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 at 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 an application for a change of use at 51 Windermere Avenue, Hornchurch, to establish a residential children's home. Following discussion, the committee voted to defer the decision on this matter to a later date.

88 Eastern Road, Romford

The committee discussed a significant application for a 10-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 88 Eastern Road, Romford. This was a resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed on appeal.

During the meeting, a resident, Nargis, who lives at 86 Eastern Road, expressed strong objections to the proposal. She highlighted concerns about the HMO being located next to St Kilda's Children's Centre and her family home, citing potential safeguarding risks for children, dangerous blind spots for drivers, and a loss of amenity. She also raised issues regarding noise, anti-social behaviour, and the feeling of vulnerability due to a revolving door of strangers. Nargis argued that the proposal was an attempt to maximise profit rather than provide quality housing and that the council should correct a previous mistake where a six-bedroom HMO at the property was granted in error.

Councillors Patel and Taylor also voiced strong opposition. Councillor Patel argued that the 10-person HMO represented overdevelopment and was entirely out of keeping with both the character of the area and the principles set out in the London Borough of Havering Local Plan. He cited specific policies relating to local character, residential amenity, parking, and housing mix, stating that the proposal conflicted with these. Councillor Taylor echoed these concerns, noting that the changes made to the application did not address the fundamental issues of harm to residential amenity. He described the design as resembling a horse stable and questioned the living conditions for future occupants, as well as the impact of increased showers on drainage. Both councillors highlighted the existing saturation of HMOs on Eastern Road and the cumulative impact on the neighbourhood.

The case officer, Adele Hughes, presented the revised plans, noting that the number of parking spaces had been reduced from ten to five and relocated, and the communal amenity space had been significantly increased. She stated that the proposal was considered to comply with relevant policies and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions and a legal agreement to prevent future occupiers from obtaining car parking permits.

However, during the general debate, councillors expressed persistent concerns. Councillor Osanic raised issues about insufficient information provided with the application and the headroom in some of the proposed rooms. Councillor Vincent voiced concerns about traffic, noise, and safety, particularly given the proximity to the children's centre, and the displacement of parking onto the highway.

Despite the officer's recommendation for approval, the committee voted to refuse the application by five votes to none. The refusal was based on concerns regarding noise and disturbance from the remaining car parking spaces, and ongoing safety issues related to access and egress near the children's centre. The committee also noted the creation of off-street parking problems due to the reduction in on-site spaces.