{"id":12324,"date":"2025-11-06T09:32:54","date_gmt":"2025-11-06T09:32:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/areton-ltd.com\/Aretonoldbackup\/?page_id=12324"},"modified":"2025-11-06T10:16:41","modified_gmt":"2025-11-06T10:16:41","slug":"opposition-to-proposed-article-4-direction-and-selective-licensing-east-marsh-grimsby","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/areton-ltd.com\/Aretonoldbackup\/opposition-to-proposed-article-4-direction-and-selective-licensing-east-marsh-grimsby\/","title":{"rendered":"Opposition to Proposed Article 4 Direction and Selective Licensing \u2013 East Marsh, Grimsby"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reference:<\/strong> Public Submission to North East Lincolnshire Council & Secretary of State<\/p>\n

\n

\ud83d\udcc4 Introduction<\/h3>\n

Areton Ltd. and our partners have formally submitted the following letter to North East Lincolnshire Council\u2019s Planning and Housing Strategy teams<\/strong> and to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

This letter outlines our strong objection<\/strong> to the introduction or confirmation of any Article 4 Direction<\/strong> or Selective Licensing Scheme<\/strong> covering East Marsh, Grimsby \u2014 until the severe derelict housing crisis in the area has been addressed.<\/p>\n

The letter and photographic evidence below are provided publicly in the interest of transparency and community awareness.<\/p>\n

\n

\ud83d\udcec Official Letter<\/h2>\n

To:<\/strong>
Planning Policy & Housing Teams \u2013 North East Lincolnshire Council
\ud83d\udce7 planning@nelincs.gov.uk<\/a> | housingstrategy@nelincs.gov.uk<\/a><\/p>\n

CC:<\/strong>
Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
\ud83d\udce7 Ministerial.Correspondence@communities.gov.uk<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Dear Sir \/ Madam,<\/h4>\n

I write as a property investor and stakeholder active in the regeneration of East Marsh and Cleethorpes, within the North East Lincolnshire Council area.
I am deeply concerned about the ongoing discussion of introducing an Article 4 Direction for HMOs<\/strong> and expanding selective licensing<\/strong> across East Marsh.<\/p>\n

These measures, while perhaps well-intentioned, would in practice discourage investment, prolong vacancy, and worsen an already fragile housing market.<\/p>\n

\n

\ud83c\udfda 1. The real problem is derelict housing \u2013 not HMOs<\/h3>\n

The principal issue in East Marsh is the sheer volume of empty, boarded-up, and derelict houses, not a proliferation of HMOs.
A short walk along Harold Street, Wellington Street, Brereton Avenue, Rutland Street, and Weelsby Street shows rows of vacant and neglected properties.<\/p>\n

This decay is the result of chronic under-investment, not over-development.
Investment should be encouraged, not red-taped.<\/p>\n

\n

\ud83d\udcb7 2. Current freedom from Article 4 supports regeneration<\/h3>\n

The absence of Article 4 restrictions is one of the few reasons investors still risk purchasing and refurbishing older housing stock.
If Article 4 were introduced, regeneration would stall immediately \u2014 costs would rise, and many homes would remain empty for years.<\/p>\n

\n

\u2696\ufe0f 3. A borough-wide Article 4 would breach national policy<\/h3>\n

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) clearly states that Article 4 Directions should only be used when necessary and must cover the smallest possible geographical area.
Any blanket or borough-wide Direction would be inconsistent with national policy and open to challenge.<\/p>\n

\n

\ud83e\uddfe 4. No evidence that HMOs cause problems \u2013 in fact, the opposite<\/h3>\n

Assertions that HMOs cause anti-social behaviour or degrade neighbourhoods are unsupported by evidence.
HMOs are regulated under the Housing Act 2004, and responsible operators maintain high standards.
In East Marsh, the real issue is abandoned housing<\/strong>, not shared accommodation.<\/p>\n

\n

\ud83d\udeab 5. Any Article 4 for East Marsh would be indefensible<\/h3>\n

Photographic and video evidence shows numerous boarded-up homes \u2014 proof that the problem is disuse and under-investment<\/strong>, not HMOs.
An Article 4 Direction here would contradict the government\u2019s policy goal of encouraging regeneration.<\/p>\n

\n

\ud83c\udfd8 6. Consequences of over-regulation<\/h3>\n

Combining Article 4 controls with selective licensing would:<\/p>\n