Planning application · Havering
P0957.24.
Durham Arms, Brentwood Road Romford RM1 2EH
Full / Other Planning at Durham Arms, Brentwood Road Romford RM1 2EH, received 8 Jul 2024 — refused on 6 May 2025 (delegated, Adele Hughes).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHavering profile →
Refused
Outcome
6 May 2025
43 wks
Decision time
35 wks over the 8-week target
6
Conditions
attached to the decision
8
Documents
8 linked
—
Objections
not captured
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Havering planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Conversion of first floor 3-bedroom flat (Use Class C3) into 5-person small HMO (Use Class C4) - Retrospective.
Reference
P0957.24
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM1 2EH
Ward
Council
Received
8 Jul 2024
Target date
16 May 2025
Decision date
6 May 2025
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Refuse Conditions/Reasons
Council register
Reference
P0957.24
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM1 2EH
Ward
Council
Received
8 Jul 2024
Target date
16 May 2025
Decision date
6 May 2025
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Refuse Conditions/Reasons
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Havering portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 6 May 2025, delegated decision by Adele Hughes — 43 weeks from submission (35 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
8 Jul 2024
Application received
16 May 2025
Statutory target date
6 May 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Adele Hughes
8 Jul 2024
Application received
16 May 2025
Statutory target date
6 May 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Adele Hughes
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The original dwelling entitled Flat 2 has a gross internal floor space of approximately 73 square
metres, which fails to meet the standard of 120 square metres contrary to Policy 8 of the
Havering Local Plan. The proposal would therefore have an adverse impact on the supply of
family housing within the Borough, the loss of which is not adequately justified and which could
set an undesirable precedent for similar development in the locality.
2
There is insufficient evidence to clearly and robustly demonstrate that Flats 1 and 2 above the
public house have been lawfully separated from the Durham Arms public house for a
HAVPDECR (ODB Jan 2022) P0957.24 - 6th May 2025 1 of 3
continuous period of at least ten years. In addition, there is insufficient justification that the loss
of Flat 2 would not compromise the operation or viability of the public house use contrary to
Policy 16 of the Havering Local Plan and Policies HC7 and S1 of the London Plan.
3
The lack of communal amenity space is harmful to the amenity of the occupants of the HMO
contrary to Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan.
4
There are insufficient dining facilities for the five occupiers of the HMO. The kitchen and
living/dining room have a cumulative floor area of 16.7sqm on the first floor, which fails to
provide adequate communal living/dining space for the occupiers of the HMO and provides a
poor quality living environment harmful to the amenity of existing occupiers contrary to Policies
7 and 8 of the Havering Local Plan, the East London HMO Guidance and the guidance
contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.
5
The two person occupancy bedrooms each have a gross internal area of 12.4 square metres,
which fails to meet the gross internal floor space of 13 square metres for two occupiers, which
results in a poor quality living environment harmful to the amenity of existing occupiers
contrary to Policies 7 and 8 of the Havering Local Plan and the HMO East London Guidance.
1
The original dwelling entitled Flat 2 has a gross internal floor space of approximately 73 square
metres, which fails to meet the standard of 120 square metres contrary to Policy 8 of the
Havering Local Plan. The proposal would therefore have an adverse impact on the supply of
family housing within the Borough, the loss of which is not adequately justified and which could
set an undesirable precedent for similar development in the locality.
2
There is insufficient evidence to clearly and robustly demonstrate that Flats 1 and 2 above the
public house have been lawfully separated from the Durham Arms public house for a
HAVPDECR (ODB Jan 2022) P0957.24 - 6th May 2025 1 of 3
continuous period of at least ten years. In addition, there is insufficient justification that the loss
of Flat 2 would not compromise the operation or viability of the public house use contrary to
Policy 16 of the Havering Local Plan and Policies HC7 and S1 of the London Plan.
3
The lack of communal amenity space is harmful to the amenity of the occupants of the HMO
contrary to Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan.
Show all 5 rows
4
There are insufficient dining facilities for the five occupiers of the HMO. The kitchen and
living/dining room have a cumulative floor area of 16.7sqm on the first floor, which fails to
provide adequate communal living/dining space for the occupiers of the HMO and provides a
poor quality living environment harmful to the amenity of existing occupiers contrary to Policies
7 and 8 of the Havering Local Plan, the East London HMO Guidance and the guidance
contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.
5
The two person occupancy bedrooms each have a gross internal area of 12.4 square metres,
which fails to meet the gross internal floor space of 13 square metres for two occupiers, which
results in a poor quality living environment harmful to the amenity of existing occupiers
contrary to Policies 7 and 8 of the Havering Local Plan and the HMO East London Guidance.
Policies cited
Havering Local Plan 8Havering Local Plan 16HC7S1Havering Local Plan 7NPPF
Public response
Comment counts were not captured for this application.
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.