The Planning Committee of Havering Council met on Thursday 23 April 2026 to discuss planning applications. The committee resolved to defer a decision on an application for 51 Windermere Avenue, Hornchurch, and subsequently refused an application for a 10-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 88 Eastern Road, Romford.

Windermere Avenue, Hornchurch

The committee considered the application for 51 Windermere Avenue, Hornchurch, which sought retrospective permission for a change of use to a C2 residential children's home. Following a previous deferral to gather further information, the committee voted to defer the decision again. This deferral was to allow for further clarification on matters including police reports of crime and anti-social behaviour in the area, and insights from the Havering Social Care Team regarding carer-to-child ratios.

88 Eastern Road, Romford

The most significant discussion of the meeting concerned the application for 88 Eastern Road, Romford, which proposed a single-storey rear extension to facilitate a change of use from a dwellinghouse to a 10-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). This application was a resubmission of a previous proposal that had been refused and dismissed on appeal.

During the debate, concerns were raised by residents and councillors regarding the intensification of use, potential noise and disturbance, parking issues, and the impact on the character of the residential area. Councillor Patel argued that the proposal represented overdevelopment and conflicted with several policies in the Havering Local Plan, including those relating to local character, residential amenity, and parking. Councillor Taylor echoed these concerns, stating that the changes made to the application were largely cosmetic and did not address the fundamental issues that led to the previous refusal. A resident, Nargis, who lives at 86 Eastern Road, expressed significant concerns about safety, particularly for children attending the nearby St Kilda's Children's Centre, and the potential for increased noise and anti-social behaviour.

The case officer, Adèle Hughes, presented the revised plans, highlighting that the number of car parking spaces had been reduced from ten to five and relocated, and the communal amenity space had been significantly increased. The Highway Authority raised no objection to the revised parking arrangements, noting that a legal agreement would prevent future occupiers from obtaining parking permits. However, councillors remained unconvinced.

Despite the officer's recommendation for approval, subject to conditions and a legal agreement, the committee voted to refuse the application. The refusal was based on concerns about noise and disturbance from the remaining car parking spaces, and ongoing safety issues regarding access and egress near the children's centre. The committee voted to refuse the application by five votes to none, after first voting to reject the officers' recommendation.