Stewart Holmes

“The report notes a clear concentration of HMOs in West Bridgford and recognises potential local amenity impacts, yet concludes there is insufficient evidence to implement an Article 4 Direction. Given national guidance that Article 4 Directions should be targeted to the smallest appropriate area to protect local amenity, why is a geographically targeted Article 4 not being considered as a preventative measure, rather than relying solely on complaint numbers?”

Councillor Upton advised that whilst Article 4 Directions should apply to the ‘smallest geographical area possible’, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) also required that Article 4 implementation should be limited to situations where an Article 4 Direction was necessary to protect local amenity or the well-being of an area. There was insufficient evidence to justify the implementation of an Article 4 Direction, be that Borough-wide or area specific.

Question from Simon Pett

“How will the proposed “continued monitoring” differ from monitoring already undertaken, and what would trigger a change in policy rather than further delay?”

Councillor Upton advised that using the evidence used to inform the Cabinet report as a baseline, monitoring of planning applications, complaints received and licensing records would be undertaken. The recommendation asked for the Communities Scrutiny Group to review the further monitoring at July’s meeting.  The Council was committed to actively monitoring the evidence.

Question from Tim Bull

“How does the Cabinet recommendation align with Full Council’s unanimous decision in September to explore an Article 4, and what alternative policy tools are being proposed if Article 4 is ruled out?”

Councillor Upton advised that at the Full Council meeting in September 2025, a motion was debated about a perception that the authority was experiencing an increase in small Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs) falling within Planning Use Class C4.  Councillors directed officers to investigate and collate an evidence base, to look at whether there was a case for introducing an Article 4 Direction across the Borough. The Cabinet report presented the evidence base and recommended to Cabinet that there was insufficient evidence to meet the legal threshold to justify an Article 4 Direction to remove permitted development rights for HMOs. Planning permission was required to create large HMOs of 7+ occupants. Other regulatory tools which could be enacted if required, on a case-by-case basis, included the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Disorder Act 2014. 

Question from Paul Smith

“Given resident concerns about the Council’s ability to effectively oversee and regulate HMOs once permitted development rights are exercised, how can Cabinet provide assurance that existing licensing and enforcement arrangements are sufficient, particularly when changes of use to small HMOs occur without any requirement for planning approval or public consultation?”

Councillor Upton advised that smaller HMOs still had to comply with relevant housing fitness standards and other relevant legislation the same as any other private rented sector property and the Council would investigate any complaints that were made about such properties  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

To answer questions submitted by Opposition Group Leaders on items on the agenda.

Question from Councillor J Walker to Councillor Virdi.

“An expected benefit of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and the creation of a new unitary authority is that there will no longer be a situation where one tier of Local Government has responsibility for collecting Council Tax on behalf of all tiers of Local Government in that area. Thus, eliminating the confusion, of different administrations from different councils serving the same area, making their own budgetary claims in isolation, which is currently the case on page 8, paragraph 4.2 a) of this Cabinet agenda, which states: “Rushcliffe faces a 2.46% reduction in its core spending power.”

Can the Portfolio Holder for Finance confirm that this statement does not take into account the shared uplift that residents of Rushcliffe could benefit from through the 30% increase to the County Council tax budget this year?”

Councillor Virdi advised that the premise of this question was fundamentally flawed, as LGR had not happened, with no legislation passed, and no decision taken on when or how Council Tax might be harmonised, which could take years, and Rushcliffe remained a separate, legal authority, with its own statutory responsibilities. The figures quoted in the report were published by the Labour Government, and Councillor Virdi advised that it was categorically wrong to conflate Rushcliffe’s financial position with Nottinghamshire County Council. He stated that what the County Council had received was irrelevant to Rushcliffe in respect of its core spending power, in the same way as for the City Council, as they each had different responsibilities. Councillor Virdi stated that the suggestion that Rushcliffe’s residents benefitted from a County Council uplift when assessing this Council’s financial settlement was incorrect and misunderstood how Local Government finance worked. Any sleight of hand was in attempting to mask a poor settlement for district councils by pointing to uplifts elsewhere in the system. Councillor Virdi referred to the budget briefings, when the Council’s Section 151 was clear that funding was being redistributed based on demand and deprivation, and as a result, upper tier authorities had fared better than district councils, including Rushcliffe. Councillor Virdi advised that even the County Council’s position was not simple, as any additional funding came alongside significant financial pressures, and to suggest that this Council was better off, as a result of this settlement was misleading. Conflating County Council finances with Borough Council finances was confusing for residents and he stated that you could not spend County Council money in a Borough Council budget.

