Reede Road HMO Plan Faces Council Opposition in Dagenham

Key Points:

• A planning application for an HMO at 152 Reede Road, Dagenham, was submitted in August 2021, but it was for a single-storey rear conservatory, not for HMO conversion.
• No current planning application exists for converting 152 Reede Road into a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO).
• Barking and Dagenham Council has previously opposed HMO developments due to concerns over loss of family housing, increased traffic, noise, refuse, and general disturbance.
• In a separate but related case, Colin and Susan Woodward were fined £18,000 for illegally operating an HMO at 414 Dagenham Road without planning permission.
• The council issued a Planning Enforcement Notice to the Woodwards after their retrospective application was refused in January 2020, citing harm to the area’s character and amenity.
• The Woodwards’ appeals to the Planning Inspectorate were dismissed in November 2020, and they were given until May 2021 to comply.
• Despite warnings, the property at 414 Dagenham Road was still being used as an HMO in November 2021, leading to legal proceedings.
• The couple pleaded not guilty in September 2022 at Barkingside Magistrates Court but later changed their pleas to guilty at Snaresbrook Crown Court, resulting in fines and costs totalling £18,000.
• Councillor Syed Ghani, Cabinet Member for Enforcement and Community Safety, stated the council is committed to ensuring compliance with planning regulations and hopes the case serves as a deterrent.
• In a recent appeal decision dated 1 September 2025, the Planning Inspectorate dismissed an appeal for an HMO at 3 Hedgemans Road, Dagenham, citing inadequate room sizes, potential noise and disturbance, and parking concerns.
• The appeal involved a proposal to change the use of a C4 class HMO to accommodate more than six people, which would require sui generis classification.
• The Inspector noted the appellant’s statement referred to an eight-person occupancy, which materially altered the original application and could not be considered.
• Barking and Dagenham Council has an active selective licensing scheme for private sector housing, reinforcing its regulatory stance on HMOs.
• The council has previously imposed civil penalties exceeding £250,000 on landlords for HMO-related violations, demonstrating a pattern of strict enforcement.
• Legal precedent confirms that the burden of proof lies with the appellant to establish a reasonable excuse for non-compliance with HMO regulations.
• The Housing Act 2004 defines HMO management strictly, requiring the person to be an owner or lessee, not merely a managing agent.
• The council’s enforcement actions are supported by statutory powers allowing borough-wide selective licensing without central government approval.
• Public commentary reflects divided opinion, with some viewing HMOs as essential housing and others supporting regulatory control to preserve neighbourhood character.

What Is the Current Status of the HMO Proposal at Reede Road?

As of October 2021, the only planning application recorded for 152 Reede Road, Dagenham, was for the construction of a single-storey rear conservatory, not for any HMO conversion. The application, numbered 21/01559/HSE, was submitted to the Barking and Dagenham Planning Committee and recommended for approval by officer Kathryn McAllister. There is no evidence of a current or pending application to convert the property into a House in Multiple Occupation HMO. This contradicts the premise of a proposed HMO at this address, suggesting either a misattribution of location or an unregistered development.

Why Has Barking and Dagenham Council Opposed HMO Conversions?

Barking and Dagenham Council has consistently opposed unauthorised HMO conversions, citing the loss of family housing and degradation of local amenity. In a January 2020 refusal notice, council officers stated that converting a property into an HMO

“would result in the loss of a family dwelling house to the detriment of the stock of family housing in the borough and also a loss of amenity and character to the area through increased levels of traffic, noise, generation of refuse and general disturbance to the area”.

This position reflects a broader policy concern about the social and environmental impact of high-density private rentals in residential neighbourhoods.

What Legal Action Has the Council Taken Against Illegal HMOs?

The council has pursued legal action against landlords operating unauthorised HMOs. In a high-profile case, Colin and Susan Woodward were fined £18,000 after being found guilty of running an illegal HMO at 414 Dagenham Road. The Woodwards had applied for an HMO licence in 2019, which was granted, but were later informed they also needed planning permission. Their retrospective application was refused in January 2020, and a Planning Enforcement Notice was served, requiring them to cease HMO use and restore the property to a single dwelling. Despite appeals to the Planning Inspectorate being dismissed in November 2020, the property remained in use as an HMO when inspected in November 2021.

How Did the Court Rule in the Woodward HMO Case?

The Woodwards were summoned to Barkingside Magistrates Court in September 2022, where they initially pleaded not guilty. By August 2024, they appeared at Snaresbrook Crown Court and changed their pleas to guilty, resulting in each being fined £6,000 and ordered to pay £3,000 in costs, amounting to a total penalty of £18,000. Councillor Syed Ghani, Cabinet Member for Enforcement and Community Safety, commented:

“Despite multiple warnings and opportunities to rectify the situation, they continued to ignore our Enforcement Team which left them with no choice but to pursue legal action”.

He added that the case “demonstrates our dedication to upholding these standards” and serves as a reminder that planning regulations “must be adhered to”.

Has the Planning Inspectorate Recently Ruled on an HMO Appeal in Dagenham?

On 1 September 2025, an Inspector from the Planning Inspectorate dismissed an appeal for an HMO at 3 Hedgemans Road, Dagenham. The appeal, APP/Z5060/W/25/3363595, was made by Mr Zaman A Raja against the council’s refusal to grant permission for a development described as

“Proposing to authorise use of existing C4 class HMO Property with internal modifications to maximise the property’s potential as a HMO suitable for more than 6 people and thus change the class to Sui Generis”.

The Inspector dismissed the appeal, citing concerns over inadequate room sizes, potential noise and disturbance to neighbours, and highway safety issues related to parking. The decision noted that the appellant’s reference to an eight-person occupancy “materially alters the development proposed” and could not be considered under the appeal process.

What Is the Legal Framework Governing HMO Management in Barking and Dagenham?

Under the Housing Act 2004, the definition of “managing” a property is strictly interpreted. As ruled by the Upper Tribunal in a related case, a person must be an owner or lessee of the premises to be considered a manager; being a managing agent under a management agreement is insufficient. Section 263(3) of the Act requires the person to be an owner or lessee, and without evidence of a lease or ownership, liability cannot be established. This legal clarity ensures that enforcement actions are directed at the correct parties and prevents overreach against third-party agents.

How Is the Council Strengthening Its Regulatory Powers?

Barking and Dagenham Council has implemented a Private Sector Housing Selective Licensing Scheme for 2024–2029, allowing it to license HMOs borough-wide without requiring central government approval. This power, used under new legislation, enables the council to enforce standards across a wider area and respond proactively to housing quality issues. The scheme is part of a broader strategy to improve living conditions and prevent the proliferation of unregulated HMOs that could negatively impact community cohesion.

What Precedent Exists for Defending Against HMO Prosecutions?

Legal precedent confirms that the burden of proof lies with the appellant to establish a “reasonable excuse” for non-compliance with HMO regulations. In a 2018 Upper Tribunal ruling, Deputy Chamber President Martin Rodger QC stated that while the prosecution must prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt, the appellant must prove the statutory defence on the balance of probabilities. This principle was applied in the Woodward case, where the lack of a valid defence contributed to the conviction and significant financial penalty.