The Planning Committee of Havering Council met on Thursday 23 April 2026. The committee considered an application for a change of use at 51 Windermere Avenue, Hornchurch, to establish an Ofsted-regulated residential children's home for up to two children aged between 8 and 17. The application had been deferred from a previous meeting to clarify matters regarding police reports of crime and anti-social behaviour in the area, and to gain insight from the Havering Social Care Team on carer-to-child ratios. During the meeting, it was noted that while there had been some police attendances at the property, the number of recorded incidents linked to the address since October 2024 had been minimal. The Havering Strategic Commissioner had indicated that there was an overprovision of children's homes in the borough, meaning there was not a local need for this specific proposal. Officers recommended that the matter be deferred, and the committee voted to agree with this recommendation.

A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to an application for a single-storey rear extension at 88 Eastern Road, Romford, to facilitate a change of use from a residential dwelling to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) for up to 10 people. This application was a resubmission of a previous proposal that had been refused and dismissed on appeal.

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, the communal amenity space had been significantly increased, and the bin and cycle stores had been repositioned. The previous refusal had cited concerns over the poor quality and inadequacy of communal amenity space, the overprovision and siting of car parking leading to noise and disturbance, and inadequate servicing arrangements.

However, local residents and ward councillors, Councillor Patel and Councillor Taylor, voiced strong objections. They argued that the proposed changes were largely cosmetic and did not adequately address the fundamental issues that led to the previous refusal and appeal dismissal. Concerns were raised about the intensification of use, the impact on the character of the area, increased noise and disturbance, parking pressure, and the potential for crime and anti-social behaviour, particularly given the proximity to St Kilda's Children's Centre. Councillor Taylor specifically noted that the communal amenity space, while increased, remained a narrow strip and that the number of bedrooms and bathrooms still raised concerns about living conditions.

During the debate, councillors expressed significant reservations. Councillor Osama highlighted concerns about insufficient detail in the plans regarding room heights and the overall depth of the extension. The officers acknowledged that while some concerns, such as highway safety, had been addressed in line with the previous inspector's findings, the issue of noise and disturbance from the remaining five parking spaces was an area where officers had made a balanced judgment.

The committee voted against the officer's recommendation for approval. The committee then voted to refuse the application.