# Flat 2, Berther Road, Hornchurch

- **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Eggleton
- **Authority:** Havering (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009059
- **Application reference:** P0771.25
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Retrospective change of use of first-floor flat to 7-bed sui generis HMO
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, near-station
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional)
- **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), Havering LP Policy 8
- **Development plan policies:** Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 Policies 8, 24, London Plan 2021 T1, T6, T6.1
- **Main issues:** housing mix, occupier living conditions, neighbour amenity, parking
- **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, dp3-3-refusal, old-wording-slip, retrospective, no-consultation-on-2026-framework

## Summary
A retrospective seven-bed HMO above a Hornchurch restaurant was dismissed for very poor internal standards. There was no communal room, the kitchen was undersized, one bedroom was below the statutory HMO licensing minimum, and seven people shared a single shower room. The Inspector relied on the Framework principle that "development that is not well designed should be refused" (DL ¶22), without saying which version.

## What made the difference
The substandard layout was "particularly poor design" because it "could be avoided by addressing the requirements of Policy 8" (DL ¶22). The decision was issued on publication day by the same Inspector as PINS-6008872. It does not mention the new Framework, and it ends with the 2024 "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" formula (DL ¶23), so the Framework version applied is unclear. The design-refusal principle is common to 2024 ¶139 and 2026 DP3(3).

## Policy findings
- **Havering LP Policy 8: conflict.** no communal living space; kitchen 7.91 sq m vs 9.5; five rooms below 8.5 sq m, one 4.93 sq m below 6.51 sq m licensing minimum; one shower room for 7 (DL 9-16)
- **DP3(3): fail.** "The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that development that is not well designed should be refused" (DL 22) — Framework version not stated
- **P3: pass.** neighbour noise/community cohesion acceptable above restaurant by station (DL 17)
- **TR4: pass.** car-free acceptable at Emerson Park station; lack of cycle parking weighs against (DL 18-19)

## Key facts
- Flat above restaurant, next to Emerson Park Overground station
- Policy 8 120 sq m threshold possibly just met measured externally
- Balance phrased "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" (2024 wording)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/bdade48b-8893-49ac-ba28-09a5abaacf1d
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009059

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009059.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.