An Enfield HMO appeal has been dismissed even though the Inspector accepted that both properties provided enough overall internal floorspace. The problem was the quality of the communal accommodation.
Appeal 6009972 concerned 1 and 1A Lytton Avenue, where two adjoining houses had been converted into two separate five-bedroom HMOs. One kitchen-dining area was too small and neither had an openable window providing natural ventilation.
The decision is a useful reminder that an HMO does not become acceptable simply because the total number of square metres looks right. The size, layout, ventilation and practical usefulness of the rooms that occupiers actually share can be just as important.
Two adjoining houses, but two separate HMOs
The application, reference 25/03478/FUL, was for a change from dwellinghouses to two five-bedroom HMOs, described in the appeal as sui generis, together with fenestration changes. The development was partly retrospective.
The plans showed that No.1 and No.1A remained physically separate. There were no interconnecting doors or shared internal facilities, so the Inspector dealt with them as two individual HMOs rather than one larger combined property.
Each had five bedrooms, a communal kitchen with a small eating area and shared bathroom facilities.
The overall floorspace was accepted
This is where the appeal becomes particularly useful.
The Inspector noted that the nationally described space standard does not directly apply to HMO premises. Even so, the gross internal area of each building appeared to achieve the minimum area specified for a five-bedroom, three-storey, six-person house.
Allowing for a difference in how the council had calculated the figures, the Inspector concluded that both properties provided an adequate total internal floor area for the proposed use.
In other words, this was not a case where the appeal failed because the houses were simply too small overall.
One dining kitchen was below Enfield’s standard
Enfield’s HMO standards expect a dining kitchen of at least 8.5m² for up to five people where there is no separate dining room.
The effective dining-kitchen area at No.1 was found to exceed that figure by a small margin. At No.1A, however, the kitchen plainly fell below it. There was no other communal habitable room to make up the shortfall.
That mattered because the kitchen-dining rooms were the only shared habitable spaces available to the occupiers of either property.
Planning standards for HMOs can overlap with licensing standards, but they are not the same exercise. Our guides to HMO space standards and Use Class C4 HMOs explain some of the distinctions.
Ventilation was the bigger problem
The Inspector also looked beyond floor area and equipment to how the kitchens would work in practice.
Each kitchen-dining room could be used by up to five unrelated occupiers. The Inspector considered that several people could be preparing meals at the same time, creating concentrations of steam and moisture unlike the pattern of use normally expected from a related family household.
The submitted plans did not show an openable window to either kitchen-dining room. Natural ventilation depended on an external door, with the shared space itself set away from that source of daylight and air.
The Inspector considered it unrealistic to assume that occupiers would leave an external door open whenever ventilation was needed, particularly when the kitchen was not in active use. Although mechanical ventilation might have been possible, there was insufficient evidence to show that it would adequately deal with air quality, odour and moisture.
The result was an unacceptable risk of condensation and mould in rooms likely to be intensively used.
Adequate total area is only the starting point
Enfield Policy DMD5 requires a high-quality form of HMO accommodation. The Inspector said that this meant suitability could not be judged solely by the total amount of internal floorspace.
Despite accepting the overall area and the bedroom sizes, the Inspector found that the ground-floor layouts did not provide the quality or functional layout required by the development plan. The appeal was therefore dismissed on 2nd September 2026.
The revised NPPF 2026, published on 17th August, was also taken into account. The Inspector noted that making effective use of land should not come at the expense of healthy living conditions.
What does the Enfield HMO appeal teach?
For HMO applications, a schedule showing adequate gross internal area is not enough on its own. Applicants also need to test whether the shared rooms work for the number of people who will actually depend on them.
- Check the minimum size of each communal room, not merely the total floor area
- Make sure dining and kitchen space is genuinely usable by the proposed number of occupiers
- Show how kitchens and other intensively used rooms will receive adequate natural and mechanical ventilation
- Consider daylight, air quality, condensation and mould as living-condition issues
- Do not assume that adequate bedrooms compensate for poor shared accommodation
This is a different issue from the separate Enfield HMO appeal concerning 9 The Spinney reported earlier this week. It should also be kept separate from the question of whether Article 4 Directions restrict C3 to C4 HMO permitted development in a particular area.
Primary sources
The decision is Appeal 6009972, 1 and 1A Lytton Avenue, Enfield, decided on 2nd September 2026. Read the appeal decision hosted by Planning Geek. The Planning Inspectorate appeal page is also available.
Enfield’s published HMO minimum standards provide the local room-size guidance referred to in the decision.
Created: 4th September 2026 | Enfield HMO appeal
0 Comments