Houses in Multiple Occupation: Planning Consent

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing this important debate on a matter that clearly resonates, as we can see from the number of Members present. I recognise entirely the concerns that he and other hon. Members raised about the impact of high concentrations of houses in multiple occupation and their effect on local housing and local housing markets. When family homes rapidly convert into houses in multiple occupation, it can fundamentally alter the character of a neighbourhood and put genuine pressure on affordability for families who want to put down roots in an area. Those concerns are legitimate, and they need to be taken seriously.

Antisocial behaviour can also have devastating impacts on individuals and neighbourhoods. That is not and should not be regarded as a low-level issue. Whether it is excessive noise, discarded rubbish, parking difficulties from overcrowded properties or more serious issues of intimidation and disorder, these real issues affect people’s daily lives and their sense of safety in and around their own homes. No one should have to live with that. I know the frustration of residents who see neighbourhoods change in ways that make them feel less secure and less able, as other Members have said, to affect the future of their neighbourhoods.

The loss of family housing stock is a particular concern for local communities. When properties that once housed families, with the children attending schools and people contributing to the fabric of the community, are converted into transient accommodation, it erodes the stability that makes neighbourhoods thrive. That is why many councils and residents are looking for solutions.

The issue is far greater than just HMOs themselves. Often people living in HMOs are those on the lowest incomes, who simply cannot afford to live elsewhere. They do not always choose HMOs as their preferred housing; they are there because they cannot access affordable housing and because the housing market fails them. Statistics on social housing tell the story starkly. There are 1.3 million households—many of them families —on the social housing waiting list who need affordable, stable homes and cannot access them.

We are deeply concerned that the Government’s target of 20,000 social homes a year is not sufficient and is nowhere near enough. The Liberal Democrats have pledged a target of 150,000 council and social rent homes a year, because a massive public house building programme is exactly what is required to address this crisis. A fundamental lack of social housing to support those on lower incomes is driving people into HMOs in the first place. I am sure that many HMO occupants and residents would far rather be in secure, affordable housing.

We support and respect the use of article 4 directions by local communities to require planning permission for HMOs in certain areas, where necessary, to preserve the character of neighbourhoods or to protect a dwindling stock of family housing. We agree with the hon. Member for Mansfield that streamlining those processes would be worth while. Will the Minister consider removing the requirement for the Secretary of State to approve article 4 directions, so that councils can put them through more easily and quickly? After all, local authorities know their areas best, and they should have the tools to manage development in a way that reflects their priorities and concerns.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) so eloquently pointed out, in areas with high levels of second homes and holiday lets, such as Cornwall and the Lake district, councils lack the powers to control housing stock. The last Government promised to legislate to make planning permission a requirement for change of use to holiday lets, as is already the case in Wales. Will this Government deliver on that issue, which is vital to particular communities around the country?

On controlling the proliferation of HMOs, article 4 directions are ultimately a blunt, short-term instrument. They may prevent conversions in one area, but they can shift the problem elsewhere. Vulnerable people must not be pushed into even more precarious housing situations. The only way to genuinely relieve pressure on family homes is to increase the supply of social housing. If sufficient social homes were available, those on the lowest income would not be forced into the private rented sector and HMOs. Family homes would remain available to families and the housing market would function more effectively. That is the fundamental solution.

Where there are genuine problems with antisocial behaviour, waste or parking, councils should use the powers at their disposal. Acceptable behaviour contracts, pioneered in 2003, can be effective in that regard. Additional licensing for HMOs for three or more tenants, which many councils have introduced, sets standards for management and gives authorities real teeth against rogue landlords, but the processes should be simplified for that avenue of action, too.

A comprehensive approach is needed. That means building far more social housing to meet demand, properly licensing and regulating HMOs, and using article 4 directions as part of a wider housing strategy. We must not lose sight of the fundamental need for more social housing.