The Planning Committee of Havering Council met on Thursday 23 April 2026, where they deferred a decision on a planning application for Windermere Avenue and subsequently refused an application for 88 Eastern Road, Romford.

Windermere Avenue Application Deferred

The committee considered the application for 51 Windermere Avenue, Hornchurch, which sought retrospective permission for a change of use from a single dwellinghouse to a C2 (Ofsted regulated residential children's home) for up to two children aged between 8 and 17. The application had been deferred at a previous meeting to clarify matters regarding police reports of crime and anti-social behaviour in the area, evidence from Ofsted reports, and insight from the Havering Social Care Team on carer-to-child ratios.

Following further consultation, the Metropolitan Police confirmed one recorded incident linked to the address between October 2024 and July 2025, which was related to safeguarding concerns raised by staff off-site. A further incident of excessive noise was reported in August 2025, but this did not generate a crime report. The Council's Public Protection team had no records of noise complaints.

Regarding the suitability of the premises, it was noted that no Ofsted report was available as permission had not yet been granted. However, the Strategic Commissioner for Havering did not object to the layout for its intended use, though they did highlight a lack of space for confidential meetings or document storage. Concerns were also raised about the borough's existing provision of children's homes, with a surplus of places for local children, leading to children from other council areas requiring services commissioned for local children.

On carer-to-child ratios, it was indicated that a child cannot be left alone with a single adult, and a two-bedroom property would require a minimum of two staff on duty at all times, which the current staffing complies with.

Despite these clarifications, the committee voted to defer the decision on this application to a later date.

88 Eastern Road, Romford Application Refused

The committee then considered the application for 88 Eastern Road, Romford, which sought planning permission for a single-storey rear extension to facilitate a change of use from a C3 (Residential Dwelling) to a Sui Generis House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) for up to 10 people. This was a resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed on appeal.

The case officer, Adèle Hughes, presented the application, highlighting the changes made from the previous proposal, including a reduction in car parking spaces from ten to five, an increase in communal amenity space, and the relocation of the bin store.

During the public speaking session, Nargis, a resident of 86 Eastern Road, expressed strong objections, citing concerns about a dangerous blind spot for drivers, safeguarding risks for children, and the impact on her children's right to play safely. She described the proposed HMO as a death trap waiting to happen due to parking issues and expressed vulnerability regarding a revolving door of strangers. She also noted that the current six-bedroom HMO was granted in error and argued that a larger HMO would be a reward for the landlord.

Councillors Patel and Taylor, who had called in the application, echoed these concerns. Councillor Patel argued that the proposal 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 highlighted conflicts with policies on housing mix, parking, and residential amenity, stating that the application was an attempt to maximise occupancy and profit, not to deliver high quality policy compliant housing.

Councillor Taylor described the design as looking more like a horse stable and questioned the living conditions for future occupants. He also pointed out the saturation of HMOs on Eastern Road, with four licensed HMOs already in the vicinity.

During the debate, councillors raised concerns about traffic safety, noise, and the design of the extension, with one councillor describing it as looking like a horse stable. Concerns were also raised about insufficient information provided with the application and the headroom in some of the proposed rooms.

The case officer explained that previous inspectors had found no issue with highway safety and that the depth of the extension had not been objected to by an inspector. However, they acknowledged that noise and disturbance from the remaining five parking spaces was an area where officers had made a balanced judgement and that the committee might wish to consider this further.

Ultimately, the committee voted to refuse the application by five votes to none, after first voting to down the officers' recommendation for approval. The refusal was based on concerns regarding noise and disturbance from the car parking spaces, and safety issues related to access and egress near the children's centre.