Milton Keynes HMO case: consultation and permitted development
R (Milton Keynes Council and others) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWCA Civ 1575 concerned the consultation behind national changes to small-HMO permitted development rights.
Milton Keynes, Oxford and Newcastle challenged the 2010 legislation. Their appeal failed, but the court did not give public authorities unrestricted freedom to select consultees or disregard consultation fairness.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2011] EWCA Civ 1575
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Judgment date
- 16th December 2011
- Judge
- Pill LJ, Arden LJ and McFarlane LJ
- Case number
- C1/2011/1243
Two changes of policy in 2010
Following a broad consultation in 2009, legislation introduced the C4 small-HMO class and required permission for changes from a dwellinghouse to that class.
After the 2010 general election, the new Government adopted a different approach: a permitted development right for the change, with local restrictions available through Article 4 directions. Associated compensation regulations were also changed.
The legal challenge concerned whether local planning authorities had been sufficiently consulted before those national instruments were made.
Fairness includes choosing the consultees
The Secretary of State argued that the councils could not complain because they were not selected for direct consultation. Paragraph 32 rejects that general proposition.
A fair exercise requires fairness in deciding whom to consult, as well as in the questions asked and time allowed. The decision-maker cannot routinely pick and choose without regard to the circumstances.
Why the limited consultation was upheld
The recent 2009 consultation was central. It had already put the option later selected by the new Government before local authorities and allowed detailed representations.
The Government knew about the objections. The council also learned of the further exercise and responded. No significant new issue was identified which required the whole consultation to be repeated.
In that context, the Court of Appeal held that a more limited consultation could be lawful and dismissed the appeal. It did not need to decide the separate argument about the effect of Parliamentary scrutiny on the consultation duty.
This does not approve every HMO Article 4 direction
The judgment explains the history of the national regime and a particular consultation challenge. It did not rule that every borough-wide direction is justified, or that every later local consultation is adequate.
Likewise, its description of the 2010 GPDO class and compensation provisions is historical. A current direction must be considered against the applicable legislation, its own evidence and procedure.
For the wider distinction between political views and a legally closed mind in planning decisions, see Lewis v Redcar and Cleveland. That is a different question from the consultation issue decided here.
Read the Milton Keynes judgment
Gold Members can read the complete Court of Appeal judgment below.
Milton Keynes HMO Case Law Page Updated: 12th September 2026