Civic Signal GUEST
ROWS
API PATHS
Docs Sign in
Browsing as a guest. A free key raises the rate limit.

Decision - Private Sector Housing: Discretionary licensing evidence

Brighton and Hove Housing Committee Decided 15 Mar 2023 for determination GET /api/coverage
Decision maker
Housing Committee
Report author
Diane Hughes
Published
16 Mar 2023
Reference
6891

As published

the council's own words, unedited

RESOLVED: 2.1 That Housing Committee notes the findings of the Private Sector Housing: Housing Stock Condition & Stressors Report that evidences the need for a citywide approach to discretionary licensing (Appendix 1). 2.2 That Housing Committee approves Option 3 (see 3.31), which will be subject to 12 weeks of consultation (to commence once a revised fee structure is agreed by Members). This is: (1) Citywide Additional HMO Licensing covering properties which have two or more storeys, and three or more tenants are living there as more than one household. (2) Selective Licensing on all non-HMO private rented sector homes in four wards where the evidence demonstrates a clear link between poor property conditions, deprivation and private rented homes. These wards (1) are: Kemptown, Moulsecoomb & Bevendean, Queen's Park and Whitehawk & Marina. With a further option in 13 wards in the city on the grounds of poor property conditions. These wards are: Brunswick & Adelaide, Central Hove, Goldsmid, Hanover & Elm Grove, Hollingdean & Fiveways, Preston Park, Regency, Rottingdean & West Saltdean, Round Hill, South Portslade, West Hill & North Laine, Westbourne & Poets Corner and Wish. 2.3 That Housing Committee notes that the Budget Review Group has provided £100,000 to fund non-recoverable costs (such as consultation) needed in developing a scheme and that budget council has allocated a further £20,000. 2.4 That Housing Committee requests the findings of the consultation and appropriate recommendations be brought back to a future committee for Member decision. (1) New Brighton & Hove wards from May 2023

Parsed from the document

gpt-5.6-luna-2026-07-09 · 16093/1527 tokens · 11068ms · parsed 9 Sep 2026 11:56
Everything below was read out of a PDF by a model It is useful and it is not authoritative. The document it came from is linked in the rail, and where the two disagree the document is right.

The report reviews Brighton & Hove’s private rented sector and houses in multiple occupation, using housing stock data and modelling to assess tenure, hazards, complaints, energy efficiency and antisocial behaviour. It finds that the private rented sector has grown substantially and that thousands of rented properties and HMOs may contain serious hazards, providing an evidence base for future housing policy and service interventions.

Recommendation
Use the report’s findings and modelling as an evidence base to develop Brighton & Hove’s housing strategy, target action on poor housing and inform policy decisions, including possible property licensing schemes.
Financial impact
None stated
Ward affected
city-wide
Date in document
1 Mar 2023

Stakeholders named

parsed
Private tenantsPrivate landlordsHouses in Multiple Occupation residents and landlordsBrighton & Hove City Council housing and private sector housing servicesResidents affected by poor housing conditions, fuel poverty and antisocial behaviour

Next steps

parsed
  • Use the report as an evidence base for developing and delivering Brighton & Hove’s housing strategy.
  • Develop targeted approaches to tackling poor housing and related housing stressors.
  • Use the findings to inform policy decisions, including consideration of property licensing schemes under Parts 2 and 3 of the Housing Act 2004.

Precedents

not built
"Decided elsewhere" is not built Finding the same decision in other councils needs semantic matching over decision text, which is part of the search rewrite. Until then, the council's own decisions list is the way through.
Documents
Who voted
Not extracted
Recorded votes are published in the minutes but we do not yet parse them into a direction per councillor. This page will not guess at one.
Watch this
Not built
Following a decision would ask you for a channel — email or webhook — at the point of following, with no default. Neither channel exists yet.
GET /api/coverage