Residents across Grantham are rightly worried about the rise in small Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) cropping up in residential streets without consultation or oversight. These conversions bring more cars, more pressure on local services, and too often, more noise and anti-social behaviour.

That’s why at Monday’s extraordinary meeting, Conservative councillors Sue Woolley and Gareth Knight tabled two practical, reasonable motions to bring some order and transparency to the system.

  • Cllr Woolley’s motion would have initiated the process of introducing an Article 4 Direction, which would remove automatic planning rights for small HMOs and require proper applications and consultation. It also called for complete public transparency on HMO licences and an end to licensing decisions made by officers only.
  • Cllr Knight’s motion aimed to establish a voluntary landlord register, monitor the use of Section 21 “no-fault” evictions, and prepare for the new Renters Rights Bill to prevent unfair evictions of tenants.

Both motions were lawful, time-sensitive, and directly linked to real concerns in Grantham and Bourne. Other councils – Lincoln, Nottingham, Rushcliffe, North Lincolnshire – are already doing precisely this.

Instead of debating them, Labour and Independent councillors voted to kick both motions into the long grass, sending them to committees for “further consideration”. That means no action, no decision, and no reassurance for residents who are already living with the consequences.

Let’s be honest: this wasn’t about procedure, it was about avoidance. The argument that HMOs are “too complex” for debate is undermined by neighbouring councils that have already implemented the same approach. The Conservatives weren’t proposing a rushed ban, only a consultation — the legally required first step. Blocking even that discussion isn’t good governance; it’s political evasion.

The situation is becoming urgent. Sixteen new HMO licences have been issued across Grantham this year alone, with Serco holding five for asylum accommodation. Residents deserve to know where these properties are and who’s responsible for managing them. Transparency shouldn’t be controversial.

The refusal to debate this issue sends the wrong message: that public concern can be delayed indefinitely behind procedure. But planning rules won’t tighten themselves, and once family homes are converted, they rarely come back into the market.

This isn’t about party politics, it’s about protecting neighbourhoods, ensuring fairness for tenants, and giving residents a voice. Conservatives brought forward a solution; the administration chose to silence it.

If South Kesteven District Councillors want to keep public confidence, they should start by listening — not deflecting.