Editor's note: This brief was summarised by The Property AI Newsroom from a report by Property118. Read the original article for full details.
ELA-backed report questions Norwich licensing proposals
A detailed report has been prepared to help the Eastern Landlords Association (ELA) scrutinise Norwich City Council's proposed licensing schemes. It identifies specific questions the council needs to answer before requiring thousands of landlords to pay for a new licensing regime.
According to ELA's account of the Cabinet decision, Norwich approved consultation on 9 September 2026. That was approval to consult only; the schemes themselves have yet to receive final approval. The proposals include selective licensing for around 6,300 privately rented properties in Nelson, Mile Cross, Sewell and Town Close, alongside a separate citywide additional licensing scheme covering around 1,100 HMOs. The proposed standard fees are £700 and £1,000 respectively, with licences normally lasting up to five years. The council's proposed fee document provides for payment in two stages and some discounts.
Questions over evidence and figures
The report raises concerns about the comparison between housing hazards in Norwich and the national picture. The council's stock condition report compares a national figure of 10% for privately rented homes with Category 1 hazards against a Norwich estimate of 11.2% that includes both Category 1 and higher-scoring Category 2 hazards. The figures measure different things.
There is also an apparent mismatch in the anti-social behaviour figures. For Nelson, the narrative describes 160 ASB cases, while Table 8 of the stock report lists 160 HMO notices and nine HMO ASB incidents. The report argues Norwich should explain the source of the narrative figure and whether categories have been confused. These HMO figures also need to be distinguished from the evidence supporting selective licensing of other rented homes.
Legal framework and alternatives
Under section 81 of the Housing Act 2004, a council must consider other available ways of achieving its objectives and consider that designation will significantly assist. While Norwich's papers do discuss alternatives, the report asks whether the comparison adequately explains the additional benefit licensing would provide, including comparison with a properly resourced programme of targeted inspections, enforcement against persistent offenders, landlord education and coordinated work on anti-social behaviour.
The proposed licence conditions also merit examination. In Brown v Hyndburn Borough Council [2018] EWCA Civ 242, the Court of Appeal identified limits on using general selective licensing powers to regulate property condition. That gives grounds to question the breadth of Norwich's proposed general hazard condition, while specific statutory safety requirements continue to apply.
Next steps for landlords and agents
The report sets out the arguments, their limitations and the further evidence needed, and explains consultation, information requests, councillor scrutiny and the circumstances in which a court challenge might become appropriate. Landlords and tenants should be able to understand what improvement the scheme is expected to deliver, how that will be measured and why the chosen approach is justified.
Source: Property118