To answer questions submitted by citizens on the Council or its services.
Minutes:
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 such as noise nuisance, anti-social behaviour, poor living standards etc. Mandatory licensing of HMOs came into force in 2006 (Housing Act 2006) and applied to properties of three storeys or more with five or more people making up two or more separate households living in them. Licences could last up to five years and would have conditions attached to them that must be complied with. All licensed HMOs were routinely inspected to ensure they met all necessary statutory requirements. Licensing was intended to make sure that landlords of HMOs were:
• fit and proper people, or employ managers who were;
• each HMO was safe and suitable for occupation by the number of people allowed under the licence;
• the standard of management of the HMO was adequate;
• high risk HMOs could be identified and targeted for improvement; and
• HMOs were not overcrowded.
There are currently 200 licensed HMOs with the following mandatory conditions, which applied to every licence:
• a valid current gas safety certificate, which was renewed annually;
• proof that all electrical appliances and furniture were kept in a safe condition;
• proof that all smoke alarms were correctly positioned, installed and maintained;
• each occupier must have a written statement of the terms on which they occupy the property, for example, a tenancy agreement;
• minimum sleeping room sizes; and
• waste disposal arrangements.
Question from Noureddine Mechoui
“The case studies cited in the report acted once HMO impacts were already severe. Is the Council content to wait for comparable levels of harm locally before intervening, rather than acting earlier to prevent escalation?”
Councillor Upton advised that 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 Sundeep Soor
“Without an Article 4 Direction in place, how does the Council intend to prevent the incremental loss of family housing and manage the cumulative impact of additional HMOs in areas already experiencing high concentrations, given that permitted development removes any requirement for planning scrutiny or local decision-making?”
Councillor Upton advised that the NPPF made it clear that any Article 4 Direction must be supported by evidence that HMOs were impacting negatively on the local amenity of an area. It was the view of the Council that this threshold had not yet been met. The Council was also mindful of the variety of Rushcliffe residents requiring housing, including low income individuals or young professionals who could only afford HMO accommodation. Cabinet was recommending that the matter was kept under review and further scrutiny took place by the Communities Scrutiny Group at July’s meeting, to respond to further changes in this area.
Question from P Baker
“What specific level or type of evidence would officers require to recommend an Article 4 in future, and how will members know when that threshold has been reached?”
Councillor Upton advised that NPPF and the associated guidance did not stipulate a threshold or what specific evidence was required to justify an Article 4 Direction; however, the Framework did stipulate that the implementation of Article 4 Directions must be based on ‘robust evidence’, this was why the Cabinet recommendation was to keep this matter under review and scrutinise it further.
Question from Sue Jeffery
“Does the Council accept that formal complaint numbers may significantly under-represent impacts on local amenity, particularly where residents feel complaints are ineffective or are reluctant to pursue them?”
Councillor Upton advised that the Council regulated HMOs through licensing and reviewed properties on a regular basis, to ensure that complaints and any disturbance to the local community was kept to a minimum, in line with local authorities across the country. There was insufficient evidence to support the implementation of an Article 4 Direction, given the known numbers of HMOs, complaints received and issues identified through licensing and reviews of properties. Nevertheless, there were other regulatory tools which could be enacted including the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Disorder Act 2014.
Question from Natasha Walker
“Given that the report identifies areas with concentrated HMOs and acknowledges resident concerns, how does Cabinet justify delaying action until impacts become severe, and what alternative measures are being considered to proactively protect local amenity and community cohesion in the meantime?”
Councillor Upton advised that the Council regulated HMOs through licensing and reviewed properties on a regular basis to ensure that complaints and any disturbance to the local community was kept to a minimum, in line with local authorities across the country. 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 such as noise nuisance, anti-social behaviour, poor living standards etc. Mandatory licensing of HMOs came into force in 2006 (Housing Act 2006) and applied to properties of three storeys or more with five or more people making up two or more separate households living in them. Licences could last up to five years and would have conditions attached to them that must be complied with. All licensed HMOs were routinely inspected to ensure they met all necessary statutory requirements. Licensing was intended to make sure that landlords of HMOs were:
• fit and proper people, or employ managers who were;
• each HMO was safe and suitable for occupation by the number of people allowed under the licence;
• the standard of management of the HMO was adequate;
• high risk HMOs could be identified and targeted for improvement; and
• HMOs were not overcrowded.
There are currently 200 licensed HMOs with the following mandatory conditions, which applied to every licence:
• a valid current gas safety certificate, which was renewed annually;
• proof that all electrical appliances and furniture were kept in a safe condition;
• proof that all smoke alarms were correctly positioned, installed and maintained;
• each occupier must have a written statement of the terms on which they occupy the property, for example, a tenancy agreement;
• minimum sleeping room sizes; and
• waste disposal arrangements.
Question from Gary Sellick
“Over what timescale will monitoring take place before the issue is formally reconsidered, and will findings be reported back to Full Council?”
Councillor Upton advised that the recommendation was for Communities Scrutiny Group to review the further monitoring at July’s meeting. The Council was committed to actively monitoring the evidence.
Question from Tak Pang
“Has a non-immediate Article 4 Direction with a 12-month notice period, which avoids compensation liability been fully assessed as a proportionate and lower-risk option?”
Councillor Upton advised that the implementation of an Article 4 Direction must be based on evidence. If evidence justified the implementation of an Article 4 Direction, local authorities must then decide if a non-immediate or immediate Article 4 Direction would be most appropriate. Whether immediate or non-immediate, an Article 4 Direction must be supported by ‘robust evidence’ and applied in a measured and targeted way, in order to comply with the requirements of the NPPF and the Planning Policy Guidance.