Birmingham: Voluntary Removal of Letting Boards

At Purple Frog, we’re no strangers to the debates that shape the lettings market- especially when it comes to balancing local regulations, community concerns, and the practical realities of property marketing.

MP Al Carns along with a number of local councillors and a representative from the Police and Guild of Students has written to a large number of letting agents and landlords around Selly Oak in Birmingham regarding the display of letting boards.

I'm sharing the letter from Al Carns and our reply.

---

The Council’s Concerns: A Call for Voluntary Removal

In a letter from March, 2025, Al Carns MP—alongside local councillors, police, and student representatives—raised several issues about the proliferation of letting boards in Selly Oak:

• Breaches of Planning Regulations: The letter highlights alleged violations of the Town and Country Planning Regulations, including boards remaining up beyond the 14-day post-let window and exceeding size or quantity limits.

• Safety Risks: Authorities argue that letting boards inadvertently signal student homes to burglars, given the high concentration of valuable electronics in these properties.

• Visual Clutter: Residents have complained about the "unsightly" impact of excessive boards on the area’s aesthetics.

• Redundancy in the Digital Age: The letter claims that students no longer rely on physical boards, with online platforms dominating property searches.

The council’s proposed solution? A voluntary removal of boards from 28 specified roads, backed by the threat of enforcement via Community Protection Notices (CPNs) for non-compliance.

---

Our Response: Why a Voluntary Approach Won’t Work

In our reply dated April 4, 2025, we acknowledged the council’s concerns but challenged the effectiveness and fairness of their proposal. Here’s why:

• We Comply, Others Don’t: We strictly adhere to planning regulations (e.g., rotating boards, timely removal). However, past voluntary schemes failed because non-compliant agents exploited the system, gaining an unfair advantage while penalising those who played by the voluntary rules.

• Safety Claims Overstated: Burglars don’t need boards to identify student homes- Selly Oak’s demographics are well-known. Instead, we proposed collaborative efforts like improved CCTV or lighting.

• Boards Still Drive Business: Contrary Al Carns assertion, around 50% of our enquiries come directly from calls to our office and directly from our website, rather than the large property portals;  letting boards help to direct potential tenants and landlords to our website or office. Removing them would harm visibility without addressing root issues.

• The Flaw in Enforcement: Threatening CPNs for compliant boards is legally dubious and risks creating a patchwork of compliance, rewarding rogue operators.

Rather than a voluntary scheme, we urged the council to consider an Article 4 Direction - a blanket policy requiring planning permission for all boards. This would:

• Level the playing field for all agents.

• Simplify enforcement.

• Eliminate boards entirely if desired, reducing costs for agents.

---

The Bottom Line

While we share the goal of a cleaner, safer Selly Oak, the approach set out in the Al Carn's letter misses the mark. Voluntary measures disproportionately punish compliant agents, while unenforceable threats ignore the realities of property marketing. A mandatory, structured solution- like an Article 4 Direction- would be far more effective.

We’re open to working with the council on this, but fairness and enforceability must come first. For now, we’ll continue to operate within the law, ensuring our boards serve their purpose without compromising the community.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments or drop us an email. And if you’d like to read the full letters, you can find them here:

• Letter from Al Carns MP et al.

• Our Response