Mapping the HMO Approval System in Greenwich
Some of our gardening group in action, April 2023
Mapping the HMO Approval System in Greenwich
Overview
I initiated and led a community-led research and service design project investigating the growth of poor-quality Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in South East London.
Using data analysis, systems mapping, and cross-sector collaboration, I transformed a highly emotional local issue into an evidence-based campaign focused on improving housing quality and identifying where policy and operational change could have the greatest impact.
Goal
-
Establish whether concerns about HMO growth were supported by evidence.
-
Identify patterns in planning approvals, licensing, and developer activity.
-
Understand how planning, housing, licensing, building control, and enforcement systems interact.
-
Reveal policy gaps and process failures that enable poor-quality housing.
-
Help the community focus its efforts on the most effective points for systemic change.
Impact
-
Built a robust evidence base by analysing planning and licensing data using Excel and Power BI.
-
Reframed the issue from “too many HMOs” to a broader housing quality and accountability challenge.
-
Brought together residents, statisticians, digital specialists, former council officers and planning experts.
-
Initiated and continue to create a systems map showing how disconnected processes and policy gaps allow unsafe or substandard housing to persist.
-
Instrumental in shifting community action from reactive objections to targeted, evidence-based advocacy for policy reform.
-
Initiated and continuing to develop a strategic foundation for ongoing work to improve housing standards and accountability in key London Borough.
An approved application for an HMO in a conservation area in
South East London with a stud wall dividing a bay window.
The Problem
Residents in Plumstead were increasingly concerned about the growth of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs). These concerns were closely linked to wider frustrations about anti-social behaviour, fly-tipping, poor maintenance, and a perceived decline in neighbourhood quality.
This made the issue particularly complex and emotionally charged. HMOs were often seen as the cause of a range of local problems, but there was little shared evidence to confirm whether this assumption was accurate.
I joined the community group to bring a more evidence-based approach to the discussion. My initial aim was to test whether HMOs were genuinely driving these issues, or whether they had become a proxy for broader concerns about housing and neighbourhood change.
As the research progressed, the picture became more nuanced. Data analysis confirmed that HMO development had increased significantly, but also revealed that the deeper issue was not HMOs themselves. The real challenge appeared to lie in the systems responsible for planning, licensing, regulation, and housing quality.
How Might We?
How might we use data and systems thinking to understand what is driving low-quality housing and identify where community action can have the greatest impact?
Mapping Where Quality is Breaking Down
I led an iterative research and service design process to understand how low-quality HMOs were moving through the system. The first stage focused on establishing the facts. I collected and cross-checked planning applications, approval and refusal data, licensing records, and comparisons with neighbouring boroughs. Using Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Power BI, I analysed patterns in approvals and identified repeat developers. This evidence confirmed that HMO development had increased significantly and that a small number of developers were responsible for many of the applications.
With a clear evidence base in place, I helped reframe the issue around one core question: what does high-quality housing look like, and where is quality breaking down? I posed this question to a multidisciplinary group including residents, statisticians, digital specialists, former council officers and planning experts.
Together, we are mapping the end-to-end system, from planning applications and licensing through to building control, enforcement, and the use of HMOs as temporary accommodation. This is revealing where disconnected processes, unclear accountability, and policy gaps are enabling poor outcomes.
Implementation, Growth and Impact.
The project transformed a highly emotive local issue into a structured, evidence-based initiative.
Key outcomes included:
-
Establishing a robust evidence base to test assumptions and uncover patterns.
-
Identifying repeat developers associated with multiple low-quality conversions.
-
Reframing the issue from “too many HMOs” to "How do we ensure high-quality housing?”
-
Creating a shared language around housing quality that helped align diverse stakeholders.
-
Building a multidisciplinary collaboration around a common goal.
-
Producing a systems map that is highlighting gaps in planning, licensing, building control, enforcement, and housing.
-
Shifting community efforts from reactive objections to targeted, strategic advocacy.
The project continues to provide a foundation for evidence-based conversations with decision-makers about housing standards and accountability our London Borough.
What’s Next?
The next phase is to turn the research into practical recommendations and targeted campaigns.
This includes:
-
Refining the systems map as new evidence is gathered.
-
Prioritising the most effective leverage points for change.
-
Developing proposals to improve coordination across council departments.
-
Supporting evidence-based advocacy with residents, policymakers, and public officials.
The long-term aim is to help ensure that all residents, particularly those in temporary accommodation, are housed in safe, well-designed, and well-managed homes.
Key Learnings
This project reinforced the importance of using data to challenge assumptions and uncover the underlying causes of complex problems. On emotionally charged issues, establishing a clear and neutral problem definition is essential for building trust and maintaining productive dialogue. I learned that many housing challenges are not caused by a single policy or service, but by gaps and disconnects between multiple systems. Creating a shared language around “high-quality” and “low-quality” housing helped align stakeholders with very different perspectives and kept the work focused on improving outcomes for residents rather than debating ideology. Most importantly, the project demonstrated how service design methods can turn community frustration into structured, evidence-based action with the potential to influence systemic change.