Council promises HMO crackdown amid warnings over local impact

Among a raft of newly proposed measures is a reduction of the HMO limit per street from 20% to 10% of properties, reports James Cracknell

Enfield Council will launch a “HMO taskforce” to help tackle those which are “causing the most harm to our communities”, the new Conservative-led administration has announced.

In addition, the draft Enfield Local Plan will be “strengthened” to provide a “clearer and more robust framework to manage both the over-concentration and impact of new HMOs”.

The response from the council comes amid rising concern over the rapid proliferation of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) across Enfield.

At the start of this year the Local Democracy Reporting Service revealed that the number of new licences being issued for HMOs in the borough under the council’s selective licensing scheme had accelerated, with a quarter of all current licences having been issued between April 2025 and January 2026.

The rate of approvals has continued to rise since then, however, with analysis from campaign group Better Homes Enfield recently revealing that more than one new HMO in the borough was being granted planning permission each day, on average.

HMOs allow properties to be sub-divided into multiple individual units, usually with shared kitchens and bathrooms.

The council has acknowledged that while they “play an important role in meeting housing need” HMOs are also often associated with antisocial behaviour and waste management issues. This is particularly true in areas where multiple HMOs have been created on the same street, according to the council.

Efforts to control the spread of HMOs and clamp down on those which operate illegally or do not follow their licence conditions now have cross-party support in Enfield.

In a debate on the subject at last month’s full council meeting, Jubilee councillor Ian Barnes described HMOs as “a virus rapidly spreading across our borough” which were “ruining lives”.

The Labour councillor said: “A large proportion of my casework, as I imagine many other people [councillors], stems from HMOs.

“I’ve been sent Ring doorbell footage of it. Antisocial behaviour; drugs being smoked in back gardens; video games being played until dawn, you can hear that echoing through the walls; fast-food mopeds lined up outside HMOs.

“Ten strangers living in a small family-sized home in Enfield is not normal. It’s unfair on the neighbours, unfair on local infrastructure, and quite often unfair on the people living there, too.”

Welcoming the move to tackle HMOs with new council policies, Cllr Barnes added: “You’ve offered hope, and this now needs to be followed by action.”

A motion put forward by another Labour councillor, Susan Erbil, argued that “the current threshold allowing up to 20% of homes on a residential road to become HMOs is too high and no longer reflects the concerns being raised by residents across the borough”.

The motion included a number of measures, such as a “comprehensive review” of current policies and a reduction of the HMO threshold from 20% to 10% per street, as well as a request to lobby the government to bring in tougher laws to regulate “numbers, densities and impacts at a local level”.

Enfield Conservatives, who since May have had minority control of the council, supported the motion, having already campaigned on a manifesto pledge to “challenge the proliferation” of new HMOs to “preserve the character and stability of our local streets” as well as take a “zero-tolerance approach to enforcement”.

Deputy council leader Michael Rye (left) and Labour councillor Ian Barnes (right)

Deputy leader Michael Rye told councillors: “HMOs that are appropriately run provide useful homes for people who can’t afford their own independent larger accommodation.

“However, sadly, too many HMOs – even [owned] by members of the opposition – don’t have planning permission and occasionally do not have licenses and enforcement.”

In his dig at the opposition Labour group, Cllr Rye was referring to the news – revealed by the Dispatch late last year – that the then-Labour planning chair, Mahym Bedekova, did not have planning permission for her own HMO. She later won retrospective approval.

Cllr Bedekova was re-elected in May and, after being put forward again by Enfield Labour following the election, continues to serve on the planning committee (although it is now chaired by the Conservatives).

Cllr Rye continued: “As the cabinet member for planning and regeneration, as the motion states we need to wait for the Local Plan to be adopted, and then I will be speedily bringing to council a policy based around this motion and as strict as we can on HMOs.

“The other thing that I will be reviewing is the licence charge, which I’m told is set independently by the council. We have an opportunity there to bring some pressure to bear on these particular units.

“I’m sure those that are well run will comply, pay and do a good job, but possibly those that are less well run, that perhaps don’t obey the rules, will choose not to pay and that might be another mechanism that brings a measure of control.

“I’m sure that all members will support this motion because nobody wants family units next door to them with six or seven single people, with people staying over with noise and disturbance, constant comings and goings, large numbers of people gathering in gardens.

“We’re aware of all the issues.”

In his recent letter outlining the changes he would like to see made to the draft Local Plan before it is formally adopted, planning inspector Steven Lee criticised the council for not initially including a specific HMO policy with the plan.

It was only after the Labour administration was criticised for this omission that a policy was finally proposed, during the public examination process last year. But Lee wrote that even this policy did not go far enough and that “further modifications are necessary to ensure soundness”.

Writing in a recent blogpost on the situation, Matt Burn from campaign group Better Homes Enfield said: “The inspector has now accepted that a HMO policy is needed. He has said the submitted plan does not contain a specific HMO policy and that modifications are needed to plug this gap. This is a very welcome finding.

“Importantly, he has asked for the policy to properly address the quality of accommodation, deal more clearly with clustering and excessive concentrations, address impacts such as overlooking as well as noise and disturbance, and be clearer about parking standards. That is the kind of practical, enforceable policy Enfield needs.

“But residents should not have had to fight for this. A borough with Enfield’s housing pressures, private rented sector challenges and volume of HMO applications should never have submitted a new Local Plan without proper HMO safeguards from the outset.

“The fact that it did so raises serious concerns about how the previous administration managed this part of the Local Plan process.”

Previous analysis from Better Homes Enfield estimated that as few as one in ten HMOs in Enfield had planning permission. Council rules state that to be fully authorised, HMOs must have both a licence and planning permission.

Among those HMOs operating without permission had been the former Station Tavern pub in Green Street, Brimsdown, which the Dispatch revealed last year was being converted into housing despite twice previously being rejected for approval by the council. However, the council has now approved a third proposal for the HMO, despite the application being “retrospective”.

Local news needs your support

We are proud that we were at the forefront of reporting on the recent local elections. We can’t do this without the support of our readers.

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

ACT NOW!

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.