FORMAL OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED ARTICLE 4 DIRECTION FOR HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (HMOs) IN NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE (GRIMSBY AND CLEETHORPES)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I submit this formal objection to the proposed Article 4 Direction relating to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) across North East Lincolnshire, including Grimsby and Cleethorpes.

The proposal raises serious concerns regarding its evidential basis, proportionality and compliance with national planning policy. In my view, unless these issues are fully addressed, the proposal is highly vulnerable to challenge during consultation, by referral to the Secretary of State, and, where appropriate, through legal proceedings.

1. The Council Cannot Reliably Demonstrate the True Concentration of HMOs

The first and most fundamental issue is that it will be extremely difficult for the Council to accurately demonstrate the actual concentration of HMOs.

In many parts of Grimsby and Cleethorpes, four-bedroom HMOs do not require a mandatory HMO licence. Consequently, licensing records represent only part of the HMO sector.

Unless the Council has independently identified every lawful HMO—including those that do not require licensing—it cannot reliably demonstrate HMO concentrations.

Any evidence based primarily upon licensing data will inevitably understate the true number of HMOs and will therefore be open to substantial criticism.

Removing nationally granted Permitted Development Rights requires an exceptionally robust evidence base. Estimates, assumptions or incomplete datasets should not be sufficient to justify such a significant restriction on property rights.

2. Antisocial Behaviour Must Be Objectively Analysed

If the Council intends to rely upon antisocial behaviour as justification for the proposed Article 4 Direction, it must objectively demonstrate that HMOs generate materially greater levels of antisocial behaviour than ordinary residential dwellings.

Simply identifying complaints associated with HMOs is not enough.

The Council must also analyse complaints arising from single-family homes (Use Class C3) within the same neighbourhoods. Antisocial behaviour can and does occur across all forms of housing.

Without comparing HMO-related complaints against complaints from the wider housing stock, there is a real risk that the evidence will reflect selection bias rather than a genuine planning issue.

The Council must demonstrate causation, not merely correlation.

3. Blanket Restrictions Across Grimsby and Cleethorpes Require Exceptional Justification

National planning policy makes clear that Article 4 Directions should be based upon robust evidence and should be limited to the smallest geographical area necessary.

If genuine planning harm exists on particular streets, then those streets should be individually identified and supported by evidence.

A blanket Article 4 Direction covering extensive parts of Grimsby and Cleethorpes would require an exceptionally high evidential threshold because it removes nationally granted development rights from thousands of properties regardless of whether any planning harm has been demonstrated at each location.

A targeted, street-by-street approach is considerably easier to justify than a borough-wide or area-wide restriction.

If the Council proceeds with a blanket approach without compelling evidence demonstrating why each affected area requires intervention, the proposal is likely to face significant scrutiny and challenge.

4. Restricting Investment

Permitted Development Rights encourage private investment.

Property owners invest millions of pounds collectively every year improving older housing stock, upgrading fire safety, improving insulation, modernising buildings and bringing vacant properties back into productive use.

Requiring planning permission for every change from C3 to C4 introduces delay, uncertainty and additional financial risk.

That inevitably discourages investment precisely where regeneration is most needed.

The Council should carefully consider whether restricting investment will produce unintended economic consequences that outweigh any perceived planning benefit.

5. Impact Upon Affordable Housing

HMOs provide an essential source of affordable accommodation for:

  • Young professionals;
  • Key workers;
  • Apprentices;
  • Students;
  • Individuals relocating for employment.

Reducing the supply of lawful HMOs will inevitably reduce the availability of lower-cost accommodation.

This may make Grimsby and Cleethorpes less attractive to younger workers and employers seeking to recruit staff into the area.

The wider economic consequences should form part of any proper planning assessment.

6. The Proposal Is Open to Public Challenge

Members of the public are entitled to challenge an Article 4 Direction through several mechanisms.

These include:

  • Making formal representations during the public consultation;
  • Requesting intervention and scrutiny by the Secretary of State;
  • Challenging the Direction by Judicial Review where there are arguable legal grounds, including procedural unfairness, irrationality or an inadequate evidence base;
  • Challenging individual planning decisions made under the Direction where the underlying evidence is disputed.

For these reasons, the Council should ensure that any Article 4 Direction is capable of withstanding detailed legal and evidential scrutiny.

7. Conclusion

The proposed Article 4 Direction places a substantial evidential burden upon the Council.

The Council must demonstrate:

  • the true concentration of HMOs, despite many lawful HMOs not requiring mandatory licensing;
  • that any identified planning harm is genuinely attributable to HMOs rather than wider residential issues;
  • why a blanket restriction across Grimsby and Cleethorpes is justified rather than a targeted street-by-street approach;
  • and why the economic consequences of reducing investment and affordable accommodation are justified.

Unless each of these matters is supported by compelling, objective and comprehensive evidence, there is a substantial risk that the proposal will be challenged and may not withstand detailed scrutiny.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Council withdraw the proposed blanket Article 4 Direction or, alternatively, limit any future Direction to specific streets where there is clear, objective and compelling evidence that the statutory tests have been satisfied.

Yours faithfully,

Andreas  russo