•Article 4 Direction • Additional Licensing

  • Article 4 Direction (A4D ) requiring permission to let to HMOs - is off the menu for now - but …
    • There are a number of Councillors and residents unhappy about the Council’s decision to postpone this.
    • The Council's decision is based on a lack of sufficient evidence presently to support an A4D.
    • The door has been left ajar to allow new evidence to be furnished to justify some resident and councillor calls for A4D .
    • The threat of Judicial Review was sufficient to ensure the Council did not act ulta-vires. 
    • One resident misinterpreted the legitimate threat of Judicial review as "the language of intimidation".  
    • Is it intimidating to threaten to seek a legal remedy in the event the Council acts unlawfully?  Sounds like an oxymoron. 
    • A new survey is likely to bring A4D back to the table.
    • Canterbury Council will again discuss this in November 2012
    • In November the Council will publish details of The Local Plan and may encompass A4D.
    • For more info see the forum links an this topic.
  • Additional Licensing (not the same as Mandatory Licensing)
    • This is more serious than A4Ds and carries more onerous costs and bureaucracy.
    • It is unlikely to be introduced, particularly in the absence of Art 4. 
    • A4D requires evidence to support the need for it.  Additional Licensing requires significantly more evidence. 
    • However, should Article 4 be implemented AND were the problems in communities to persist then Additional Licensing would logically follow. 
    • Without sufficient evidence to justify Article 4, there would never be enough evidence to support Additional Licensing in Canterbury.
    • The two concepts are thus potentially linked.