A Look at Reigate & Banstead’s Article 4 Scheme
If we put the Renters’ Rights Act to one side for a moment, the use of localised tools to regulate the PRS has been increasing fast in recent years. And it is always interesting to look at different local authorities’ ways of doing it and/or justifying it. Reigate and Banstead Borough Council in Surrey have recently announced a borough-wide Article 4 direction to remove permitted development rights and control the creation of Class C4, 3-6 resident or ‘small’ HMOs. We will look at their proposals and their rationale for doing it here.
Reigate and Banstead sits to the southwest of Greater London. It is made up of several towns, including Reigate, Redhill, Horley and Banstead, with a total population around 160,000. It is a popular commuter area and close to Gatwick Airport. It has average house prices well above the national average at £483,000 (ONS figures).
Reigate and Banstead Borough Council is due to be subsumed into the new East Surrey unitary authority in April 2027.
In pursuit of this plan, the Planning Policy team here prepared an evidence report. This was released and discussed by the Planning Committee on 23 July and we will dig into it a little deeper here. It was subsequently decided that the Article 4 direction will be a non-immediate one and, after a consultation which is now in progress and other due processes, will apply from 30 July 2027.
Reigate and Banstead does not seem to have a particularly large HMO sector compared to many other places. It is said to be 11th out of 17 Surrey authorities in this regard. Figures say that as of February 2026 there were 101 licensed HMOs, including 26 large ones and 75 Class 4 ones of a size which makes them liable for licensing.
The report says that since mandatory HMO licensing changes in 2018 the total number of licensed HMOs in the borough has ‘more than doubled’ in overall numbers. Small licensed HMOs have increased by 400%.
The report says that: ‘Complaints relating to HMOs received by the Council’s Planning
Enforcement and Environmental Health teams have also risen notably in the past two
years.’ Again, however, these seem at modest levels compared to many areas. It says planning complaints ranged between two and five annually between 2016 and 2022 but there were 16 in 2025. It says that the number of HMO related environmental health complaints has risen steadily since 2018 but in 2025 alone they doubled.
A check of local media reporting does not reveal news of particular public concerns regarding increasing numbers of HMOs in the district.
The Council also gave some information about the use of landlord enforcement penalties in the borough. It was reported that in 2024-25 their enforcement team issued 17 civil penalties totalling £51,964. In 2025-26 they issued seven penalties totalling £30,515.
The evidence report provides some more information on the reasons the Council believes the Article 4 direction is necessary. It states: ‘If the direction is confirmed, a full planning application would be required for small HMO conversions so that the Council can fully consider each proposal’s location, design, accommodation standards and potential impact on neighbours and communities.’
The Council stresses, however, it is not necessarily seeking to prevent the creation of more HMOs. Cllr. Kate Fairhurst, Executive Member for Place, Planning, and Regulatory Services, has said: “HMOs can provide an important source of lower-cost housing for people who need it, and these proposals are not about preventing them.
“However, we have seen an increase in the number of HMOs in the borough and complaints about them. So, we want to put planning checks in place to help us make sure that future HMOs are in appropriate locations, are well designed, and do not have a negative impact on local communities. Many of our neighbouring councils have already taken similar steps to manage pressures in their local areas.”
Moving on, local authorities considering these measures should have evidence that a problem exists before proposing a solution. Officers here have done some extensive research, using available data including census information, the electoral roll, planning applications and Council Tax records. Their highest estimate suggests that there could be 159 HMOs in the borough which are non-licensable. It also says that numbers of licensed HMOs grew by a third between 2021-2025.
The evidence report says that one of the reasons for introducing the Article 4 direction is that many adjacent districts (four out of six) have them. Suggesting there are concerns about overspill, it says: ‘We also want to ensure that Reigate & Banstead is not left without appropriate safeguards, particularly as neighbouring authorities have introduced Article 4 directions to manage HMO pressures.’
