Dear Secretary of State,<\/p>\n
I write to respectfully request that the proposed Article 4 Direction relating to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) within North East Lincolnshire receives the closest possible scrutiny before any decision is made regarding its implementation.<\/p>\n
The proposal seeks to remove nationally granted permitted development rights from property owners. Such powers were deliberately granted by Parliament and should only be withdrawn where there is compelling, objective and independently verifiable evidence demonstrating that such a restriction is both necessary and proportionate.<\/p>\n
In my respectful submission, this proposal raises significant concerns regarding both the quality of the evidence and the geographical extent of the proposed restrictions.<\/p>\n
The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that Article 4 Directions should only be introduced where there is robust evidence and should apply to the smallest geographical area possible<\/strong>.<\/p>\n This is an important safeguard intended to prevent unnecessarily wide restrictions upon nationally granted planning rights.<\/p>\n The burden therefore rests firmly upon the local authority to demonstrate not only that planning harm exists, but also that every part of the proposed Article 4 area genuinely requires those restrictions.<\/p>\n This is a very high evidential threshold.<\/p>\n If a council proposes to remove permitted development rights across an entire neighbourhood, district or borough, the evidential burden becomes substantially greater.<\/p>\n The wider the geographical area covered, the greater the justification that should be required.<\/p>\n It is not sufficient to identify concerns affecting only part of an area and then remove planning rights from every property within that area.<\/p>\n National policy requires the restriction to be drawn as narrowly as possible.<\/p>\n Accordingly, if any restriction is considered necessary at all, it should be confined only to those specific locations where robust evidence demonstrates that planning harm exists.<\/p>\n Where the evidence identifies only isolated concentrations or localised issues, the logical consequence is that any Article 4 Direction should be limited accordingly.<\/p>\n In many circumstances, this may mean only particular streets, parts of streets or small clusters of properties rather than entire neighbourhoods.<\/p>\n Any proposal extending substantially beyond the locations where harm has actually been demonstrated should require particularly compelling justification.<\/p>\n A significant concern arises where entire neighbourhoods are proposed to be included without demonstrating why every individual street requires identical treatment.<\/p>\n The authority should be expected to answer, for every street included within the proposed boundary:<\/p>\n Unless those questions can be answered using objective evidence, there is a real risk that large numbers of property owners will lose nationally granted development rights despite there being no evidence of planning harm affecting their properties or streets.<\/p>\n Before nationally granted planning rights are removed, the authority should demonstrate:<\/p>\n Anything less risks replacing evidence-based planning with assumption-based planning.<\/p>\n Local authorities already possess extensive statutory powers to deal with genuine problems where they arise.<\/p>\n These include:<\/p>\n If individual nuisance properties or individual streets present difficulties, those existing powers should normally be considered before removing nationally granted planning rights from large numbers of entirely unrelated properties.<\/p>\n Article 4 Directions should remain a measure of last resort rather than a general planning tool.<\/p>\n The proposal also raises wider public interest considerations.<\/p>\n HMOs provide an important source of relatively affordable accommodation.<\/p>\n Restricting future HMO creation inevitably reduces future housing supply and may increase pressure on housing affordability.<\/p>\n Equally important, areas such as East Marsh require substantial private investment.<\/p>\n Many regeneration projects rely upon the certainty provided by nationally granted permitted development rights.<\/p>\n Broad Article 4 Directions introduce planning uncertainty, increase development costs and may discourage investment from entering areas that arguably require it most.<\/p>\n These wider consequences should be carefully weighed before any restriction is approved.<\/p>\n I respectfully request that the Secretary of State carefully scrutinises both the evidential basis and the geographical extent of this proposal.<\/p>\n If the Council cannot demonstrate, through clear and independently verifiable evidence, why every location included within the proposed boundary requires the removal of permitted development rights, then the proposed boundary should not be approved in its current form.<\/p>\n Where evidence exists only in specific locations, any restriction should be confined to those locations alone and should extend no further than is demonstrably necessary.<\/p>\n The Government’s policy requiring Article 4 Directions to apply to the smallest geographical area possible exists precisely to prevent unnecessarily broad restrictions upon private property rights.<\/p>\n Accordingly, unless exceptionally strong evidence exists justifying every part of the proposed area, I respectfully submit that a blanket Article 4 Direction covering extensive neighbourhoods should be rejected or modified so that it is confined only to those specific streets or parts of streets where compelling planning evidence genuinely supports such intervention.<\/p>\n Nationally granted permitted development rights should only be removed where the evidence clearly demonstrates necessity, proportionality and compliance with national planning policy.<\/p>\n Thank you for considering these representations.<\/p>\n Yours faithfully,<\/p>\n Andreas Russo<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Representations to the Secretary of State Regarding the Proposed Article 4 Direction for HMOs in North East Lincolnshire Dear Secretary<\/p>","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-22531","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/areton-ltd.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/22531","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/areton-ltd.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/areton-ltd.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/areton-ltd.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/areton-ltd.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22531"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/areton-ltd.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/22531\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22532,"href":"https:\/\/areton-ltd.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/22531\/revisions\/22532"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/areton-ltd.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22531"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Blanket Restrictions Require Exceptional Justification<\/h2>\n
Every Street Should Be Justified Individually<\/h2>\n
\n
Robust Evidence Must Support Every Element of the Proposal<\/h2>\n
\n
Alternative Enforcement Powers Already Exist<\/h2>\n
\n
Impact Upon Housing Supply and Investment<\/h2>\n
Request for Careful Scrutiny<\/h2>\n