Plans to curb houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) in parts of North Tyneside have been criticised as insufficient by opposition councillors. The local authority’s ruling Labour group announced that a ‘non-immediate’ Article 4 Direction is now in force in areas where a concentration of HMOs has been identified.
Areas affected and timeline
The direction applies to Wallsend Central, Howdon, Chirton and Percy Main, North Shields, Whitley Bay North, Cullercoats and Whitley South, Forest Hall, and Longbenton and Benton. Extra planning checks will only come into force in a year’s time, following a 28-day consultation period.
The council’s Reform opposition group had called for an immediate Article 4 Direction covering the whole borough. Labour argued that an immediate direction could expose the council to compensation claims from property owners.
Opposition criticism
Reform councillor Richard Oliver questioned how many small HMOs could be created in the affected areas before controls take effect. “How many additional small HMOs does the council forecast or expect will be created in Wallsend, Howdon, Chirton, Percy Main during the next 12-15 months before additional planning controls take effect?” he asked. He added: “After today’s announcement, the choice could hardly be clearer, article four now or article after at least another 12 months. We believe our communities should have that additional planning protection now.”
Labour’s amendment stated that an immediate direction would “not be appropriate” and that residents “deserve action that is legally robust”. Councillor Oliver responded: “At the minute to me, it just feels like we are hiding behind a bit of legalese around the word ‘robust’ and I don’t think that’s good enough for residents.”
Conservative councillor Liam Bones warned of a potential loophole: “If you need planning permission for a HMO in North Shields but you don’t need permission for a HMO over the road in Preston, then landlords will flood into the areas that aren’t included in this direction, where there isn’t regulation.”
Council defends approach
Cabinet member for regeneration and economic development, councillor Charlie Grey, said: “This motion as amended, is about doing this properly, making sure that taxpayers’ money is not siphoned off into the pockets of property developers and making sure our communities get the lasting change they need and the protection that comes with. Rather than firing off from the hip and doing something that ends up in court and ends up with money paid to property developers, and the protection not given to the communities that need it.”
After the meeting, councillor Oliver said: “The result is simple: residents wait, while HMO developers retain their existing rights. We believe residents should come first.”
