# 1 & 1A Lytton Avenue, Enfield

- **Decision:** dismissed, 2 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Boughton
- **Authority:** Enfield (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009970
- **Application reference:** 26/00380/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use of two dwellinghouses to one 4-bed and one 5-bed HMO (sui generis), fenestration changes (part retrospective)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** P3(2)(a)
- **Development plan policies:** Enfield DMD 2014 DMD5, DMD8, Enfield HMO Standards
- **Main issues:** living conditions of occupiers
- **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, living-conditions, retrospective, transitional-no-consultation

## Summary
Retrospective conversion of two conjoined houses into two HMOs. Dismissed. Room sizes met the standards, but the windowless shared kitchens created "an unacceptable risk of unhealthy condensation and poor air quality" (DL ¶16). The Framework (August 2026) was noted as published without saying whether parties were consulted (DL ¶3). It was invoked only loosely: effective use of land "should not diminish healthy living conditions" (DL ¶17).

## What made the difference
Quality, not quantity, of shared space. Ventilation could not be fixed by condition because it might need external changes (DL ¶16). A licence does not show planning acceptability (DL ¶7).

## Policy findings
- **P3(2)(a): fail (significant weight).** kitchens with no openable window, ventilation only via external door — "unacceptable risk of unhealthy condensation and poor air quality", significant weight (DL 14-16); letter refers generically to the Framework "effective use of land should not diminish healthy living conditions" — code mapped by harvester
- **DMD5 (Enfield DMD): conflict.** floor areas adequate but not a "high-quality form of accommodation" (DL 9-12, 17)

## Key facts
- Two conjoined houses with no interconnection treated as two separate HMOs; description amended (DL 2)
- Dining-kitchen in No.1 just over the 8.5 sqm HMO standard but lit and ventilated only by an external door (DL 10, 15)
- HMO licence notice given little weight — plans did not match (DL 6-7)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009970
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c771d08a-3ba8-4cc0-8a92-dcffb0b81cf5

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009970.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.