The Liverpool HMO Article 4 proposal would extend planning controls into five more parts of the city after the Council found small HMOs grew far faster outside the existing boundary. Cabinet is due to consider the plan on Tuesday 13th October 2026.
If Cabinet approves the move, the Council says the additional Directions would take immediate effect. But as at 5th October, the proposal has not been approved and no new Direction has been made, so the new areas are not yet subject to these proposed controls.
The Council’s figures point to a marked difference in growth: small HMOs rose by 15% inside the existing boundary over three years, compared with 57% elsewhere. A separate city-wide survey drew 1,070 responses, with 80.7% supporting an extension.
Need planning advice?
If you are planning an HMO or change of use, we can help you check the planning position and understand your next steps.
The five areas proposed for new Liverpool HMO Article 4 controls
The Liverpool HMO Article 4 proposal identifies five geographical groups rather than a city-wide Direction:
- Kirkdale, Everton, County, Walton, Orrell Park and part of Fazakerley
- Part of Tuebrook Larkhill
- Old Swan and part of Stoneycroft
- Penny Lane and part of Calderstones
- St Michaels and Sefton Park
These descriptions are not a substitute for a boundary map. If Cabinet agrees the proposal, the formal Direction and its map will matter: street names and ward labels can be an imprecise guide to whether a particular property falls within the boundary.
The five groups would add to Liverpool’s existing HMO controls. The Council’s current HMO planning guidance says planning permission is already required for a change to a small HMO of three or more people within the existing Article 4 area. The proposed extensions have not yet been incorporated into that guidance.
Why the Council wants to widen the boundary
The Council says HMOs account for between 3% and 4.6% of Liverpool’s housing stock. Its comparison of growth inside and outside the current boundary is the key reason for the proposed extensions: small HMOs increased by about 15% within the existing area over three years, against about 57% in the rest of the city.
That difference is consistent with growth moving more quickly beyond the controlled area, but the headline figures alone do not establish that the existing Direction caused the increase elsewhere. The Cabinet report and supporting evidence will be important for understanding how the Council selected these five locations, what it counted as a small HMO and how it assessed concentrations and displacement.
The Council also says its survey, carried out during August and early September, received 1,070 responses. Of those respondents, 80.7% supported extending Article 4 controls. That is a substantial expression of support among people who took part, although it should not be read as a representative vote of every Liverpool resident unless the survey method and sample support that conclusion.
The Council’s stated case is to give planners a chance to assess the location of new HMOs, including the concentration of existing accommodation, loss of family housing, effects on neighbourhood character and possible pressure on parking, waste services and community facilities.
What the proposed Direction would change
In England, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 grants the relevant permitted development right under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class L(b). In broad terms, this allows a change from a dwellinghouse in Use Class C3 to a small HMO in Use Class C4, normally housing between three and six unrelated people who share basic facilities, without a planning application.
The Liverpool HMO Article 4 proposal would withdraw that permitted development right within a defined area. If a valid Direction covering one of the proposed locations is made and takes effect, a qualifying C3-to-C4 change there would need planning permission. The Direction would not ban HMOs. It would require the planning merits of a proposal to be assessed against relevant policy and site-specific considerations.
Nor would a new Direction automatically make an existing lawful HMO unlawful. It removes a permitted development route for development within its scope. The starting point for any particular property would still depend on its planning history, existing use, the precise Direction and whether the relevant change of use has already taken place.
The Article 4 planning test is also separate from HMO licensing. A landlord may need to consider both regimes, but a licence does not itself grant planning permission. Planning Geek’s guides explain Class L, Use Class C4 and the HMO Article 4 map.
Why “immediate” matters, and what it does not mean
The Council says the additional Directions would take immediate effect if Cabinet approves them. An immediate Direction can remove the specified permitted development right from the date it comes into force, rather than waiting for a later date after the usual lead-in period associated with a non-immediate Direction.
But this is not simply a way to skip the statutory process. Government guidance says immediate Directions covering development under Parts 1 to 4 or 11 of the GPDO may be made where the development presents an immediate threat to local amenity or prejudices the proper planning of an area, and the authority must already have begun consultation towards a non-immediate Direction.
The Cabinet papers should explain how Liverpool considers those tests and the earlier city-wide survey in this case. Government guidance on Article 4 Directions sets out the framework.
However, Cabinet approval is not itself the same thing as a formally made Direction. The legal instrument must be made, publicised and brought into force in accordance with the General Permitted Development Order. The actual instrument and notice will establish the operative date and mapped boundary. The proposal announcement does not yet give those details.
An immediate Direction is also time-limited unless confirmed. The local planning authority must confirm it within six months of the date it comes into force if it is to remain in force. The Council’s announcement says statutory consultation would begin after Cabinet approval, with representations considered before a later decision on confirmation. The final notice should set out the consultation arrangements and dates.
We therefore need to distinguish three events: Cabinet deciding whether to proceed, the Council formally making and bringing each Direction into force, and the later decision whether to confirm it. Until the second event occurs, the proposed extension is not operative. If made, the Direction and notice will show whether the five areas share dates or differ.
Compensation is possible, but not automatic
Immediate withdrawal of a permitted development right can raise a compensation issue. Class L of Part 3 is prescribed by regulation 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Compensation) (England) Regulations 2015. For that prescribed right, section 108(2A) sets a 12-month window beginning on the date the Direction takes effect for a qualifying planning application to be made. A route to excluding compensation liability can apply where the authority gives the prescribed 12 months’ notice before the withdrawal takes effect; an immediate Direction does not provide that lead-in.
Sections 107 and 108 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Compensation) (England) Regulations 2015 govern the relevant framework. The Government’s planning guidance explains that an authority may face liability where, after an Article 4 Direction takes effect, a qualifying planning application is made and permission is refused or granted subject to conditions in circumstances where the development would otherwise have been permitted.
That does not mean every owner or landlord affected by an immediate Direction is automatically entitled to compensation. The statutory tests, the type of right withdrawn, timing, notice and the outcome of any planning application all matter. The Cabinet report and the eventual Directions should be checked for the Council’s assessment of potential exposure. Planning Geek has a practical guide to Article 4 compensation claims.
What landlords, buyers and residents should do now
For now, owners and purchasers in the five areas should not assume that the proposed new controls are already in force. Equally, a purchase or conversion decision should not rely on the press announcement alone. Check the current Article 4 map and planning history, and review the Council’s formal papers after the Cabinet meeting.
If Cabinet approves the proposal, the next documents to look for are the actual Directions, their mapped boundaries, the statutory notices, consultation dates and the six-month confirmation deadline. Those documents will answer whether a particular address is covered, when the right is withdrawn and how representations can be made.
Councillor Nick Small, Cabinet Member for Growth and Economy, said the proposals would give the Council “greater oversight of new HMOs” and help protect family housing. Councillor Hetty Wood, Cabinet Member for Housing, said HMOs “provide an important housing option for many people” and would continue to have a place in the city. Both comments reflect the stated balance: the Council is not proposing to exclude shared housing, but to scrutinise where new small HMOs are created.
The key test after 13th October will be whether the evidence and boundaries justify the extension, and whether the Direction is made with clear notice and a workable transition. Until then, the Liverpool HMO Article 4 proposal is still under consideration, not a change to the planning rules on the ground.
0 Comments