Rear extension and garden outbuilding at 16 Eastbrook Road, Kidbrooke, London SE3

What was proposed

The application proposed a single-storey rear extension, an ancillary home office and leisure outbuilding, and conversion of the existing garage into a play room.

“The application proposes the construction of a single storey rear extension and ancillary outbuilding to the main dwelling 16 Eastbrook Road, and conversion of the existing garage into a habitable space. The extension would be abutted to the shared boundary with No.64 Hervey Road. The outbuilding would be located at the bottom end of the rear garden near the shared boundary with No.36 Hervey Road and 62 Hervey Road.”

“The outbuilding would achieve a gross internal area of approximately 35sqm with an overall footprint of approximately 44sqm. The outbuilding would be used as an ancillary home office/leisure space.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a two-storey semi-detached home beside the Sun in the Sands Conservation Area, where similar extensions and outbuildings are established.

“The application site comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling with an existing flat roofed two-storey side extension, located on the western side of Eastbrook Road.”

“Single storey rear extensions, roof extensions and ancillary outbuildings are largely present in the vicinity of the application site and form an established development pattern of this area.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Several earlier rear-extension applications were refused, while a single-storey rear extension and a loft conversion were approved.

“Eastbrook Road 4.1 26/1429/PN1 - Prior Approval for the construction of a single storey rear extension which will extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling by 4.60m, for which the maximum height will be 3.67m and the height at the eaves will be 3.00m. Refused on 22/06/2026.”

“25/3698/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 3.29m and the height at the eaves will be 3.00m. Refused on 15/12/2025. Ongoing appeal ref. 6003027.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The consultation included objections about overdevelopment, possible HMO use, visual and neighbouring impacts, overlooking, trees, enclosure and loss of light.

“Concerns regarding the overdevelopment of the site. This has been addressed in the “Principle of development” and “Design and visual amenity” sections. Potential that the site is being configured to operate as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). The current application seeks consent for a rear extension and an outbuilding in the rear garden. The application can only be determined on the basis of what is being proposed under the current application.”

“This has been addressed in the “Neighbouring amenity” section. The outbuilding would result in overbearing impact, senses of enclosure and loss of light. This has been addressed in the “Neighbouring amenity” section. Concerns regarding the removal of trees on the site and impact on trees on the adjacent sites. Whilst trees may have been removed from within the application site, this does not require permission.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The ward councillor and local residents spoke against the proposal, while the applicant spoke about family needs and the intended flexible accommodation.

Members’ debate

Members considered whether the outbuilding could become self-contained accommodation, the garden footprint, boundary distances and possible obscured glazing.

“In response to Members’ questions, the Planning Officer said that the proposed building would be ancillary to the main dwelling house and the lack of kitchen facilities or a bedroom on the proposed plans meant it would not qualify as self-contained accommodation. Additionally there was no direct access that could facilitate a self-contained residential development.”

“The Development Control Manager, West clarified that in relation to paragraph 10.12 of the report the garden footprint referred to was the cumulative footprint of the extension and the outbuilding which took up 21% of the total garden space, which was still below the 50% that should be retained in line with the Council’s urban design guidelines.”

Minutes

The votes

Members rejected deferral for a site visit by seven votes to two, then approved the application by seven votes with one abstention.

“A Committee Member proposed deferring the item for a site visit. The Chair reminded Members that, as had been agreed by the Committee, in future, requests to defer for a site visit should be submitted no later than 24 hours before the meeting to ensure residents and applicants are notified in advance. As this procedure had only recently been introduced, it was acknowledged that the item may have fallen between the old and new arrangements.”

Minutes

The decision

Conditional planning permission was granted for the rear extension and annex or office outbuilding, subject to the recommended and additional glazing conditions.

“That conditional planning permission is granted for the proposed single- storey rear extension, and erection of an annex/office outbuilding (Amended Plans and Documents)”

“Subject to the conditions in Appendix 2, to be detailed in the notice of determination; along with the additional condition that the windows in the south and west elevation of the outbuilding/annex being obscured glazed.”

Minutes