Article 4 policy: evidence and justification

Local planning authorities have a statutory power to make Article 4 Directions, but national policy expects that power to be used for a demonstrated planning purpose and over no more land than is needed to address the harm.

For England, the current national policy is DM10: Removal of national permitted development rights in the National Planning Policy Framework published on 17th August 2026. For the wider changes introduced by that Framework, see our NPPF 2024 vs 2026 comparison.

What DM10 requires

DM10 says the use of Article 4 Directions to remove permitted development rights should:

• be limited to situations where it is necessary to protect local amenity or the wellbeing of the area
• be based on robust evidence
• apply to the smallest area required to mitigate the evidenced harm

The policy gives examples of the first limb, including safeguarding against the demolition of local facilities, preventing an over-concentration of uses which could affect quality of life such as small HMOs, and supporting the vitality and viability of parts of town centres.

This is current national policy. It replaced the previous NPPF approach in August 2026.

Evidence should identify the harm, not merely the development right

A council should be able to explain the planning harm it is trying to address and why removing the particular permitted development right is a necessary response.

That normally means the evidence needs to connect:

• the development or change of use occurring under the permitted development right
• the local planning harm said to result
• the geographical area where that harm is evidenced
• the reason normal GPDO controls are insufficient
• the proposed Article 4 boundary and the right being withdrawn

An authority does not strengthen its case simply by drawing a larger boundary. DM10 expressly links the area of the direction to the area required to mitigate the evidenced harm.

Can an Article 4 Direction cover a whole borough?

DM10 does not contain a rule saying that a borough-wide direction is automatically invalid. The question is whether the authority can demonstrate that the evidenced harm and the response justify that extent.

A large direction therefore needs evidence capable of supporting a large area. If the evidence is concentrated in a few neighbourhoods, the requirement to use the smallest area required may point towards a more targeted boundary.

The same logic works in the other direction. Where the evidence genuinely demonstrates a problem throughout an authority’s area, the fact that a direction is extensive does not by itself answer the policy question.

HMO Article 4 Directions under the 2026 NPPF

The 2026 NPPF expressly identifies the possible over-concentration of small Houses in Multiple Occupation as an example of the kind of harm which may justify an Article 4 Direction.

That does not create a presumption that every area with HMOs should have a direction. The other requirements still apply. The authority should have robust evidence and the boundary should be no larger than required to mitigate the evidenced harm.

For existing and proposed controls see our Article 4 HMO map.

The Planning Practice Guidance has not fully caught up

The government’s Planning Practice Guidance on Article 4 Directions remains useful for the statutory procedure and general explanation of how directions work. However, at the time this page was checked, its paragraph on when an Article 4 Direction is appropriate still reproduced parts of the older pre-August 2026 NPPF policy, including the former special test for changes from non-residential to residential use.

That wording should not be mistaken for the current NPPF test. Where there is a conflict, the 17th August 2026 NPPF is the current national policy document. The guidance is supporting material and is awaiting alignment with the new Framework.

Policy is separate from the statutory power and procedure

DM10 is national planning policy. The legal power to make a direction and the procedural requirements come from Article 4 of the GPDO and Schedule 3.

A sound review therefore needs both questions:

• has the authority used the statutory power and procedure correctly?
• is the purpose and geographical extent supported by the current policy and evidence?

For the legislation and procedure see our dedicated Article 4 legislation page.

More Article 4 resources

Article 4 directions can affect different permitted development rights and different areas. Use the index for the complete section, or go straight to the topic you need.

Article 4 Policy Page Created: 19th September 2026