Bexley Council's Planning Committee has approved six residential development applications, including several changes of use to Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs), despite concerns raised by residents about parking and the character of the areas. The committee met on Thursday, 3 September 2026, to discuss the applications, which also included conversions of existing properties and new extensions.
Bexley Council balances the need for HMOs against the loss of family homes by considering London Plan Policy H9, which states that boroughs should take account of the role of HMOs in meeting local and strategic housing needs. Where HMOs are of a reasonable standard, they should generally be protected. The Mayor's Housing SPG highlights HMOs as a strategically important housing resource, providing flexible and relatively affordable accommodation through the private market.
Policy DP5 of the Bexley Local Plan supports new HMOs subject to demonstrating they will not have an adverse impact on the local area and that the accommodation is of appropriate quality. The council aims to strike a careful balance between local concerns, such as those to protect large houses for local family occupation, and the contribution they can make to meeting strategic and local needs if converted to HMOs.
At 20 Gordon Road, Belvedere, a three-bedroom dwelling was approved for conversion into an HMO for up to four occupants. Councillor Annie raised concerns about increased parking pressure on the street and the narrowness of a proposed cycle route. Council officers noted that while parking is challenging, the impact of additional vehicles would be minimal, estimated at around 1%. This assessment is supported by a parking survey, although it was noted that the survey might underestimate demand. The Highway Authority raised no objections, stating that for a small development of this nature, it is unlikely for amenity to be adversely affected and that the development would not give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety or a situation materially different from the existing use. The addition of an HMO in this area was also assessed as not resulting in an over-concentration of HMOs.
Similarly, 51 Cleve Road, Sidcup, was approved for conversion into a five-occupant HMO, including a single-storey side and rear extension. Objectors argued that the development would result in the loss of a family home and exacerbate parking and waste issues. Mr. Bradbury, speaking for objectors, stated the proposal directly contravenes both the London Plan and the Bexley Local Plan
and destroys an affordable family home when Bexley needs the most.
Councillors debated the loss of family housing against the need for HMOs, with officers noting no over-concentration of HMOs in the immediate area. The proposed HMO was therefore considered not to result in an overconcentration of HMO uses in the local area.
The conversion of an existing duplex unit at Land Adjacent to 1-18 Evans Court, Sherman Close, Crayford, into two self-contained residential units was also approved. This involved a side dormer extension, rooflights, internal reconfiguration, and associated rear amenity space, increasing the total number of dwellings on the site from eight to nine. Mr. Darkwa, a bordering resident, raised concerns about the proposed rear amenity space and balcony, fearing encroachment onto his land.
Permission was granted for significant extensions and a roof conversion at Elmwood Lodge, 11 Victoria Road, Sidcup, to increase the number of bedrooms from 10 to 17, including an additional bedroom for carers. The property provides supported living accommodation for older persons with mental health issues. Residents voiced concerns about parking congestion, the design's impact on the conservation area, and potential noise and disturbance. Officers noted that while the design was larger than some neighbouring properties, it was considered complementary to the conservation area's character, and the demolition of an existing unsympathetic extension would be an improvement. Bexley Council assesses the 'character of the area' by considering policies such as Policy DP11 of the Bexley Local Plan, which states that development proposals must seek to protect or enhance the area's character and its amenities and ensure all new developments are satisfactorily located and are of a high standard of design and layout.
In Welling, the erection of a detached single-storey outbuilding in the rear garden of 5 Cavendish Avenue, and alterations to a boundary wall, were approved. Objectors raised concerns about the building's size, potential use for residential occupation, and impact on neighbouring amenity. The committee noted a previous approval for a similar outbuilding and that the current proposal's modest increase in depth was unlikely to cause significant harm. For the outbuilding at 5 Cavendish Avenue, approved for use as a gym, a condition was imposed to ensure that the outbuilding shall be used solely for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the private dwellinghouse at 5 Cavendish Avenue and shall not be used as a separate unit of accommodation, or for any business, trade or profession.
Finally, the conversion of 57 Highland Road, Bexleyheath, from a single-family dwelling into two self-contained residential units was approved. This included a part one/part two-storey rear extension, a front porch extension, and a rear dormer extension. Residents raised concerns about overdevelopment, scale and design being out of character, increased parking pressure, and potential loss of light and privacy. The committee discussed the quality of accommodation, noting that while ceiling heights did not fully meet London Plan standards, which require a minimum of 2.5 meters, they did meet 'nationally discussed space standards' which have a lesser height requirement of 2.3 meters. Officers noted that achieving the London Plan standards would require disproportionate works and negatively impact the street scene. For 57 Highland Road, the proposed development was considered to relate satisfactorily to the existing dwelling in terms of layout, proportions, and proposed material finish, and while the addition was relatively large, it remained subservient to the existing dwelling and did not negatively impact the street scene.
While the meeting minutes do not explicitly detail a specific strategy for addressing the cumulative impact of multiple HMO conversions on parking and local infrastructure within specific neighborhoods, the assessment for individual applications considers this. For instance, at 20 Gordon Road and 51 Cleve Road, it was noted that the proposed HMOs would not result in an over-concentration of HMOs in the area. The minutes also state that the existence of parking stress in an area does not, in itself, justify refusal of a planning application.
