a) Councillor Upton
In the last ten years, more new homes have been built in Rushcliffe than anywhere else in Nottinghamshire. This was achieved, in part, by the previous Government abolishing housing targets and giving more power back to local councils to determine where new housing should be built. The new Government has restored housing targets and is proposing planning reforms that will give more powers to house builders. We are concerned that Rushcliffe will be forced to take more housing than is planned for. With the current proposed Local Government Reform, we believe that the current housing target policy is no longer relevant.
We propose that this Council writes to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and calls on the Government to:
b) Councillor Clarke MBE
It is perceived that Rushcliffe is experiencing an increase in the number of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), particularly small HMOs falling within Use Class C4 (occupation by between three and six unrelated people, sharing basic amenities, as more than one household). HMOs play an important role in housing provision across the Borough; however, this can lead to issues associated with parking pressure, noise, and have a detrimental impact on community cohesion and local amenity.
Under the current planning framework, the change of use from a dwelling house (Class C3) to a small HMO (Class C4) is classed as permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, such that planning permission is automatically granted without a planning application having to be made. Under Article 4 of that Order, local planning authorities have the ability to make Direction, after preparing an evidence base. This includes mapping current HMOs, identifying any recent increase in the creation rate of new HMOs, and assessing local impacts, including amenity, parking, waste, and housing balance, and where the operation of specific permitted development rights is resulting in harmful impacts, removing those rights in defined areas, so that an application for planning permission would then be required.
This Council therefore resolves to:
1. Investigate and collate an evidence base to look at whether there is a case for introducing an Article 4 Direction across Rushcliffe, to enable this Council to assess proposals for HMOs on a case-by-case basis through the planning process. This will allow local residents and Councillors to be consulted and consider the impacts of such proposals.
2. Bring a formal report to Cabinet by the end of February 2026, to enable it to consider the evidence (subject to it being available and the completion of public consultation) and, if justified, recommend that a Direction be made.
Minutes:
The following notice of motion was proposed by Councillor Upton and seconded by Councillor Mason
“We propose that this Council writes to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and calls on the Government to:
1. abolish mandatory housing targets for District and Borough Councils;
2. safeguard Greenbelt and Greenfield land against future development, where an area has met its house building obligations in the last five years; and
3. create a new approach of identifying brownfield land and city centre sites for housing development and produce targets for them regardless of the current Local Government boundaries.”
In moving the motion, Councillor Upton stated that the Conservative Group was passionate about managing housing development, with a proven record, having built more homes in Rushcliffe in the last 10 years than anywhere else in the County. Whilst acknowledging the national housing shortage, he advised that Rushcliffe had already met its obligations, had a draft Local Development Plan in place up to 2041 and therefore did not need a centralised, mandatory target imposed. Over the last 10 years, 13,000 new homes had been allocated for Rushcliffe, with 6,000 of those accepted under the Duty to Cooperate, to meet the needs of Nottingham City Council. The Government’s mandatory targets for 2024, outlined 4,000 further new homes for Rushcliffe, whilst the City had been given a lower target and Councillor Upton questioned if that was fair. He was concerned that planning reforms could potentially give more power to developers and felt that any Councillor who believed in local democracy and protecting the Greenbelt should support the motion.
Councillor Mason seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Calvert stated that because the Council failed to build enough homes in the previous decade, it had been given a higher target 10 years ago to make up the shortfall. He referred to the collaborative working to produce the revised Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan (GNSP), which contained targets up to 2041, and questioned why those agreed targets should be abandoned, and the Plan put into jeopardy. He felt that it was premature to consider the current LGR process as a valid reason for abandoning the existing policy and that focusing on the identification of brownfield and city centre sites had little strategic merit.
Councillor Thomas felt that the actions in the motion were insufficient, suggested that all Councillors should be involved in responding to Government planning consultations, and that she would be more interested in a proactive motion that looked at what Rushcliffe could do if it was forced to accept more housing. Councillor Thomas questioned how the Council could accelerate the build out of existing strategic sites, identify more sites, and identify gaps which could be filled. She proposed the following amendment, to include two actions that the Council could take itself, which was seconded by Councillor Way, who reserved the right to speak:
In addition, the Council will take action as follows:
a. that the Council will set up an initial cross-party briefing/brainstorming session for all Councillors and relevant officers before the end of the year to understand and quantify the likely pressures resulting from Government housing policies and to identify and assess options to ensure Rushcliffe meets any revised targets and provides an adequate supply of the right sort of housing in the right places to meet the (actual) housing needs of our residents; and
b. the Local Development Forum will include an item at least every six months to actively review housing completions and strategies for meeting the housing targets.
Councillor Upton stated that he did not accept the amendment, as he felt that issues raised had already been covered by the draft Local Development Plan, and that there would not be enough completions to merit six monthly updates, as updates could be provided anytime.
