Houses in Multiple Occupation, or HMOs, are homes where several unrelated people live and share facilities such as a kitchen or bathroom. They provide cheaper housing and play an important role in Enfield’s housing mix.
But they can also bring problems: poor living conditions for tenants, pressure on residential streets, and the steady loss of family homes. That is why HMOs have become a growing concern in Enfield. It is also why they are now turning up in election manifestos.
Labour’s 2026 manifesto promises to cap HMOs and to stop non-HMO homes being “sandwiched” between them. On paper, that sounds tough. But there is a major problem: they are commitments they cannot realistically keep.
Specifically, the manifesto says, “We will introduce a quota so that no more than 10% of properties in any neighbourhood can be converted to a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO). We will introduce a rule that no non-HMO dwelling can be sandwiched between two HMOs.”
The chance to act has already been missed
The promises Labour is making about HMOs cannot simply be switched on after an election. It just doesn’t work like that. They depend on planning policy, and the main chance to put these controls in place has already passed.
That chance came when the council was writing its new Local Plan. That was the point at which Labour councillors could have insisted that it include policies to control HMO conversions and protect family housing. But they did not.
Instead, they supported a plan without any HMO policies at all. As we previously reported, this risked Enfield becoming the only London borough without specific planning policies to control HMOs. Furthermore, this would have removed the planning policies Enfield already had to control HMO conversions, which had been in place for over a decade.
If Labour councillors really believe strong HMO controls are needed in Enfield, then why were those controls missing from the very planning framework they all voted in favour of?
This is the point Labour should not be allowed to wriggle away from. Local Plans are updated very infrequently. Enfield’s current local plan is 15 years old. The new one, which is reaching its final stages before adoption, has taken over seven years to prepare and is deep into the final formal examination stage. This means the realistic opportunity to build Labour’s manifesto promises on HMOs into the new Local Plan has already been missed. There will not be another such opportunity for many years.
The council acknowledged that the new Local Plan is missing HMO policies
During the examination of the new Local Plan, in response to a hearing statement submitted by Better Homes Enfield, the council effectively conceded the point. In January 2026, the council formally acknowledged that HMO and residential conversion matters were “not currently addressed” in the submitted Local Plan and that policy on the subject was “necessary”.
The council has asked the Planning Inspector examining Enfield’s Local Plan to allow it to add an HMO policy. But the policy proposed by the council, and now before the Inspector, does not come close to what Labour is promising. Furthermore, at this late stage the Inspector may not even allow the belatedly proposed policy to be added to the Local Plan.
After 15 years in power, Labour has a serious credibility problem
Enfield Labour is campaigning on HMO controls that it failed to put into its own Local Plan when it had the proper chance to do so.
That seems to leave two possibilities. Either Labour still does not understand what sits within its power as a local planning authority, even after 15 years of running Enfield Council. Or it does understand and is making promises it knows it is unlikely to deliver. Neither explanation is reassuring. Both raise serious questions about Labour’s credibility.
The questions Labour must answer
HMOs are an increasing concern in Enfield, and it is better that the issue has now been acknowledged rather than ignored altogether. But Labour cannot honestly present their manifesto commitments as realistically deliverable.
The questions Labour should be asked are simple.
- If it wants HMO controls, why did all Labour councillors vote in support of a Local Plan that removed them?
- Why did it take outside pressure and the examination process to force the issue?
- And why is Labour now promising restrictions on HMOs that the policy wording before the Inspector does not contain?
This is the real issue. Labour is making promises about HMOs it cannot realistically keep, and which it failed to write into the one document that could actually have made a difference. After 15 years in power, that is not just poor timing. It is a serious failure of credibility.
Better Homes Enfield 