# 61 Hawthorn Road, Edmonton, Enfield (HMO)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Harrison (on the recommendation of appeal planning officer S Manson)
- **Authority:** Enfield (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010207
- **Application reference:** 25/04165/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use of a dwellinghouse to a 3-bedroom, 4-person HMO (C4) with refuse and cycle storage
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), S4(2)(c)
- **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D6, D12, Enfield DMD 2014 DMD 5
- **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers, fire safety
- **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, appeal-planning-officer, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, living-conditions, transitional-no-consultation

## Summary
A small HMO conversion in Edmonton, dismissed on an appeal planning officer's recommendation. The shared living room would have no window of its own, failing DP3(2)'s liveability principle, and one bedroom's escape route would pass through that room. DP3(3) was cited as a "should be refused" policy and S4(2) applied.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** The changes "do not have a material bearing on the substance of the main issues ... I have proceeded without further consultation" (DL ¶3).
- **Liveability: FAIL.** "The proposal would not therefore employ features that promote social interaction and in doing so would fail to comply with the liveability key principle for well-designed places required by Framework Policy DP3 Paragraph 2" (DL ¶8).
- **Fire safety: FAIL.** "I am not persuaded that reliance on escaping through a window would represent a suitable, convenient and dignified means of escape for all future occupiers" (DL ¶11).
- **DP3(3).** "The proposal would also fail to comply with national decision-making Policy DP3 of the Framework which states that proposals should be refused if without clear justification, they conflict with relevant aspects of the principles in paragraph 2" (DL ¶14).

## Planning balance
S4 with S4(2): "the benefits of the proposed development would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects to the living conditions for future occupiers and fire safety identified above" (DL ¶17).

## What made the difference
An internal, borrowed-light living room. A layout giving the communal room an external window and a protected escape route would have removed both reasons.

## Transferable points
- DP3(2) "liveability" applies to internal layout: a windowless communal room in an HMO fails it (DL ¶8).
- An HMO licence carries limited weight in planning (DL ¶16).
- Escape through a window is not a suitable means of escape "for all future occupiers" (DL ¶11).

## Policy findings
- **DP3(2): fail (significant weight).** communal living room has no external window, daylight only through internal partition windows, poor outlook; fails the "liveability" key principle (DL 6-9)
- **DP3(3): fail.** cited as should-be-refused policy for conflict with DP3(2) principles "without clear justification"; no separate justification finding (DL 14)
- **LP London Plan D12 (local): conflict (significant weight).** bedroom 1 escape route through high-risk communal room; escape by window not suitable for all (DL 10-12)
- **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** contribution to housing mix, limited given scale (DL 15)
- **S4: fail.** having regard to S4(2) circumstances, benefits substantially outweighed (DL 13, 17)

## Key facts
- Appeal planning officer recommendation adopted (DL 2, 19)
- HMO licence already held; limited planning weight (DL 16)
- Framework switch without consultation as no material bearing (DL 3)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010207
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/63cbab0c-197e-471c-b0d8-922cd16a5732

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010207.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. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.