In supporting the amendment, Councillor R Mallender felt that it would be good to have roundtable discussions and Councillor Birch agreed that this was a positive amendment, improving democracy and adding more discussion.
In seconding the amendment, Councillor Way stated that it provided a more proactive approach, looking at ways to ensure that Rushcliffe met its housing targets whilst suiting residents’ differing needs and involving more Councillors would gain wider views.
Councillor Thomas stated that the GNSP would be of no use if the Council’s housing supply dropped below five years and the Council needed to take action and be proactive.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was defeated.
The debate continued on the substantive motion.
Councillor Soloman referred to the significant number of homes built in the Borough over the past 10 years, including the 6,000 homes imposed on Rushcliffe to cover the City’s shortfall, whilst the City continued to build thousands of student flats. As housing targets had now returned, Rushcliffe was being asked to build 4,000 homes, whilst the City’s targets were reducing and she also questioned if that was fair. Councillor Soloman stated that it was important to build the right homes, in the right place, with appropriate services and Rushcliffe was well placed to do this, using its own good judgement.
Councillor J Wheeler referred to the importance of having a five year housing supply to stop speculative applications being put forward, which had happened in the past and this motion was asking the Government to abolish those targets and to look more carefully where housing should be built, including the city centre, which benefitted from good infrastructure.
Councillor J Walker was disappointed that the motion offered no positive solutions to ongoing housing problems, with many unable to afford to live in the Borough.
Councillor Chewings questioned the timing of the motion, as housing targets had periodically been removed and then reinstated by various governments, with similar targets. He stated that due to the Council’s previous failure to have a Local Plan, mass development had taken place in areas such as East Leake, with work now underway on the GNSP, which he acknowledged was guided by national targets. He agreed that it was important to talk about how the Council should deal with housing, as he felt that the current set up was incorrect, although he advised that he could not support the motion, as it contradicted itself.
The Leader disagreed that Rushcliffe had been given higher targets to make up for previous shortfalls, rather that it had been forced to take 6,000 homes to meet the City’s allocation. He stated that Rushcliffe was not saying no to further housing, it wanted to identify housing that was needed, as people wanted to live in the Borough. The Leader stated that the City had no vision, it simply built student accommodation, which generated no Council Tax, which added to its financial difficulties. The motion had been put forward as Rushcliffe wanted to have control of its own area, including its own targets.
Whilst agreeing that the motion was inconsistent, Councillor Birch advised that he would be voting for it, as he felt that power should be held locally. He stated that reference to student housing was disingenuous, as this could not be compared with family homes. Councillor Birch accepted that under the Duty to Cooperate, Rushcliffe had no choice but to accept the 6,000 homes but he also mentioned the £15m New Homes Bonus that the Council had benefitted from and stated that Rushcliffe had received a large allocation due to its affluence.
Councillor Gowland stated that young people struggled to remain in the Borough as it was too expensive and they lived in the City instead. She advised that many local residents in the City were pleased that student accommodation had been built, to free up family homes and she questioned where students were supposed to live. Councillor Gowland stated that considerable housing had been built in the City, and that city dwellers wanted green space too.
Councillor Chaplain stated that Rushcliffe’s housing targets were higher as it had expensive housing and the number one reason for affordable uplift was fairness.
Councillor Gaunt stated that student accommodation was being built to free up family homes and advised that as student numbers continued to increase, it was better to build accommodation in the City. He expressed concern that since 2010, in the East Midlands, the average medium rental had doubled, affordable housing in Rushcliffe was desperately needed, and whilst agreeing that local control was important, targets had to come from the Government to ensure affordability and equitable distribution.
Councillor Way questioned what right Rushcliffe had to decide what should be built in the City and agreed that it was important to look at the Borough’s own housing needs and questioned why the amendment had been voted down.
Councillor Simms advised that Councillors were elected to represent residents in Rushcliffe and referred to the significant housing already built to fulfil housing targets and stated that this motion was attempting to ensure that people worked proactively together for local residents.
Councillor Polenta stated that the Government had prioritised house building on Brownfield sites, which offered a practical and sustainable solution, although not all sites were suitable for development and had evolved into vital green spaces, including the development at Broadmarsh. Whilst acknowledging the importance of the Greenbelt, that did not mean that it should never be considered for housing, due to ongoing housing need. Some Greenbelt land had become inaccessible, with little public benefit, and when land was released there was a responsibility to restore it and make it more accessible, whilst allowing appropriate development and it was important that all voices were heard to arrive at more consensual outcomes.
In seconding the motion, Councillor Mason stated that she represented Tollerton, where nearly 4,000 homes were planned and referred to the huge pressure on the village and agreed that local councils understood local issues more than the Government. She questioned the fairness of the City having lower housing targets than Rushcliffe, when there were many Brownfield areas that could be developed.
