I read with concern the article by Michael Davies in The Argus of May 12 headed “More smaller homes in multiple occupation.”

It referred to the 1,500 small shared houses in five wards in Brighton that are required to be licenced under an additional licensing scheme introduced by Brighton and Hove City Council.

The regulations concerning the introduction of such schemes are that the local authority has to establish high levels of mismanagement or antisocial behaviour.

The scheme has nothing to do with property standards and, in fact, Government states that there is no need for local authorities to inspect.

However, Brighton and Hove City Council inspects every one and, moreover, the emphasis is mainly on physical standards and not management standards.

Some of the physical requirements set by the council are not only unreasonable, they are unnecessary, and appealing is a prolonged process.

Assuming an average cost of £485 for each licence, the cost to the landlords of the 1,500 properties mentioned is almost £730,000. That is before any works are completed. This scheme (which can only last for five years) has therefore been very costly for most landlords, with little benefit, contrary to what Bill Randall, chairman of the Housing Committee, says. What it has done is increased rents to cover these costs.

The news also suggests that more shared houses are being created, which is incorrect, as the article does not comment on Article 4 implementation, which restricts new shared houses being created without planning permission.

Also omitted is that once a property is a shared house it cannot be let to a family at any time, otherwise it loses its right to be a shared house. In other words, instead of landlords being able to let to sharers or to families, once Article 4 was introduced it meant once a share house, always a shared house – to the detriment of families wishing to occupy such houses when they are not let to sharers.

Brighton and Hove City Council recognises that private landlords are the biggest provider of accommodation in this city, and are often housing the economically poor who would normally be housed in social housing, which is now simply unavailable.

Instead of introducing restrictive practices, it should talk with private landlords’ associations so we can have an input that is effective on the future of rented housing in the city.

Mike Stimpson, chair, Southern Landlords’ Association