🏚 1. The real problem is derelict housing — not HMOs

The fundamental issue facing East Marsh is the sheer number of derelict, vacant, and boarded-up houses, not a proliferation of HMOs.
A brief walk along Harold Street, Wellington Street, Brereton Avenue, Rutland Street, and Weelsby Street immediately reveals the truth: long rows of properties in severe disrepair, some completely bolted up and unused for well over ten years.

These empty houses are a visible reminder of chronic under-investment, not over-development. They are a symptom of a weak market where very few people are willing to take financial risks to bring old stock back into use.
It is private investors — not large developers — who have been quietly doing this difficult work, house by house, often using their own personal capital, without grants or public support.

However, restricting permitted development rights for HMOs would immediately make such investment too uncertain to proceed.
When an investor knows that converting a home to an HMO is automatically allowed under existing rules, they can make clear calculations and commit funds confidently.
But if that same decision becomes dependent on an unpredictable planning process, no sensible investor will risk tens of thousands of pounds on a property that might never achieve the income required to make it viable.

This is not theory — it is basic investment reality.
The moment Article 4 removes that certainty, regeneration will stop overnight.
Private investors will turn elsewhere, and the boarded homes that blight East Marsh today will remain empty for another decade.

In short, restricting permitted development will not fix the problem — it will make it worse.
Anyone who simply walks through East Marsh can see this clearly: the issue is not too many HMOs, but too many abandoned houses left to rot because the environment for investment is already fragile.
What this community needs is encouragement and stability, not additional red tape that deters the very people willing to take financial risks to bring homes back to life.

 

💷 2. Freedom from Article 4 supports regeneration

The current freedom from Article 4 restrictions is one of the only reasons private investors still purchase and refurbish older housing stock in East Marsh.
Permitted-development rights make it possible to restore homes that would otherwise remain empty, transforming them into affordable, livable accommodation at no public cost.

Even under the existing framework, however, it is already difficult to attract private capital into an area with such low values and high refurbishment costs. Investors take real personal risks to make derelict houses habitable.
If an Article 4 Direction were introduced, that limited flow of capital would dry up almost completely.

Article 4 does not merely add paperwork — it removes certainty.
Without permitted development, every small project becomes a gamble on whether planning permission might be granted later. No rational investor can risk substantial funds buying and renovating a property when its final use is uncertain.
For larger, more complex houses — the very ones that could be ideal HMOs — the risk is even greater.

This means that properties which could have been brought back into use as well-managed shared homes will instead remain empty and decaying.
Article 4 would therefore restrict the very flow of private capital that is essential to regeneration. It would make investment slower, rarer, and more expensive — the exact opposite of what East Marsh needs.

Simply put: where permitted-development rights exist, investment happens. Where they are removed, investment stops.
That is why the continued absence of Article 4 in East Marsh is not a loophole — it is the area’s lifeline.

 

 

⚖ 3. A borough-wide Article 4 would breach national policy

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF §53) is crystal clear:

“The use of Article 4 directions … should be limited to situations where this is necessary to protect local amenity or the well-being of the area …
The potential harm that the direction is intended to address should be clearly identified.
Article 4 directions should apply to the smallest geographical area possible.”

A borough-wide or blanket Article 4 Direction covering North East Lincolnshire would be a direct breach of this guidance.
It is self-evident that not every ward in the borough suffers from identical HMO-related conditions or harm. To suggest otherwise would be factually and legally indefensible.

If the Council were to proceed with such a proposal, it would immediately face widespread objection from local stakeholders, including investors, landlords, and regeneration advocates.
Those objections would be formally raised with the Secretary of State, drawing attention to the fact that a borough-wide Article 4 is completely inconsistent with national policy and therefore liable to be modified or cancelled at ministerial level.

It is senseless to claim that the entire borough — from Cleethorpes seafront to Grimsby’s industrial areas — requires identical restrictions.
Each neighbourhood has distinct housing issues, and any legitimate use of Article 4 must be targeted, proportionate, and evidence-based.

Anything broader than that would not only contradict the NPPF but also risk severe reputational damage to the Council for acting beyond reasonable policy justification.

 

🧾 4. No evidence that HMOs cause problems — in fact, the opposite

Claims that HMOs inherently create anti-social behaviour (ASB) or degrade neighbourhoods are not supported by national evidence. Authoritative government and parliamentary sources recognise that HMOs provide lower-cost housing and are already subject to stricter management controls than standard single-let properties.