Councillor Walker asked a supplementary question.

“Radcliffe on Trent has three members of that ward who sit on this Cabinet, and it will be getting a £1m Masterplan, while villages like Ruddington, East Leake and West Bridgford are left fighting for the scraps. Can the Portfolio Holder for Finance please explain the logic behind this increased spending on Radcliffe on Trent and would he commit similar spending amounts to larger communities in Rushcliffe, such as Ruddington, East Leake and West Bridgford?

The Deputy Monitoring Officer advised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

The report of the Director – Finance and Corporate Services is attached.

It was RESOLVED that Cabinet RECOMMENDS to Council that it:

a)               adopts the budget setting report and associated financial strategies 2026/27 to 2030/31 and appendices (attached Annex), including the summarised Special Expenses budget at Appendix 1, Budget Summary at Appendix 2, use of Reserves at Appendix 4, Transformation and Efficiency Plan at Appendix 5, core spending power at Appendix 6 and Report of the Nottinghamshire Finance Officers on the Business Rates Pool at Appendix 7;

b)               adopts the Capital Programme as set out in Appendix 3;

c)               adopts the Capital and Investment Strategy at Appendix 9;

d)               sets Rushcliffe’s 2026/27 Council Tax for a Band D property at £161.77 (no increase from 2025/26, a freeze for one year);

e)               sets the Special Expenses for 2026/27 for West Bridgford, Ruddington and Keyworth, resulting in the following Band D Council Tax levels for the Special Expense Areas:

                          i.   West Bridgford £67.40 (£64.84 in 2025/26)

                        ii.   Keyworth £3.35 (£3.21 in 2025/26)

                       iii.    Ruddington £3.40 (£3.14 in 2025/26); and

f)                 adopts the Pay Policy Statement at Appendix 8; and delegates authority to the Director – Finance and Corporate Services to make any minor amendments to the MTFS once the final Local Government Finance Settlement is received and advise the Finance Portfolio Holder accordingly, to be reported to Full Council.

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Finance, Transformation and Governance, Councillor Virdi presented the report of the Director – Finance and Corporate Services outlining the Council’s proposed budget for 2026/27, the five-year Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) and accompanying information detailed in the report.

Councillor Virdi stated that this had been a challenging budget to prepare, due to significant, large scale, systemic changes to Local Government finance. He notified Cabinet of a minor technical correction in the report, the Band D Council Tax figure referred to in paragraph 4.2 c) and the MTFS Annex should read £161.77 rather than £161.76, and this would be corrected in the report to Full Council. He confirmed that this did not change the substance of the budget.

Councillor Virdi advised that this budget demonstrated the Council’s financial resilience, and despite ongoing reductions in Government funding, including some late changes he would refer to later, it was noted that Council Tax would be frozen, a strong financial position would be maintained, with a balanced budget across the five-year period, as the Council remained debt free. Cabinet was reminded that Rushcliffe continued to have the lowest Council Tax in Nottinghamshire and remained amongst the lowest quartile in the country, which Councillor Virdi felt everyone should be proud of. This was being achieved whilst the Council continued to deliver high quality services and to invest in its people and place, with the budget supporting a £24m Capital Programme, which was focused on supporting the vulnerable, improving communities and leisure facilities, enabling economic growth and reducing the Council’s carbon footprint. It was noted that the Council retained projected earmarked reserves of around £25m, providing resilience going forward, particularly with Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) on the horizon. He referred to the Council’s Transformation and Efficiency Plan, which highlighted how the Council continued to innovate whilst living within its means.

Councillor Virdi referred to key points in the report, as detailed in paragraph 4.2, and advised that this was the first multi-year settlement in over a decade, providing a three-year financial framework. However, Rushcliffe had seen a 2.25% reduction in core spending power, with Business Rates undergoing a national reset, which had significantly impacted the Council, details of which were highlighted in paragraph 4.2 b). Councillor Virdi confirmed that until recently, the budget was based on the provisional settlement; however, there had been a late, material change, following the final Local Government finance settlement, which was issued yesterday, and was referenced in the Addendum circulated at the meeting. The Government had changed the treatment of Business Rates pooling gains, reallocating a significant portion towards upper tier authorities, which particularly affected councils, including Rushcliffe that were members of the Business Rates Pool in 2025-2026. In 2026-2027, the Government was recognising the lateness of this change and would be providing a one-off transitional grant of £0.484m; however, from 2027, there would be an additional cost of around £1.2m, with detailed analysis set out in paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 of the Addendum. He confirmed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

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.