More and more councils across the UK are using Article 4 Directions to remove the automatic right to convert homes into small HMOs (houses in multiple occupation).
Article 4: what is it and what its purpose?
Normally, homeowners can carry out certain small-scale works – like putting up fences, adding small extensions, or changing use of buildings, without the need for formal planning permission. These are called permitted development rights (set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended).
However, local authorities have the power to issue an Article 4 Direction (under Article 4 of that Order) to remove or limit those rights in a specific area, meaning that planning permission is required for works that would otherwise not need it.
Article 4 Directions are often used to:
- Protect the character of conservation areas (e.g., stopping unsympathetic alterations like uPVC windows, loft conversions, or demolition of boundary walls).
- Control the spread of HMOs by requiring planning permission before a single-family home can be converted.
- Prevent unwanted changes of use (e.g., offices to residential, or retail to residential).
Article 4 Directions must be justified by the local authority (usually on grounds of protecting local amenity or heritage). Depending on the type, they may come into effect immediately or after a notice period (usually 12 months if the council wants to avoid having to pay compensation).
In Practice
On paper, this is a planning law technicality. In practice, it raises some important social sustainability questions:
- How do we balance the need for affordable, flexible housing with the risk of an over-concentration of HMOs in local areas?
- What does this mean for community cohesion, local services, and long-term neighbourhood stability?
- How should landlords and investors respond, when planning policy is increasingly shaped by social impact concerns?
Examples from Brighton & Hove, Leeds and Oxford show Article 4 Directions are not simply planning technicalities — they are social policy tools. Done well, Article 4s can protect neighbourhood amenity and housing mix. Done poorly, they risk reducing supply of affordable shared housing and shifting burdens onto low-income renters.
In Leeds, the local council implemented Article 4 controls in inner areas with high HMO concentrations and published clear planning guidance for deciding HMO applications, stressing housing mix, local amenity and the impact on family housing supply. This example highlights the importance of balancing the need for affordable shared housing (social objective) with protecting services and the character of local communities.
In Brighton & Hove, the Council produced an evidence study showing how concentrations of student and other HMOs had knock-on effects on neighbourhood amenity, services and community balance, which supported a citywide Article 4 approach in sensitive areas. The Council framed the policy in terms of protecting local communities while recognising HMOs’ role in affordable housing. This case study demonstrates how councils use planning tools to protect community quality of life (noise, waste, services) and to try to preserve mixed, stable neighbourhoods
Oxford’s early Article 4 work generated public debate. Some reports explicitly called Article 4 a form of “social engineering,” with residents and landlords arguing about impacts on choice, regeneration and community vibrancy, showing that there is no single social view. Article 4 can be presented as protecting communities or as excluding certain household types; both social-justice and equity arguments appear. Social impact assessments must be transparent and evidence-led to avoid perceived (or real) exclusionary effects.
Future Trends & Legal Developments
- Expect wider use of Article 4 Directions in urban centres with high HMO concentrations.
- Watch for new national planning policies tying housing supply, affordability, and community wellbeing more explicitly to ESG frameworks.
- Growing pressure on landlords and investors to evidence social impact (alongside environmental performance) when seeking planning consent.
Practical Guidance
For property owners, investors, and developers:
- Stay ahead of local planning evidence – monitor council studies on HMO concentrations and community impact.
- Factor social ESG into risk assessments – how might a proposed conversion affect housing mix, services, and affordability?
- Engage early – work with planning consultants and legal advisers to demonstrate how proposals support not just policy compliance, but also positive social outcomes.
For clients, this isn’t just about securing planning permission – it’s about aligning property strategies with ESG expectations, which increasingly drive both policy and investment decisions.
Article 4 Directions on HMOs are more than a planning technicality – they’re a lever for shaping social sustainability in housing. They raise questions of affordability, community cohesion, and housing mix, which directly intersect with ESG priorities.
This update is for general purpose and guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific legal advice should be taken before acting on any of the topics covered. No part of this update may be used, reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by any means without the prior permission of Brecher LLP.
