Six-person HMO at 18 Bramblebury Road, Plumstead, London SE18

What was proposed

The application proposed a single-storey rear extension and conversion of the family dwelling into a six-bedroom HMO for up to six people.

“The application seeks planning permission for the construction of a single- storey rear extension and change of use of a single family dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a six bedroom HMO with a maximum capacity of six persons (Use Class C4)”

“The rear extension at lower ground floor level would be 3 metres in depth and would extend the entire width of the rear of the property. The height would be 3 metres and a flat roof form would be used contained a singular rooflight.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a three-storey-to-the-rear terrace dwelling outside the conservation area, with poor public transport access and no controlled parking zone.

“The application site is located on the western side of Bramblebury Road and comprises of a two-storey with basement, terrace single family dwellinghouse. The dwelling contains a lightwell to the front of the site and is three storeys to the rear, due to the basement.”

“The site has a PTAL rating of 2 indicating a below average level of public transport accessibility. The site is not within a Controlled Parking Zone.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions because the proposal was considered acceptable in principle, design, accommodation, neighbour amenity and highway terms.

“Subject to the conditions (Appendix 2) to be detailed in the notice of determination.”

“The application is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval subject to that set out in section 1 above.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Fifteen objections raised concerns including too many HMOs, parking, road safety, noise, waste, antisocial behaviour and poor management, while waste officers raised no objection.

“This is further assessed within the waste section of the report below (15). • There are too many HMOs within the street already • The dwelling should remain as a family home as originally intended • Proliferation of HMOs in this part of the Borough This is assessed within the principle of development section of the report below. • Increased parking pressure • Road safety concerns This is addressed within the highways and parking section of the report below (Section 13).”

“ITEM NO: PAGE NO: • Lack of party wall agreement • Application driven by landlord greed • The proposed development would change the atmosphere of the streetscene • Increased risk of anti-social behaviour • There are more suitable areas within the Borough for HMOs • Increase in crime • Unacceptable behaviour of tenants of existing HMOs in the area • Loss of social cohesion within the area • High turnover of tenants ruining the character of the area • Poor property upkeep…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Residents spoke about noise, bins, parking, drainage, poor management and cycle access, while the applicant’s agent supported the scheme and the applicant addressed the tree concern.

What members debated

Members debated whether cycle routes were safe, whether bins would fit, and whether the enlarged platform would harm bedroom one’s light, privacy and amenity.

“The Member accepted the agents’ comment that it was normal for bicycles to have to go through a family home, however, this was an HMO with six unrelated people and felt that both proposed routes did not appear to be easy or safe options, noting that the bike would been to be navigated down stairs and through the kitchen by way of a number of tight turns.”

“Minutes Local Planning Committee 30 September 2025 Page No. Another Member concurred with the concerns at the negative impact on Bedroom 1, due to access to natural light being impacted by the extended platform above it asl well as its aspect facing onto the stairwell wall with disturbance from bikes being taken passed the only window and in through the entrance door beside it.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was refused because cycle access, bin storage and bedroom one’s amenity were considered unacceptable.

“That full planning permission for the construction of single-storey rear extension and change of use of a single family dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a six bedroom HMO with a maximum capacity of six persons (Use Class C4) be refused.”

“By reason of the location of the basement window serving bedroom 1 within a lightwell, relationship with the staircase and access to the lower ground floor, and extension of platform, would lead to an adverse impact on the amenity of any prospective occupier of that bedroom, in terms of noise, disturbance and loss of privacy.”

Minutes