Enfield councillors refused a six-person HMO at 429 Alma Road, Brimsdown, on parking grounds, after officers had backed it. 32 people objected.

Enfield’s Planning Committee has refused a plan to turn a three-bedroom house in Brimsdown into a home for six unrelated people. Its own planning officers had recommended approval.

The application, 26/01720/FUL, sought to change 429 Alma Road from a family house into a small house in multiple occupation, or HMO. It came before the committee on 22 October. The printed minutes were published last week (Enfield Council, minutes).

How the vote went

Councillors first voted on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission. It failed, with 4 for, 7 against and 1 abstention.

The meeting then adjourned for five minutes so the chair could take advice. Cllr Peter Fallart moved refusal “on the grounds of insufficient parking provision”, seconded by Cllr Suna Hurman. That passed 11 to 1. Officers will agree the final wording of the reasons with the chair.

Members had also discussed refusing it over bin storage, and because they had “insufficient information in front of them”. Only parking made it into the motion. An earlier attempt by Cllr Fallart to approve it with six bins kept in the garage found no seconder.

What was proposed

The committee report sets out the scheme (Enfield Council, committee report):

  • a change of use from a family house (class C3) to a small HMO (class C4)
  • no more than six residents, sharing a ground-floor kitchen and dining room
  • a rear dormer and two front roof lights
  • six cycle spaces and bin storage

The house is a semi-detached two-storey home with a side garage. The report says the front forecourt holds at least two cars.

Why officers said yes

Officers found the plan met the council’s limits on conversions. Policy DMD5 says no more than 20% of properties on a road may be converted, and only one in any row of five. The report says Alma Road is within both.

On parking, the applicant’s survey counted spaces on two nights in September, between 00:30 and 01:30. The council’s transport officer accepted that there was enough room on Alma Road and nearby streets for any overspill.

The same report notes the site has a public transport accessibility level of 2, which it calls “very poor”. It also cites census data that 76% of households in the area own at least one car or van.

Who objected

Nine neighbours were notified. The council received 32 objections. Among the concerns listed were:

  • too many HMOs in the area
  • parking and traffic
  • the loss of a family home
  • bedroom sizes and the effect on neighbours

The council leader, Cllr Alessandro Georgiou, objected too. Cllr Bektas Ozer called the application in to committee, citing an overconcentration of HMOs and the loss of family housing.

At the meeting, officers told members that worries about vulnerable residents, crime and antisocial behaviour were not material planning considerations. The minutes record that the committee asked for “bespoke advice” from other council teams on future HMO cases, after “some confusion about which class the HMO was”.

It may not be the last word

The report lists a second application for the same house, 26/02303/FUL. It is for a larger HMO in a different use class, with the garage turned into a habitable room. It was pending when the report was written.

The rear dormer already has a certificate of lawfulness, granted on 28 May 2026, so it can be built without planning permission.

An applicant refused permission can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Two Ridgeway homes approved the same night

The committee approved two other applications, both in Ridgeway ward:

  • 26 The Glen, EN2. A five-bedroom house, already built, was given retrospective permission by 11 votes to 0, with 1 abstention. The report says it was built about 1.3 metres closer to No. 15 than first approved, with a larger dormer and changes to the rear wall and terrace (Enfield Council, committee report).
  • 9 Cotswold Way, EN2. Changes to an approved extension, including a higher front gable and a different rear extension, were approved 12 to 0 (Enfield Council, committee report).

What it means for you

  • Live nearby? Comments on the second Alma Road application, 26/02303/FUL, go through the council’s planning register. Other decisions are on our Enfield planning news page.
  • Fewer meetings before Christmas. The chair said at the meeting that the next Planning Committee will be on 15 December, after some dates were changed or cancelled.