Micro pub and smoking shelter at 266 Sherwood Park Avenue, Sidcup
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Bexley Planning Committee on 18 Dec 2025.
What was proposed
The application sought to change a dry cleaners into a micro pub and build a timber-clad smoking shelter at the rear.
“The proposal seeks permission for the change of use from Dry Cleaners (Class E (c)iii) to a Micro Pub (Class Sui Generis) and erection of smoking shelter at rear.”
“Within the design and access statement it states that the existing dry cleaner use will cease operation due to the owner retiring. The owner’s son is to take over the operation of the premises seeking its converted use to a Micropub. A new timber clad smoking shelter will be introduced within the rear external amenity area of the site, measuring at a height of 3m with a width of 3.8m and depth of 2.4m.”
Officer report
The site and surroundings
The site is a two-storey mid-terrace property with a commercial ground floor, a first-floor flat and a 20-metre rear amenity area.
“The application site features a two storey mid terrace property which hosts a commercial unit to its ground floor and a residential flat to its first floor. The property benefits from a 20 metre deep rear external amenity area.”
“The site is located within the Sherwood Park Avenue Neighbourhood Centre within a primary residential area as designated within the Bexley Local Plan Policies Map. The other buildings within the neighbourhood centre also feature commercial units to their ground floors and residential uses to their upper floors.”
Officer report
Earlier applications
Earlier applications included prior approval for a flat and a refused takeaway proposal because it would reduce retail provision in the neighbourhood centre.
“21/02338/PRIOR: Notification for Prior Approval for the proposed change of use of the ground floor dry cleaners (Use Class A1) to provide 1 x 1 bed flat with associated amenity space. Prior approval granted: 27.09.2021”
“The development, by virtue of its proposed change of use, would result in the under provision of retail units within Sherwood Park Avenue neighbourhood…”
Officer report
Why officers supported it
Officers considered the proposal acceptable in principle, with no unacceptable harm to the area, neighbours or highway safety subject to conditions.
“The key issues to consider include: The principle of the development, the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area, the impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties, highways impacts and waste management.”
“For the reasons set out in this report the proposed development is considered acceptable in principle. The proposed addition of the external smoking shed and terrace area would have no adverse impact upon the character or appearance of the site or the street scene. No unacceptable harm would be imposed to the amenities of the surrounding residential neighbours, subject to conditions, or to the local highway safety.”
Officer report
What consultees said
Environmental Health and Contaminated Land requested conditions, the Highway Authority raised no objection, and the police gave security observations.
“Highway Authority does not object to the development proposals as it is considered that the traffic movements to the site will not cause severe harm to the local highway network.”
“No official comment or request of a secure by design condition, but has provided general observations: the rear area backs onto the builder's yard so secure fencing should be considered. Enhanced security / security rated product for the storage area should be considered. If money is kept on the premises, then enhanced security for the doors / rooms where the money is kept should be considered. Staff lockers to avoid dispute.”
Officer report
Residents’ views
Fifteen neighbouring addresses objected over disturbance, smoking, antisocial behaviour, parking and safety, while two letters supported the proposal.
“Objections have been received from 15 neighbouring addresses. In summary the following objections have been raised.”
“Issue raised Where addressed in report Smoking area and loud music will cause disturbance to occupiers of upper floor flats Impact on neighbouring amenity There are already 4 shops on this parade that sell alcohol, a pub 2 minutes away and 2 micro pubs on Blackfen High Street Principle of development Will add to existing anti-social behaviour/drug use Impact on neighbouring amenity Negatively impact safety of community/schools close by Impact on neighbouring amenity Increase…”
Officer report
The committee discussion
The committee discussed the application and noted the officer report with the addendum.
“This Committee discussed the application and noted the report with the Addendum item for this application.”
Minutes
The vote
The committee voted unanimously, by 10 votes to nil, to approve the application.
“Following their discussion, the Committee RESOLVED on a vote of 10/0 to approve the application in accordance with the recommendation as set out in the report before them, and as amended by the Addendum.”
Minutes
Sources
- Bexley Planning Committee minutes, 18 December 2025
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Bexley's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Committee
- Bexley Planning Committee
- Council
- Bexley
- Date
- Thursday 18 December 2025
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Approved
- Vote
- 10 for, 0 against
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- The application (council website)
- All decisions
- Bexley committee decisions →
Source: Plota analysis of the minutes.
This committee's year
36 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 4 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.