HMOs supply affordable accommodation.
The House of Commons Library notes:

“HMOs offer accommodation that is typically cheaper than other private rental options and often house vulnerable tenants.” Parliament Research Briefings

HMOs are tightly regulated and designed to protect amenity.
Government extended mandatory HMO licensing in 2018 and added licence conditions on room sizes and waste, precisely to raise standards and tackle management issues. The Commons Library summarises the government’s position that licensing has helped “tackle overcrowding [and] poor property management.” Parliament Research Briefings
Official guidance to councils on the 2018/19 reforms underlines how local authorities must implement and enforce these strengthened duties. GOV.UK

Managers have specific legal duties in HMOs (including dealing with ASB).
The Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 place direct duties on HMO managers over safety, common parts, refuse, and day-to-day management. Councils’ summaries make clear this includes having procedures to manage ASB and tenancy conduct. Plymouth City Council+3Legislation.gov.uk+3Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead+3
Shelter’s professional guidance confirms these management regulations apply to all HMOs, licensed or not. Shelter England

ASB is best explained by deprivation, not by tenure type.
Recent LGA/Resolve reporting and national policy documents on ASB focus on place-based deprivation and community factors, not HMOs per se, when describing ASB pressures and solutions. Local Government Association+1
Independent research on crime and neighbourhood conditions similarly links problems to deprivation, transience and weak local conditions, rather than to any single tenure. The Police Foundation

Conclusion for East Marsh:

• HMOs are an important low-cost housing option acknowledged by Parliament’s own research service. Parliament Research Briefings
• HMOs already come with stricter, enforceable management responsibilities (including ASB procedures) that single-lets do not carry in the same prescribed way. gov.uk+1
• In East Marsh, the real and visible problem is long-term vacancy and dereliction, not an oversupply of HMOs. Limiting HMOs via Article 4 would remove a viable route to bring empty homes back into use without public cost.

If you want, I can convert those sources into footnotes and weave them into your full letter so it’s submission-ready.

 

🚫 5. An Article 4 for East Marsh would be indefensible

Any attempt to impose Article 4 restrictions on East Marsh would be open to immediate challenge.
Photographic and video evidence across the ward already demonstrates widespread dereliction and disuse, not HMO saturation. The problem is not too many conversions — it is too many vacant, decaying houses that no one dares to invest in.

By introducing Article 4, the Council would in effect be centralising additional planning power at precisely the time when flexibility and private initiative are most needed.
Experience from other towns shows that once Article 4 is in place, the cost of shared accommodation rises sharply, supply falls, and regeneration slows.
Instead of reviving empty homes, the policy would make dereliction harder to resolve — directly undermining the Council’s own regeneration objectives.

In practice, Article 4 closes the door to small and medium-sized private investors, the very people who take risks, use personal capital, and refurbish difficult properties.
Only large corporate developers, with dedicated planning teams and deep financial reserves, can afford the delay, uncertainty, and cost that Article 4 introduces.
The result is a distorted housing market where small investors withdraw, fewer homes are brought back into use, and local rents for rooms and shared accommodation increase dramatically.

Such an outcome would not only worsen deprivation but also cast doubt on the Council’s motivations.
By retaining discretionary control over each HMO application, the Council effectively determines who can and cannot invest.
That discretionary gatekeeping — however unintended — risks creating perceptions of favouritism and discourages open-market regeneration.

In summary, an Article 4 Direction in East Marsh would:

• Worsen dereliction by blocking small-scale refurbishment.
• Concentrate housing investment power in the hands of large developers.
• Drive up room prices and reduce affordable housing supply.
• Undermine public trust in the fairness and transparency of planning decisions.

Far from helping East Marsh recover, it would make regeneration slower, costlier, and less inclusive.
For all these reasons, an Article 4 Direction here would be not only indefensible in policy terms, but also counter-productive in practice — a measure that would, quite literally, fall flat on its face against the visible evidence on the ground.

🏘 6. Consequences of over-regulation

Combining Article 4 controls with selective licensing in East Marsh would be wholly detrimental. It would choke off the private capital needed to bring empty homes back into use, reduce the available housing stock, and push up local room prices—the precise opposite of what the Council intends.

Why this happens (and why it will here):

• Article 4 removes certainty and stalls investment. Government policy warns that Article 4 must be evidence-based and applied to the smallest geographical area possible, precisely because withdrawing permitted development can have broad negative effects on housing delivery and viability. UK+1
• It disproportionately shuts out small/medium investors. Once PD is withdrawn, every conversion becomes a high-risk, slow, and costly planning bet. Larger corporates can absorb that; local investors using personal capital generally cannot—so supply falls and empty homes stay empty. (This is why national guidance insists on targeted, minimal use of Article 4.) UK+2Cornerstone Barristers+2
• Licensing layers cost and friction on top. Parliament’s Library notes that selective licensing is intended to raise standards, but the Government’s own review (2019) recorded a recurring concern that costs are often passed on to tenants and that whole-borough approaches can harm landlord finance access, reducing supply. Parliament Research Briefings
• Even supportive reviews flag trade-offs. The independent 2019 MHCLG review found licensing can be effective when well-targeted—but it also highlights the need to avoid unnecessary burdens and to coordinate with wider strategies, acknowledging that poorly targeted schemes risk collateral impacts on compliant landlords and local markets. UK
• Local authority and professional reports echo the “smallest area” test. Recent council Article 4 papers (Ipswich, Lewisham, Walsall) and practitioner summaries reiterate that national policy changes make broad Article 4 designations harder to justify and require robust evidence due to their market-wide impacts. Local Government Lawyer+3democracy.ipswich.gov.uk+3Ipswich+3
• Academic and sector evidence warn of exclusionary effects. Research examining HMO controls finds widespread use of Article 4 to curb small HMO conversions, with concerns about exclusion/control dynamics and unintended distributional effects. Industry data also records that added regulatory costs reduce supply and raise operating expenses, reinforcing upward pressure on rents. White Rose Research Online+1

