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

The site and surroundings

The site is a two-storey mid-terrace home in a residential area, within the Plumstead Common Conservation Area and an Area of Special Character.

“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.”

“The application site forms a part of the Plumstead Common Conservation Area but is not a statutory or a locally listed building and is not affected by an Article 4 Direction.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications for extensions, a dormer and a rear extension were refused or withdrawn before this planning application.

“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.”

“ITEM NO: 7 1. The application site is within the Plumstead Common Conservation area which constitutes article 2(3) land. Prior approval is therefore not applicable to the application site. As such, the proposal does not comply with criteria A.1(g) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended). Prior approval is therefore refused. 2.”

Officer report

What people said

Twenty-one objections raised concerns including parking, noise, daylight, outlook, HMO concentration, overdevelopment, refuse, construction and biodiversity.

“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:”

“ITEM NO: 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

The Planning Officer, Senior Principal Planner and Assistant Director addressed members’ questions about management, overlooking, enclosure, noise and refusal grounds.

What members debated

Members debated management-plan enforcement, overlooking, rear activity, enclosure, overdevelopment, noise and the effect of six unrelated occupants on neighbours.

“Local Plannign Committee Minutes 24 March 2026 Page No. A Members expressed concern as to whether overlooking to the neighbours’ properties had been adequately considered, given the tight arrangement.”

“The Planning Officer confirmed submission and approval by the Local Authority of an Operational Management Plan was conditioned. Any breach of the approved plan would be addressed by planning enforcement, alongside enforcement by the council’s HMO licensing team. A fallback position exists where the rear dormer could be implemented and occupancy increased regardless of this application and was not considered to result in a substantial overlooking or amenity impact.”

Minutes

The vote

The recommendation to grant planning consent received no votes in favour, two against and two abstentions.

“The Chair put the recommendation to grant planning consent to the vote with…”

“Local Plannign Committee Minutes 24 March 2026 Page No. 4 0 Members in favour 2 Members against 2 Members abstaining.”

Minutes

What was decided

The committee refused the change from a single-family dwelling to a six-bed, six-person HMO because of harmful noise and disturbance to neighbouring properties.

“Members confirmed that, in this case that they conspired a 6 bed HMO unacceptable in this terraced location and that it would create an unacceptable sense of enclosure and overdevelopment creating an unacceptable level of harm to and the disturbance from six unrelated occupants and increased comings and goings would create an unacceptable impact on the existing residential amenity peaceable habitation of their home .”

“That the for the change of use from existing single-family dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a 6-bed, 6-person HMO (Use Class C4) be refused on the grounds of the harmful impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties through noise and disturbance from the HMO.”

Minutes