Appeal 6005153

The appeal is dismissed.

Enfield’s New Local Plan 2019-2041 (NLP) is currently at Regulation 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. Whilst not formally adopted, the NLP is at a stage in accordance with Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) whereby it is a material consideration and capable of carrying weight in the determination of this appeal. The main parties do not dispute that the NLP is at an advanced stage of preparation; however, there is disagreement as to how much weight it should be afforded. As emerging policies are still subject to change and without prejudice to the examining Inspector, I give NLP Policy H11 limited weight. The Enfield Development Management Document 2014 (DMD) and [name] 2010-2025 ([name]) therefore remains the adopted plan.

The appellant has indicated that the development has been completed. From the evidence before me, the appeal premise (No 27) is being used as an HMO. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis, and planning permission is sought retrospectively for the change of use.

The main parties have drawn my attention to an [name] having been issued against the current use1. Any enforcement process is a separate matter and falls outside the scope of my assessment, which must focus on the planning merits of the appeal proposal.

On 9 June 2023, planning permission2 was granted for the redevelopment of the appeal site, amongst other things, to provide 4 single-family dwellings, of which the appeal site and the adjoining property (No 25) form part. 1 ENF/24/1309 2 21/03370/FUL – Original planning permission

The appellant has drawn my attention to planning permission granted on 15 October 2025 for the change of use of the adjoining property (No 25) from a residential dwelling (Use Class C3) to a large HMO ([name]).

The main issue in this appeal is the suitability of the development, having regard to the development plans approach to the provision of HMOs and the effect on the living conditions of existing nearby occupants.

The appeal site (No 27) is a three-storey, 4-bedroom semi-detached dwelling located in an area predominantly characterised by similar properties, although there were some detached properties fronting the tree-lined road. During my site visit (late afternoon) I observed that this suburban residential area was reasonably quiet, and I could clearly hear a conversation being carried out through an open window in No 27.

Policy CP5 of the [name] seeks to ensure that new developments offer a range of housing sizes to meet housing needs. Policy DMD37 of the DMD looks to ensure that development is suitable for its intended function, is appropriate to its context, and has appropriate regard to its surroundings.

Policy DMD 6 of the DMD relates to residential character and seeks to ensure that development is of a density appropriate to the locality. Policy DMD 8 of the DMD states that new residential development must preserve amenity including in terms of noise and disturbance.

Policy DMD5 of the DMD is specific to residential conversions. The supporting text alongside this Policy acknowledges that these play an important role in increasing housing supply, but acknowledges that the uncontrolled intensification of residential uses can lead to unacceptable change in the character of established residential areas, which impact on residential amenity. Criterion b. sets out a presumption against granting permission for conversions of existing units to flats and HMOs where there is harm to the residential character of the area or development results in an excessive number or clustering of conversions. It sets out that the number of conversions must not exceed 20% of all properties along any road, and only [address] of 5 units may be converted.

While the Council acknowledges that the number of conversions would not result in more than 20% of properties along the road, there is no dispute between the parties that the adjoining property (No 25) is an HMO, and that two consecutive properties would be converted. This would therefore result in a clustering of such uses. In my mind, two HMOs located together, rather than being dispersed throughout the street, would change the character of the immediate area.

Policy H11 of the emerging NLP indicates that residential conversions will only be permitted, amongst other matters, if the proposal does not harm the residential character of the area or result in an excessive number or clustering of conversions. While this emerging policy omits any reference to consecutive rows, it does state that development will only be permitted if, amongst other matters, it does not harm the character of the area or result in an excessive number of clustering of conversions, with the number of conversions not exceeding 20% of all properties along any street or road.

Policy H11 goes on to state that the uncontrolled intensified use of residential housing stock through conversions can lead to unacceptable change to the character of established residential areas and may result in a detrimental impact on residential amenity. Therefore, the Council will seek to ensure that development does not lead to an unacceptable overconcentration of dwelling house conversions on any street in the Borough. I have found above that while the conversion would not exceed 20%, two consecutive conversions to HMO’s would result in clustering and that this would have an effect on the character of the immediate area.