What that means for East Marsh, specifically:

• There is already a shortage of willing HMO investors prepared to spend tens of thousands to rescue long-vacant houses. Article 4 + licensing makes viable projects suddenly non-viable, so fewer empty properties are brought back into use. Vacancy persists.
• With fewer shared homes coming forward, room prices rise and choice shrinks, especially for lower-income residents who most rely on affordable HMOs. (Parliament’s Library recognises HMOs provide lower-cost options in the PRS.) House of Commons Library
• The outcome is less regeneration, fewer refurbished homes, and prolonged dereliction—which is precisely why national policy insists Article 4 should be rare, tightly justified, and geographically minimal. UK

Bottom line: Over-regulation here would reduce housing supply, raise prices, and make derelict homes even harder to return to the market. The Council should avoid compounding East Marsh’s problems by imposing broad Article 4 controls or expansive licensing; it should instead target rogue practice through existing HMO powers while incentivising investment that brings empty homes back into use. GOV.UK+1

 

 

7. Requested actions

Please take the following actions, with the economic rationale clearly in view:

1. Do not make or confirm any Article 4 Direction for HMOs covering East Marsh or the wider borough until the derelict housing-stock problem has been materially reduced.
   • Economic reality: pulling permitted development (PD) turns clear, financeable refurbishments into speculative planning gambles. In low-value, high-cost markets, that instantly kills deals and stalls regeneration.
   • Public interest: PD exists precisely to enable small-scale, routine development that supports supply. Removing it during visible housing under-use is counter-productive.
2. Withdraw any plan for a borough-wide Article 4, which would conflict with NPPF §53 and be open to ministerial modification or cancellation.
   • Targeting matters: policy requires the smallest geographical area possible and clearly identified harm. A blanket approach is economically damaging and policy-non-compliant.
3. Prioritise investment and empty-homes rehabilitation tools over restriction—e.g., match-funded grants/loans, VAT/practical guidance on refurb of long-term vacant homes, and streamlined approvals for works that return properties to use.
   • Outcome focus: measure success by units brought back into occupation and voids reduced, not by applications processed.
4. Acknowledge that HMOs are already tightly regulated and form an essential affordable housing safety-valve.
   • Management leverage: existing HMO licensing and management regulations already place enforceable responsibilities (including ASB procedures) on landlords/managers—power the Council can and should use without suppressing supply.
5. Engage a formal Regeneration & Affordable Rooms Forum of local investors/landlords to co-design standards that raise quality while keeping schemes viable.
   • Delivery principle: “Better, not fewer.” Standards must be economically modelled so they improve outcomes without collapsing feasibility.

 

Why this matters (and whom Article 4 really empowers)

• PD = access to finance. Lenders and private capital rely on PD certainty to underwrite small, piecemeal refurbishments. Remove PD and the risk profile exceeds what most local investors—and their lenders—can bear. Projects that would bring empty homes back into use do not start.
• Article 4 concentrates power and tilts the market. When PD is withdrawn, only large corporates with planning teams, cash buffers, and time can proceed at scale. Doors close to small/medium local investors who actually do the granular regeneration East Marsh needs.
• Who loses? The most vulnerable. Where Article 4 has been used widely (e.g., university cities like Nottingham and Lincoln), the student market can sometimes absorb higher costs. East Marsh is different: the people most in need are low-income residents who rely on low-cost shared rooms. Curtailing HMO conversions here risks removing affordable options and driving up room prices.
• Planning should work for people, not gatekeeping. PD rights are a democratic, rules-based tool to keep routine development moving. Using Article 4 as a broad gate turns every small project into a discretionary “yes/no,” slowing supply and inviting perceptions that only large players can navigate the system.

