Agenda item

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 would continue and that the issue would be scrutinised, with the focus on West Bridgford, where the current density was highest and action would be taken, if any trigger point was reached. However, Councillor Inglis noted that the vast majority of HMOs did not give rise to complaints, and any that did had been successfully addressed by the Council. Councillor Inglis referred to Councillor Phillip’s supplementary question earlier in the meeting and clarified that an Article 4 Direction simply ensured that a property met the NPPF requirements in material planning matters and it had no control over who occupied a property. 

Councillor Wheeler reiterated that having an Article 4 Direction would not prevent a property being converted into a HMO, it would require an additional stage, with the processing of a planning application. The Council had to follow national planning policies and if residents wanted changes to be made to those policies, they should lobby their MPs. He felt that it was important to have transparent decision making and be clear with people that a property could be changed into a HMO and there was no control over who could live in it. 

Councillor Brennan stated that many people hoped that an Article 4 Direction would prevent asylum seekers living in their area; however, it was not designed to do that. For smaller HMOs under an Article 4 Direction, applying for planning permission, would not give any say on who would live in that property. The only way that the Council could have some kind of preventative measures was if there was a change in Government policy. 

The Leader agreed that evidence was required to introduce an Article 4 Direction and that any real changes had to be driven by changes to Government policy. The Leader stated that it was his intention to write to the Government, to request that it considered changing legislation to allow councils to make their own, local decisions.

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 (HMO) 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?