Councillor Upton felt that this issue centered around localism and he agreed that there was a risk that Rushcliffe would be forced to take more housing; however, a draft Plan was in place. He confirmed that all sites in that Plan had around 30% affordable housing, with social housing the responsibility of housing associations across the Borough. The draft Plan had a surplus, in case Rushcliffe had to take more houses and whilst sharing concerns regarding the Council’s five year housing supply, Councillor Upton was confident that the Council would keep that supply. He reiterated that Rushcliffe had taken a lot of housing from the City, and that it was a very desirable place to live; however, a reasonable compromise was required, which this motion sought and he requested that a recorded vote be taken, which was agreed by four Councillors.
In accordance with Standing Order Paragraph 4.23, a recorded vote was taken for this item as follows:
FOR: Councillors M Barney, T Birch, R Bird, A Brennan, A Brown, R Butler, N Clarke, T Combellack, J Cottee, S Dellar, A Edyvean, S Ellis, E Georgiou, R Inglis, D Mason, P Matthews, H Om, H Parekh, A Phillips, N Regan, D Simms, D Soloman, R Upton, R Walker, L Way, T Wells, G Wheeler, J Wheeler, and G Williams
AGAINST: Councillors S Calvert, J Chaplain, K Chewings, G Fletcher, M Gaunt P Gowland, C Grocock, R Mallender, S Mallender L Plant, D Polenta and J Walker
ABSTENSIONS: Councillors Billin and Thomas
It was proposed by the Leader and seconded by Councillor Upton and RESOLVED by Councillors that the meeting be extended and would finish no later than 10.30pm.
The following notice of motion was proposed by Councillor Inglis and seconded by Councillor Thomas.
“This Council therefore resolves to:
1. Investigate and collate an evidence base to look at whether there is a case for introducing an Article 4 Direction across Rushcliffe, to enable this Council to assess proposals for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) on a case-by-case basis through the planning process. This will allow local residents and Councillors to be consulted and consider the impacts of such proposals.
2. Bring a formal report to Cabinet by the end of February 2026, to enable it to consider the evidence (subject to it being available and the completion of public consultation) and, if justified, recommend that a Direction be made.”
In moving the motion, Councillor Inglis referred to the two categories of HMOs, ‘large’ and ‘small’. For small HMOs, automatic permitted development rights allowed properties, usually family homes to be converted and he felt that the impact on local communities needed to be investigated as the Council had a duty to look after both residents and occupants of HMOs. Whilst data was available for large HMOs, there was none for the smaller ones, which did not need to be registered. An Article 4 Direction would ensure that the Council was able to consider and control the impact on local areas before any development was authorised. He advised that as of 2023, 85 other councils were managing their HMOs with an Article 4 Direction in place.
The Council should ensure that a sufficient supply of HMOs was maintained throughout, rather than just specific areas, which would allow the Council to control to its own narrative, rather than allowing the current system to continue, which could make it vulnerable, especially with neighbouring areas having such Directions already in place. This would also fulfil an important responsibility that the Council had been entrusted with, to represent residents and to continue to generate and maintain a balanced community, with a mix of family and shared housing, to cater for everyone. Councillor Inglis stated that it was important to take sufficient time to gather and collate the relevant evidence, as it had to be robust and substantive to allow Rushcliffe to apply for an Article 4 Direction. It could take years from a submission to any implementation, so evidence had to be gathered prior to an application being made for any chance of success. He felt that the proposed time period would allow officers to complete the task internally and it should encompass all types of HMOs. It was important that the Council stayed focused that the Article 4 Direction was about planning permission for the building, rather than residents’ living conditions, which fell under the Council’s licencing regulations.
Councillor Thomas seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Polenta proposed the following amendment to ensure a commitment was made to raising living standards for occupiers of HMOs. The principle to strive for was decent, affordable housing for all, in diverse neighbourhoods, where everyone had a chance to shape their future. Currently HMOs provided the only affordable accommodation for younger people and those on low income, and it was therefore important to raise standards. She felt that where HMOs were approved, the Council should be proactive to provide appropriate services and hold landlords to account, to bring neighbourhoods together.
This Council therefore resolves to:
1. Investigate and collate the evidence base required to determine whether there is a case for introducing an Article 4 Direction across Rushcliffe, which would enable this Council to assess proposals for HMOs on a case-by-case basis through the planning process. This will allow local residents and Councillors to be consulted and consider the impacts of such proposals and the quality of housing proposed.
2. Bring a formal report to Cabinet by the end of February 2026, to enable it to consider the evidence collected (subject to it being available and the completion of public consultation) and, if justified, recommend that a Direction be made.
Councillor Gowland seconded the amendment to the motion and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Inglis confirmed that he accepted the amendment, which then became part of the substantive motion.
Councillor Chewings raised a point of order and proposed that the motion be put to the vote, which was seconded by Councillor Gaunt and agreed by Councillors.
On being put to the vote, the substantive motion was carried.