Six-person HMO conversion at 82 Bramblebury Road, Plumstead, London SE18

What was proposed

The application proposed a six-person, five-room HMO, two single-storey rear extensions, refuse storage and six cycle spaces.

“Planning permission is sought for a change of use from an existing dwelling (Use Class C3) to a 5-bed, 6-person HMO (Use Class C4), in addition to the construction of ground floor rear extensions, provisions of refuse and cycle storage and all other alterations.”

“At ground floor level, a single-storey rear extension is proposed that would project 3m beyond the existing outrigger and would have a height of 3m. The infill extension would project 3m in depth beyond the rear wall and have a height of 3m. The ground floor of the development would have two bedrooms at the front and in the middle, with a communal kitchen at the rear. Access to the communal garden and cycle storage would be provided via the kitchen.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a two-storey mid-terrace dwelling in a residential area, within a conservation area and beside open land.

“The application site is located on the western side of Bramblebury Road and comprises a two-storey mid-terrace dwelling. The property has a rear outrigger and a small single storey rear extension to the outrigger.”

“The surrounding area is residential in character mainly consisting of 2 storey dwellings of a similar appearance to the application site. However, to the south and west of the site is Plumstead Common, an area of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), as seen from the Council’s Core Strategy Policies map below in figure 2.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications for extensions, a loft conversion and a rear extension were refused or withdrawn.

“ITEM NO: 7 4. Relevant Planning History Application ref: Description: Decision: 25/2705/CP Certificate of Lawfulness (Proposed) is sought for Construction of a 3m single-storey rear infill and full-width rear extension, together with a rear dormer roof extension to provide additional habitable space within the loft, including associated internal alterations. External materials to match existing.”

“Refused 25/3704/PN1 Prior Approval for the construction of a single storey rear extension which will extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling by 6.00m, for which the maximum height will be 3.00m and the height at the eaves will be 3.00m…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Twenty-one objections were recorded, while highways raised no objection and three amenity groups did not respond.

“At the time of writing this report, twenty-one (21) objections have been received in relation to the proposed development, including the call-in by Cllr Adel Khaireh. Duplicates of objections have only been counted once but where an objector has made two representations, these have been counted twice. A summary of the neighbour objections received at the time of writing is provided below:”

“Three ward councillors were originally consulted on 5 th December 2025 and again during the subsequent round of consultation. One Councillor (Cllr Adel Khaireh) objected to the proposal and requested the application to be called into committee. In summary, their objections raised the following matters.”

Officer report

What people objected to

Objections concerned parking, noise, overdevelopment, HMO concentration, waste, design, amenity, biodiversity, construction and cycle access.

“A parking survey has been submitted which demonstrates that the impact on parking pressure is acceptable. Whilst it is noted that there is no side access for cycles, this is not considered to be a sufficient reason to refuse the application and it is better that such provision is included than not. A portion of the rear garden would be levelled to facilitate the cycle parking.”

“ITEM NO: 7 Impact on neighbouring amenity: • Insufficient daylight/sunlight • Inadequate light and outlook • Increase noise and disturbance These matters are assessed within the impact on neighbour amenity section of the report below. Character and concentration of HMOs: • Over concentration of HMOs within the existing street • Loss of family home and decrease in housing stock These matters are assessed within the principle of development section of the report below.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A ward councillor and a resident spoke against the proposal, raising heritage, amenity, parking, management, noise and cycle-storage concerns.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed late Environmental Health comments, sound insulation, room sizes, HMO capacity, management arrangements and the extension’s relationship with neighbouring properties.

“In response to Members’ questions the Planning Deputy Team Leader (East) confirmed that the Environmental Health comments were received after the agenda had been published, and the concerns raised reflected general issues relating to noise transfer between properties rather than a specific policy objection.”

“There was no HMO overconcentration policy. The property was currently a 3-bed house, and the proposed en-suite rooms would meet and exceed required room sizes, noting that the en-suite element was not counted as part of overall room size. The proposal included a rear infill extension. The room sizes were assessed against the HMO room size requirements, which were met.”

Minutes

Why the decision was deferred

Members deferred the application for a site visit and further details on cycle-storage access, management and sound insulation.

“Page No. 18 Councillor Pat Greenwell proposed that the matter be deferred for a site visit, which was seconded by Councillor Raja Zeeshan.”

“That consideration of the application be deferred in order that Members could undertake a site visit to understand the layout and practicality of access to the proposed rear cycle storage area, the submission of a robust management plan and details of the sound insulation between the HMO and adjacent properties and between the bedrooms within the HMO.”

Minutes