 

Expanded, concrete asks (to make the policy work on the ground)

• Adopt a “Vacancy-First Test”: before any HMO-restrictive measure, publish street-level vacancy counts and a plan to return those properties to use, with targets and dates.
• Publish viability benchmarks: require that any proposed restriction be accompanied by independent viability modelling showing no net loss of affordable rooms over 3–5 years.
• Use scalpel, not sledgehammer: if genuine, evidenced issues exist on specific streets, deploy targeted enforcement (licence conditions, ASB powers, civil penalties) rather than area-wide PD withdrawal.
• Fast-track good actors: introduce a Trusted Operator pathway (clear compliance record, prompt ASB response, inspected standards) with expedited processing/inspections to keep capital flowing where it performs.
• Quarterly transparency: publish metrics on empty homes returned to use, new rooms delivered, median room rents, and enforcement actions, so policy is judged by outcomes, not intentions.

 

Bottom line: In a place with visible under-use of housing, the Council’s job is to unlock private capital and speed safe, affordable supply—not to centralise power and slow it. Article 4 on HMOs here would reduce stock, raise prices, and exclude local investors, while hurting precisely those residents who most need low-cost accommodation.

Please confirm these requests will be recorded in full as part of any future consultation on Article 4 or selective licensing proposals.

 

nce. Drop this in as your final section.

 

A brief walk through East Marsh tells the story better than any spreadsheet: rows of empty homes, boarded windows, and streets starved of investment—not an oversupply of HMOs. The problem is disuse, not overuse.

Every extra layer of bureaucracy pushes capital away. When permitted development is pulled, projects that were viable yesterday become unviable today; lenders step back; small local investors—the ones who actually do the heavy lifting of regeneration—leave the field. The result is predictable: fewer refurbished homes, fewer affordable rooms, higher prices, longer voids, deeper decay.

This is not what East Marsh needs. East Marsh needs certainty, speed, and partnership—policy that unlocks work, not policy that blocks it.

 

A simple set of common-sense tests

• The Street Test: Walk Harold Street, Wellington Street, Brereton Avenue, Rutland Street, Weelsby Street. If you see boarded homes before you see “HMO problems,” you do not have an HMO problem; you have an empty-homes problem.
• The Viability Test: If a policy makes it harder for prudent investors to finance and refurbish long-vacant houses, it cannot be a regeneration policy.
• The Proportionality Test: If the claimed harm is localised and unproven, a borough-wide restriction is disproportionate.
• The Equality Test: If restrictions remove low-cost rooms relied on by low-income residents, the policy harms the most vulnerable first.

 

The human impact (often missing from papers)

Behind every boarded door is a would-be tenant priced out by scarcity, and a local tradesperson who could have worked on a refurb that never started because the numbers stopped adding up. Article 4 + selective licensing, applied broadly, would shrink supply, raise room prices, and lock empty stock out of use for longer—with the sharpest pain felt by those on the lowest incomes.

 

What good governance looks like

• Targeted enforcement, not blanket control. Use existing HMO powers (licensing conditions, ASB duties, civil penalties) to deal with bad practice precisely where it occurs.
• Evidence before restriction. Publish street-level vacancy counts, HMO density by block, and a clear statement of specific, demonstrable harm—then tailor proportionate measures.
• Viability-checked standards. Model the impact on unit delivery and room prices before adopting restrictions; do not legislate supply out of existence by accident.

 

Offer of evidence (enclosures available)

I can provide:

• Geo-tagged photos and walk-through videos across the streets named above;
• A schedule of long-vacant properties and visible disrepair;
• Illustrative project appraisals showing how certainty under PD makes borderline refurbishments viable—and how removing PD collapses lender support;
• Examples of rapid improvements delivered under the existing HMO management regime.

 

Clear request

• Do not make or confirm an Article 4 Direction for HMOs in East Marsh or borough-wide while visible dereliction persists at today’s scale.
• Withdraw any blanket proposal inconsistent with the principle of the smallest geographical area possible and with proportionate, evidence-led regulation.
• Prioritise policies that unlock capital and bring empty homes back into use—grants, low-interest loans, streamlined approvals, and fast-track pathways for proven operators.
• Work with local investors through a standing forum to raise standards without collapsing feasibility.

 

If the aim is decent homes, safer streets, and visible renewal, then the route is more keys turning in boarded doors, not more paperwork. East Marsh needs encouragement, not red tape—delivery, not delay.

🏚 Photographic And Video Evidence of Derelict Housing – East Marsh

Below are only some of the derelict and boarded-up properties currently visible across East Marsh.
These demonstrate the scale of neglect and vacancy in the area.

(Photographs are for evidence and transparency. All data was collected from publicly visible locations.)

Thank you for your careful consideration.
Please confirm that this letter will be formally recorded as part of the public consultation for any future Article 4 or selective licensing proposals.

Yours faithfully,
Andreas Russo
Property Investor & Director, Andreas Investments Ltd
Nottingham / Grimsby / Cleethorpes