Bexley Council's Planning Committee has approved plans to build 121 new homes on the site of the former Bexley Maternity Hospital, a locally listed building on Erith Road. The decision, made at a meeting on Thursday 31 July 2025, involved extensive discussion and ultimately hinged on the chairman's casting vote after an initial tie.
The application, 23/03414/FULM, submitted by BexleyCo Homes, proposes to retain, refurbish, and convert the former hospital, referred to as Block F, into 12 residential units. Side and rear ancillary wings of the building will be demolished to allow for the construction of new buildings to create a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom flats, as well as three-bedroom dwelling houses. The development also includes vehicular access from Erith Road, associated public spaces, landscaping, and parking.
Of the 121 homes, 18 will be shared ownership units, representing 15% of the total. This falls short of the council's strategic target of 50% affordable housing.
During the Planning Committee meeting, residents voiced concerns about the density of the development, the adequacy of parking, and the potential strain on local infrastructure. Ms Marriott, speaking on behalf of residents, called it a missed opportunity
and argued that 121 residences were too many for the space. She also highlighted the need for more social housing and assurances on GP provision. Councillor Sandhu echoed these concerns, emphasising the difference between planning policies and the real lived experiences of residents.
However, Jackie Batrouni, a Principal Planner at Nexus Planning, defended the application, highlighting the benefits of the scheme, including the provision of much-needed new homes, affordable housing, and the restoration of the former maternity hospital building. She also addressed concerns about parking, biodiversity, and building height, stating that these issues had been carefully considered and addressed in the proposal.
The committee members engaged in a detailed discussion, raising questions about the character and appearance of the development, resident amenity, transport, infrastructure, and affordable housing. Councillor Davy expressed pleasure at seeing the building being brought back into use, while Councillor Slaughter lamented the six-storey blocks of flats, calling them out of balance
. Councillor Fauston questioned the demolition of certain parts of the hospital, asking for clarity about what matters more, the history or the appearance of the building.
Parking was a major point of contention, with Councillor Smith noting that the majority of objections related to parking. The development will provide 82 car parking spaces for general use, along with one car club space, two visitor/loading spaces, one space for potential future car club use, and ten motorcycle parking spaces. Councillor Davie pointed out the constraints imposed by the London Plan and the limited power of the committee to deviate from those standards. The proposed level of parking aligns with the London Plan maximum parking standard for an Outer London Area with a PTAL of 2-3 and is considered acceptable given the site's ecological constraints and the objective of avoiding parking that dominates the public realm.
The landscaping plan includes a Woodland Play Area to the north of the Former Maternity Hospital, a Railway Corridor with a 5-metre buffer zone along the south of the site to protect the site of importance to nature conservation, and on-street parking across the site. A new public open space is provided to the north of the site adjacent to the ancient woodland.
The committee also discussed lighting, with Councillor Jackson raising concerns about the safety of the access road and the need to balance safety, light, and nature conservation. Conditions regarding street lighting are in place to strike a balance between protecting the nature interest within the site and providing adequate lighting for the entire length of the road, which is included within the red line site.
Affordable housing was another key theme, with Councillor Ferguson expressing concern about the repeated failure to meet affordable housing targets. Councillor Taylor questioned the accuracy of viability assessments and the level of developer profit. Councillor Jackson defended the proposal, arguing that the developer had deliberately chosen to forgo profit in order to provide some affordable housing on the site.
Ultimately, the committee was split, resulting in a tied vote. Councillor Readers, the committee chairman, used his casting vote to approve the application, citing its compliance with the local plan, the London Plan, and the national planning framework. He acknowledged the spirited debate and thanked residents for their engagement.