The report gives some information about the locations of known HMOs across the borough. It says these are ‘predominantly located’ in Redhill and Horley, while Reigate, Merstham and Salfords also have ‘reasonably high concentrations’. It says the north of the borough ‘remains relatively unaffected’.
Also stated in the report is that, with the borough being absorbed into East Surrey next year, officers feel it is in the interests of the local area to act now.
In introducing such measures, authorities should consider if other measures are more appropriate. The evidence report refers to additional licensing schemes for small HMOs. However, it suggests Article 4 is something of an easier option. It explains that the Council ‘has not pursued this approach because the threshold for introducing additional licensing is high'.
Interestingly, the report admits that current planning powers to control the creation of more HMOs are actually quite limited. Reigate and Banstead currently has no specific local HMO policy nor supplementary planning document, and there is a lack of baseline information on HMOs in the area. It expresses a hope that both these issues might be addressed in future. The Planning Committee did note, however, that planning controls can be used to enhance the design standards of new HMOs and hopefully improve the quality of them.
Some thoughts
On reading the proposals, some might say that Reigate and Banstead does not seem to have a particular problem with small HMOs. Compared to many areas, it probably does not. But, of course, everything is relative.
The drive to introduce this scheme appears to be based around fast rising HMO numbers and a spike in complaints over just the last year or so. As well as a need to act before the authority is abolished. That most neighbouring authorities have acted to control HMOs is also frequently stated. Keeping up with the Joneses so to speak.
The evidence report does indeed offer a lot of information about what neighbouring local authorities have done and uses it to underpin these proposals. (As an aside what this also shows is that every area is quite different.)
Although the Council have conducted some painstaking research into the HMO market in the borough, perhaps more research would have been useful. It could perhaps have been cross-referenced to the number and nature of complaints and penalties in the different wards. To be fair, of course, this would be a difficult task without more accurate information on the locations of all HMOs. What this also shows is how difficult it is to gather information to support Article 4 HMO schemes.
Does this scheme meet the statutory requirements in the NPPF that Article 4 schemes should only be used where necessary to protect local amenity and wellbeing? (Although proposed changes suggest there could be a more flexible policy in future.) And that they should be based on robust evidence and apply to the smallest possible geographical area? The evidence report is confident that it does. It says that both the level of complaints and use of similar measures in adjacent areas provides ‘strong justification’.
However, on the requirement for Article 4 schemes to cover only the smallest possible area, the report seems at odds with itself. It states that known HMOs are most prevalent in Redhill and Horley followed by Reigate, Merstham and Salfords. While the northern part of the borough has few. The report justifies the scheme by saying that the locations of small HMOs which currently do not need to be licensed is not really clear. It suggests planning controls are the most appropriate way to address this and that they will, additionally, prevent displacement.
Finally, the evidence report mentions the Renters’ Rights Act. It says this is a significant reform that should ‘improve the management and lessen the impact of HMOs’, and it should improve information about the sector. It should allow more accurate data about HMOs to be gathered. It points out, however, it does little on specific HMO planning or licensing controls, and therefore Article 4 directions continue to be relevant.
More information
The consultation on Reigate and Banstead Borough Council’s Article 4 direction runs until 24 September 2026.
More information can be found here.
How Surrey Property Licensing can help
At Surrey Property Licensing we work with landlords, letting agents and property professionals across England on HMO licensing matters. Our services include:
Independent advice on whether your property requires a licence and which regime applies.
Full HMO and selective licence application preparation and submission.
Pre-inspection compliance reviews to identify and remedy issues before council inspection.
Advice on licence conditions and how to meet them cost-effectively.
Representation and expert support in enforcement action, including responding to Notices of Intent and Improvement Notices.
Our background in local authority environmental health and housing enforcement means we understand how councils reach their decisions and what a good application looks like. If you are unsure whether your property needs a licence, or if you need help with a licence application, or enforcement matter, please contact us for a free initial conversation.
