Rushcliffe Borough Council is being asked to note there is not enough evidence to justify tighter planning controls on shared housing across the borough.
This comes following an investigation into the number and impact of Houses in Multiple Occupation ahead of a cabinet meeting on Tuesday 10 February.
A report prepared for councillors follows a motion debated at full council in September 2025 amid concerns that the borough was experiencing an increase in small HMOs — properties occupied by three to six unrelated people sharing facilities such as kitchens and bathrooms.
Members asked officers to compile an evidence base to determine whether an Article 4 Direction should be introduced, a planning tool that would remove automatic permitted development rights and require planning permission before a normal home could be converted into a small HMO.
Cabinet is now recommended to confirm the legal threshold for such a direction has not been met and instead continue monitoring HMO numbers and complaints.
An Article 4 Direction does not ban HMOs but forces landlords to apply for planning permission, allowing councils to assess impacts on neighbourhood character, parking and amenity. National planning policy requires authorities to demonstrate clear harm and apply the measure only to the smallest necessary area, with potential compensation liability if rights are withdrawn without robust justification. Parking is cited as a major concern among residents on West Bridgford roads.
Rushcliffe currently has 186 licensed HMOs, all accommodating five or more occupants — the threshold at which licensing is legally required. Of these, 184 are in West Bridgford. External data also suggests around 175 additional smaller three- or four-person shared homes may exist, 91 of them in the NG2 area, though these do not require licences.
The council found most licensed HMOs are concentrated along main roads near central West Bridgford, with a single outlier in Compton Acres.
Despite that concentration, complaint levels were very low. In 2025 four residents raised concerns relating to two properties, including noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour, while no complaints were recorded in 2024. One complainant submitted 271 reports about a single address, which the council investigated and addressed through informal action.
The report concludes this does not demonstrate borough-wide harm to amenity or wellbeing, and therefore an Article 4 Direction — either across Rushcliffe or targeted to West Bridgford — cannot currently be justified.
Officers also warn introducing restrictions could have unintended consequences by reducing lower-cost accommodation for young professionals, students and lower-income residents and potentially pushing shared housing into other parts of the borough.
Comparisons were made with other authorities. Gedling recently rejected similar controls due to insufficient evidence, while Bolton introduced a borough-wide direction after hundreds of complaints and demonstrated links to crime and nuisance. Salford applied controls only to smaller areas where concentrations were high and impacts clear.
The report states most HMOs in Rushcliffe do not generate complaints and there is currently no evidence linking them to wider anti-social behaviour or safety issues.
If cabinet agrees the recommendation, there will be no immediate planning changes for landlords or residents. Existing licensing regulation will continue, and the council will track complaints and property numbers to determine whether future action becomes necessary.
