Bungalow extensions at 2 Montgomery Close, Sidcup

What was proposed

The application sought front and side extensions, roof changes, a rear dormer and rooflights after demolishing the conservatory, garage and shed.

“This application seeks planning permission for the erection of single storey front and side extensions to both flanks involving alterations to existing roofline, a rear dormer…”

“The dimensions of which would be an approx. 5.2m side extension to each side taking the width of the house from approximately 11.6m to 21.93m alongside the demolition of a 2.56m wide conservatory to the south side and an approx. 5m wide garage and 3m wide shed to the north side of the dwellinghouse. Furthermore, the side extensions would both project approx. 1.98m forward of the existing front elevation, with a ridge height of approx. 5.67m.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a detached bungalow in a mainly residential area beside a private unadopted road, outside listed and conservation designations.

“The application site is a detached bungalow property located to the northern side of Montgomery Close and adjacent to the private unadopted road of Fernbrook Avenue. The site is located within a primarily residential area. The property is not locally listed, statutorily listed or within a conservation area.”

“- Borough Wide Article 4 Direction 2017 (Part 4 Of 5) Local Plan Notation - Primarily Residential Area Local Plan Notation PROPOSAL”

Officer report

Earlier application and fallback

A separate lawful development certificate confirmed that a similar rear dormer could be built under permitted development rights.

“The extension would be sited approximately 10.63m from the shared boundary with no. 1 Montgomery Close and would be built 1.81m away from the boundary with 2a Montgomery Close. As a detached bungalow, the dwellinghouse is sited away from any habitable room windows of the neighbouring properties at a distance of over approximately 21m and 9.2m respectively, as the neighbouring garages are constructed along the shared boundaries, creating separation between the properties.”

“This application includes a small ridge height increase (approx. 0.2m) to accommodate insulation, meaning the dormer cannot be treated as permitted development as part of this combined scheme and is therefore assessed here.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, finding the proposal acceptable in design, area character and neighbouring amenity terms and compliant with the development plan.

“That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.”

“For the reasons set out in the report, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in relation to its design, impact on character and appearance of the area and neighbouring amenity. Overall, the proposal is considered to comply with the relevant policies of the Development Plan, when read as a whole.”

Officer report

Residents’ views

Four households objected overdevelopment, harm, privacy, drainage, highways and possible HMO use, while three representations supported the scheme.

“Four letters of objections have been received from four households. In summary the following objections have been raised. ➢ Overdevelopment of the site and concerns regarding scale and massing. ➢ Overbearing impact on neighbouring properties and surrounding streets. ➢ Loss of light and outlook with overshadowing to neighbouring gardens and private road. ➢ Loss of privacy to adjoining properties.”

“A local resident has expressed support for the proposed development at 2 Montgomery Close. They consider the scheme to be modest in scale and appropriate to its surroundings. The single storey design is viewed as ensuring there would be no unacceptable impact on neighbouring privacy or the character of the street scene.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two objectors addressed the committee, followed by the agent speaking in support.

Committee discussion

The committee discussed the application, considered the speakers’ comments and observations, and noted the officer report.

“The Committee discussed the application, considered all observations, points and comments made by the speakers and noted the report for this application.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee approved the application by five votes to two, in accordance with the officer recommendation.

“Following their discussion, the Committee RESOLVED on a vote of 5/2 to approve the application in accordance with the recommendation as set out in the report before them.”

Minutes

Approval conditions

The report recommended conditions covering the start date, approved plans and obscure glazing for specified windows to protect neighbours’ privacy.

“The development hereby permitted shall be begun within 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). 2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved plans, being: • 25-036-01, 25-036-02 and 25-036-03, received on 12/01/2026.”

“B. The obscured glazing shall be an integral part of the manufacturing process and not a modification or addition made at a later time, such as a film adhered to the glass. The windows shall thereafter be retained as such.”

Officer report