10-bedroom HMO conversion at 88 Eastern Road, Romford

A 10-bedroom HMO conversion

The application sought a single-storey rear extension to a detached house to convert it into a 10-bedroom shared house, with cycle storage and internal changes.

“The Committee considered an application for a single-storey extension to a detached dwelling, which would facilitate the use of the property as a 10-bedroom HMO. The proposals included an 18-metre rear extension, cycle storage at the rear of the garden and internal alterations as shown in the submitted plans.”

Minutes

Next to a children's centre

The site adjoins a children's centre and sits within a residential area of similar houses.

“The Committee noted that the site adjoins a children’s centre to the south and forms part of a residential area characterised by similar dwellings.”

Minutes

An objector raised safety concerns

An objector raised concerns about poor driveway visibility, highway safety, and alleged anti-social behaviour already at the property.

“In accordance with the public speaking arrangements, the Committee was addressed by an objector. Concerns were raised regarding highway safety, with particular reference to poor visibility from the driveway and risks to road users. It was further stated that the development would adversely affect the safety of neighbouring properties and users of the adjacent children’s centre. The speaker also alleged existing issues of anti-social behaviour at the property.”

Minutes

Two councillors objected

Two councillors said the scheme conflicted with the Local Plan, represented overdevelopment, offered poor quality accommodation, and raised concerns about the growing concentration of HMOs.

Officers recommended approval of the amended scheme

Officers said the amended scheme, with fewer parking spaces and more communal space, addressed the earlier refusal and would not cause unacceptable harm.

“The Committee then received a second presentation outlining amendments made since the previous refusal. These included a reduction in parking spaces from ten to five, relocation of those spaces, an increase in communal space and the separation and relocation of bin and cycle storage. Officers advised that there were no in-principle objections and that, in their view, the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to residential amenity or highway safety.”

Minutes

Members queried safety and design

Members raised concerns about traffic, parking displacement, the scale of the extension, accommodation quality and safeguarding given the nearby children's centre.

“Additional concerns were raised regarding the quality of accommodation, the limited information provided and the potential safeguarding implications arising from the location adjacent to a children’s centre. It was recognised that it may not constitute a material planning consideration.”

Minutes

Refused against officer advice

The committee rejected the officer recommendation for approval and voted unanimously to refuse the application.

“Following consideration, the officer recommendation for approval was not agreed unanimously, with 0 votes in favour, 5 against, and 0 abstentions.”

“A motion to refuse the application was agreed unanimously, with 5 votes in favour, 0 against, and 0 abstentions.”

Minutes