Houses in Multiple Occupation

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing this important debate. I also thank those other hon. Members who have made contributions.

I appreciate fully the concerns that the hon. Member for Ashfield raises about houses in multiple occupation. HMOs can play an important role in the housing market, providing relatively low-cost accommodation for rent. However, it is right that local planning authorities can act, where appropriate, to minimise any negative impacts that such houses may have on local communities.

The hon. Gentleman made a number of points concerning the interaction between HMOs and the planning system. Larger HMOs always require an application to the local planning authority for planning permission. However, national permitted development rights allow for existing homes to change use to a small HMO for up to six people without the need for a planning application. Such smaller HMOs are also able to change back to a standard family home under similar rights.

We do recognise that the free operation of the national permitted development rights is not always suitable for all areas. That is why, where there is sufficient evidence of the need to protect local amenity or the wellbeing of an area, local planning authorities can remove permitted development rights in a specific area by means of introducing an article 4 direction, following consultation with the affected local community.

[Mr Mohindra]

I am well-versed with the Minister through our work on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Will he consider looking at reducing the threshold from six individuals to four? I am finding in Three Rivers that several of the homes are probably inappropriate for six distinct individuals but may be appropriate for four. Unless the evidence threshold is there for an article 4 direction, I have communities that will be impacted significantly, unless we are able to change something here.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. I will come on to say how we are keeping regulation under review, but I note the point he makes.

Once an article 4 direction is in place, any change of use to either a large or small HMO requires an application for planning permission. All such applications are considered by the relevant local planning authority, in line with the development plan for the area and in consultation with the local community. A clear and up-to-date local plan policy for HMOs can support assessment of future applications. I know the struggle of the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) with his local authority to get an up-to-date local plan in place.

Whether any given local planning authority chooses to consult on introducing an article 4 direction to remove the national permitted development rights that I have referenced is ultimately a decision for it to take. It is not something that the Government seek to influence in any part of the country. We do not believe that the process is costly or burdensome, and approximately 75 councils have put in place article 4 directions for HMOs in parts of their authority area—although I note that Ashfield district council has no article 4 directions in place for small HMOs. The hon. Member for Ashfield may wish to take that up with his local authority.

In addition, the Government recently consulted on a new national planning policy framework. That consultation includes proposals relating to article 4 direction policy, proposing a more flexible approach so that local planning authorities can remove national permitted development rights where it is necessary to protect the amenity or wellbeing of an area—for instance, where there is an over-concentration of small HMOs. We are currently analysing the feedback received and will publish our response in due course.

Turning to HMO licensing, it is, of course, crucial that HMOs are safe and well managed. That is why all HMOs are subject to management regulations. Those regulations place duties on managers of HMOs—typically, the landlords—to take safety measures, supply and maintain gas and electricity, and maintain common parts, fixtures and fittings.

In addition, all local planning authorities must license HMOs with five or more people from two or more households who share facilities, such as a kitchen or bathroom. Local planning authorities also have the power to require HMOs to be licensed where three or more people from two or more households are sharing facilities. This means that most HMOs can be licensed where necessary.

Local planning authorities can also impose licence conditions to ensure that landlords effectively manage HMOs. For example, a local authority may require a landlord to put in place measures to prevent or reduce antisocial behaviour by occupants or visitors. Local planning authorities have robust powers to tackle landlords who breach HMO regulations, including the ability to issue civil penalties of up to £40,000 for offences committed from 1 May, rent repayment orders and, for the worst offenders, banning orders.

The Government want to ensure that councils have the capacity to take action where needed. That is why we have provided £18.2 million in 2025-26, and £41.1 million in 2026-27, to support the new enforcement responsibilities that local authorities are taking on under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. We plan to establish a sustainable funding system for enforcement in the private rented sector over the long term, based on future database fee revenues.

It is obviously not the responsibility of my Department, but the hon. Member for Ashfield raised the issue of asylum accommodation, so let me briefly set out the Government’s position. Under the previous Conservative Government, asylum decision making ground to a halt and hotel use spiralled to around 400 sites, costing £9 million a day at its peak. This Labour Government are determined to end the use of hotels for asylum seekers as quickly as possible in this Parliament, but we intend to do so in an orderly fashion.

[Lee Anderson]

What would the Minister advise me or my local authority to do to stop HMOs kicking out working people in Ashfield and putting in illegal migrants?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. They are on the record, and I will pass them on to the relevant Ministers in the Home Office. The Home Office is working in collaboration with other Government Departments to deliver accommodation across a range of sites, including larger, more basic accommodation, and the action we have taken to date means that the number of hotels is down to 190—around half of what it was under the previous Government. We want to find the right balance, and dispersed accommodation, including HMOs, is an important tool that local authorities can use to accommodate those seeking refuge as their claims are assessed. The Home Office will continue to work closely with my Department to explore a model of asylum accommodation that achieves value for money and supports asylum system reform, and the Government will provide further detail in due course.

Local planning authorities already have powers to limit the proliferation of HMOs. They already benefit from, or can deploy, licensing powers to ensure that HMOs are safe and well managed, and they have robust powers to ensure that landlords of HMOs comply with all relevant regulations. If local planning authorities are struggling to apply these powers effectively or feel that they are lacking, I want to know. To the point made by hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), we will keep the regulation of HMOs under review. I know that this is a concern to a number of Members across the House, and I am more than willing to continue to engage with Members on both sides on this important policy area.

Question put and agreed to.