Moreover, I note that the HMO Management Plan (HMP)3 sets out that the communal garden should be left in a clean and presentable state, and rubbish should be disposed of in bins provided. However, I saw that the block paved area to the front of Nos 25 and 27 had a significant amount of weeds growing through and that the lawn area of No 25 was littered with rubbish, and the area of block paving between No 27 and the neighbouring property No 29 also had weeds growing through and was littered. This contrasted significantly with the majority of properties on [address] which, from my observations, were well maintained. Whilst the lawn areas of Nos 25 and 27 are set behind a brick wall, the pathway to the door and the area beneath the bay windows were clearly visible from the pavement. Therefore, even if the HMP was approved at No 25, from my observations, the external appearance of the front areas of both Nos 25 and 27 do have a negative impact on the overall character and appearance of the immediate area, which in turn adversely affects the quality of the street scene.

For the reasons set out above, it has not been demonstrated that the site is suitable for use as an HMO. Accordingly, if planning permission were granted, the development would be contrary to DMD Policy DMD5 Criterion b and emerging Policy H11 of the NLP, which collectively seek to prevent clustering of such uses and do not harm the residential character of the area.

Policy DMD5 Criterion c. also sets out that all residential conversions must not lead to an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance for occupiers and adjoining properties. I am mindful that No 27, with 4 bedrooms, would likely be occupied by approximately 5 or more occupants. A family dwelling of this size, therefore, would generate comings and goings on a daily basis, although this would probably vary depending on the ages of any adults and children living there. The HMO increases this to 7 and, even if the property were tenanted by professionals, it would consist of a high number of transient adults with independent and uncoordinated schedules. This would likely increase the repeated entry and exit of different occupants at irregular hours and increase the number of deliveries in comparison to a family dwelling. This extended period of cumulative activity would also likely increase the potential for disruptive noise events such as slamming doors, voices and activity.

There is no dispute that No 25 was considered acceptable as a large HMO in isolation. However, I am mindful that both Nos 25 and 27 are currently operating as large HMO’s and that the Council have what it describes as multiple active 3 Paragraphs 2.8 and 2.11 of the HMP enforcement records for the properties with complaints citing antisocial behaviour, noise, littering, and concerns over the number of people entering the premises.

While each application and appeal must be assessed on its own merits, the appeal before me, if approved, would result in two consecutive properties of similar uses. The clustering of two HMOs could therefore ultimately result in approximately 14 occupants accessing and egressing the two premises.

I note that the appellant contends that an HMP was approved alongside the planning application at No 25, and that this would mitigate any potential impacts of activity associated with No 27. However, while the previous domestic incident was dealt with by the relevant party, the evidence before me indicates that noise associated with the HMOs extends beyond one domestic incident and that external noise has resulted in disturbance to existing residents.

I note that by agreeing to the HMP, tenants confirm that they will not cause or permit nuisance at the property, which includes noise and disruptive or anti-social behaviour after 9 pm on Sundays to Thursday and 10 pm on Friday and Saturday. [name] am satisfied that the HMP could be secured by way of condition if I were minded to allow the appeal, I am not persuaded that it would mitigate against external noise in this context or that the total number of occupants would not disturb existing nearby occupants, who are characterised in my mind by family households.

Accordingly, the development would change the residential character of the area contrary to Policies DMD5, DMD6, DMD8, and DMD37 of the DMD, Policies H1, H8 and H10 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies CP4 and CP5 of the [name] insofar as they seek to ensure development is appropriate to its context and to avoid development that would give rise to unacceptable noise and disturbance.

There would also be conflict with the requirements of section 5 of the Framework, which seeks to ensure that the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community are assessed and reflected in planning policies.

The Council contend that the development conflicts with the Department for Communities and Local Government Technical housing standards (2015); however, there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that either the room sizes are below the nationally described space standards or that the quality of accommodation would not provide acceptable living conditions for its occupants. This is therefore not applicable in this instance.

The absence of harm with regard to the quality of accommodation, design and transport, together with compliance with DMD Policy DMD5 criteria a. and d., are neutral matters in the overall planning balance, as this would be a likely requirement of a well-designed development.

Even if an application for an [name] has been sought, this is a matter for other regulations outside the planning regime.

HMO provision forms an important part of the housing supply in London. However, even if the development can provide sufficient cycle parking and adequate living conditions for its occupants, there would be harm to the living conditions of existing occupants of neighbouring properties, and these matters are the overriding consideration in this case.

Overall, I find that the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the development should be made other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.