Bexley Council's Planning Committee has approved a development that will increase the number of housing units in Crayford, adding one net new dwelling to the site at Land Adjacent to 1-18 Evans Court, Sherman Close.
The decision, made at a meeting on Thursday, September 3, 2026, saw the conversion of an existing duplex unit into two self-contained residential units. This development will bring the total number of dwellings on the site to nine.
The approved plans include a side dormer extension, rooflights to the front roof slope, internal reconfiguration, and associated rear amenity space. The conversion will create a one-bedroom, two-person flat at first-floor level and a one-bedroom, one-person flat at second-floor level.
Concerns were raised by residents regarding potential encroachment onto private land due to the proposed rear amenity space and balcony. Mr. Albert Darkwa, whose property borders the development, stated that the space available between the proposed development and his property boundary was extremely limited
and that he did not believe there was sufficient space to provide amenity areas shown on the plans without potentially extending onto our privately owned land.
Mr. Williams, presenting the application, stated that Both units exceed the minimum space standards with acceptable external immunity space provided to both.
The applicant's agent, Mr. Hadley, assured the committee that the development had been built on the applicant's land and that the objections that have been made are obviously thoroughly and comprehensively reviewed within the officers' report. They've looked at them in detail, and they are satisfied to recommend permission to you this evening.
The modest external changes
mentioned by Mr. Hadley included an additional side-facing door window, two roof lights on the front roof slope, and the provision of a small rear terrace, private outdoor immediate space that is, as you've seen from the plans like this, consistent with the other terraces that are at the same level, same distance out of the building that currently exist at that roof level.
Mr. Williams added that The overall design remains acceptable and the proposed elements would mimic existing elements within the scheme and would be of an acceptable design and character.
Beyond the internal reconfiguration, the proposal was not considered to result in a material increase in traffic generation or parking requirement, with officers stating, As detailed in the report, the proposal is not considered to result in a material increase in ship generation or parking requirement, and therefore no adverse impact in terms of the highway network.
Waste collection and utility services were not specifically discussed in relation to the impact of adding these two units, though general conditions for waste management are often imposed on new developments.
The committee also discussed the potential impact on privacy and the close relationship between the proposed amenity area and the property boundary. Officers noted these concerns as civil matters. Mr. Williams clarified, If that isn't the case, then the issue would be a civil issue for the residents to take up with the developer. But it's not a – planning and planning wouldn't override any rights.
This implies that disputes over land ownership or encroachment would need to be pursued through legal avenues rather than the planning process.
Twenty-two objections from seventeen households outside the borough and nineteen objections from fifteen households inside the borough were received. These included concerns about Loss of Privacy, Overlooking and noise pollution,
Overdevelopment of the site and out of character,
Increase parking pressures, vehicle movements and safety,
Inappropriate use of a S73 application,
and Loss of Property Value.
The report addressed these within the 'Assessment' section, stating that the proposal would not result in any material increase in overlooking beyond that already assessed and accepted under the extant permission.
Concerns about land ownership and structural issues were noted as private legal matters and cannot be resolved through the planning process.
The application was recommended for approval by officers, and the committee voted to grant planning permission. Further details on the application can be found in the Public reports pack and the Agenda frontsheet for the meeting.