Subscribe to updates
You'll receive weekly summaries about Bexley Council every week.
If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.
Planning Committee - Thursday, 3rd July, 2025 7.00 pm
July 3, 2025 View on council website Watch video of meeting Read transcript (Professional subscription required)Summary
The Bexley Council Planning Committee met to discuss three town planning applications. Permission was granted for a three-storey building with nine flats at 16 New Road, a two-storey extension to create six flats at Roxby House, and alterations and extensions to 1 Westergate Road.
16 New Road
Planning permission was granted for the erection of a detached three-storey building to provide nine residential units, with associated parking, cycle and refuse storage, following the demolition of the existing bungalow at 16 New Road.
The council had previously refused a similar application (23/01192/FUL), which included a bungalow to the rear of the site, for reasons relating to its impact on Metropolitan Open Land1, character and appearance, and internal amenity standards. This decision was upheld at appeal. The revised application omits the bungalow.
Judith Kinsella, a local resident, raised concerns about the location of the bin and bike store and an increase in the number of flats from eight to nine. David Lees, the architect for the applicant, stated that the development would be a modest and well-mannered addition to the streetscape
and would minimise harm to neighbouring properties.
Councillor June Slaughter MBE raised concerns about overlooking from the balconies at the front of the building to houses on the opposite side of the road. Officers confirmed that the distance between the balconies and the houses opposite was 26 metres, and that there was no specific policy regarding front-to-front overlooking, as the front elevation is considered more open and less private than the rear.
Councillor Peter Reader raised concerns about access to the car parking area, and whether there was sufficient space for a passing place. Officers confirmed that the design allowed for one car to drive in and one car to drive out at a time, with signage to indicate priority.
Councillor Nicola Taylor raised the issue of an archaeological study, given the proximity of Lesnes Abbey. Officers advised that a study was not necessary as the site was not in an area where archaeological finds would be expected, it was not a major development, and it was substantially on a similar footprint to existing built form that had already been disturbed.
Councillor Larry Ferguson raised concerns about the practicality of the access to the car parking area, and whether signage would be effective in preventing collisions. Officers confirmed that a condition required a scheme for the management of the car park, and that the Highway Authority had raised no objection to the proposal.
Councillor Howard Jackson noted that the garage at the back seemed large for one parking space, and suggested that it could potentially accommodate two cars. He also contrasted the development with the nearby Abbey Wood station, saying that he would much rather see developments like this than what was going on right next to the station.
Councillor Slaughter requested that a condition be changed to ensure that the flats would not be occupied until the parking area was completed. Officers agreed to revise the wording of the condition to address this concern.
Councillor Ferguson asked about the protected characteristics considered in relation to the public sector equality duty. Officers confirmed that all protected characteristics from the Equality Act were considered.
Officers confirmed that there was a small infraction on the design guide in terms of light on the amenity of number 18 New Road, but that this was to be weighed up by members. They also confirmed that the site was located in a sustainable development location, and that the council would likely face challenges at appeal if they were to refuse the application on the grounds that they did not want flats in that area.
The committee voted to approve the application, subject to conditions.
1 Westergate Road
Planning permission was granted for the erection of a single-storey infill extension, a single-storey side extension, a first-floor extension, and conversion of the roof space involving alterations to the existing roofline at 1 Westergate Road.
David Franklin, speaking on behalf of the owners of 125 Woolwich Road, raised concerns about the revised bay window at 1 Westergate Road, which he said was only a metre away from their property and would present an overbearing wall, creating enclosure and harming the amenity of their living and bedroom spaces. He also stated that the properties did not share a wall and were not semi-detached, and that the scheme should be looked at and revised accordingly.
Mr Townsend, one of the applicants, said that all previous concerns had been addressed with the new development, and that it was incredibly sympathetic and added a layer of symmetry which was never there before. Mrs Townsend said that she did not want to see the property turned into a block of flats, and that they were trying to put a home on it, not doing it for profit.
Councillor Cameron Smith asked whether the officer's view of the character and what the development should look like would change if the houses did not have an adjoining wall, and what the officer's assessment was regarding the light going into the neighbouring building. Officers confirmed that they would be looking at what was already there and what it would look like compared to the next building, and that any tests would be done from the centre of the window.
Councillor Frazer Brooks thanked Mr and Mrs Townsend for what they were doing, and said that it seemed a lovely development and exactly the sort of thing that was needed in Bexley.
Councillor Rags Sandhu asked whether the obscured windows on the bay were on the ground and first floor, or just the ground floor. Officers confirmed that it should perhaps have an 's' on window, to indicate that it was both sets.
Councillor Chris Ball said that it seemed somewhat unreasonable that the issue around light came just from the front of the window, rather than from the side. Officers clarified that the right to light was not a planning consideration.
Officers clarified that in terms of members making the planning decision, there was a very clear process which was that a light assessment was made from the centre of the window. They also confirmed that there were civil legal remedies available to the parties if they wanted to appoint a solicitor and have that debate around the easement law, but that this was not within the planning remit.
Officers also confirmed that the properties were not in a conservation area, and that there was no historic symmetry to restore.
The committee voted to approve the application.
Roxby House
Planning permission was granted for the erection of a two-storey upwards extension above the rear wing of the existing building at Roxby House, to provide six self-contained residential units, a side extension to the existing overrun at roof level, with associated cycle parking, waste storage and amenity space, and replacement windows to the existing building's facade.
Councillor Smith declared an association with offices nearby, and Councillor Slaughter declared that she was a trustee of the building.
Councillor Jackson said that the building was hideous and not aesthetically pleasing, but that he did not see any reason not to approve the plan, as it seemed acceptable and in keeping with the building. He asked for more information on how the extension would affect the flats opposite, and whether the intensity of intrusion was just because of the way the building looked, or if it was to do specifically with the addition to the building.
Councillor Smith asked if the image provided was the best one available of what the building might look like afterwards, and whether it was still going to be a bit of a grey monstrosity. Officers confirmed that it was an indicative plan of what they intended, and that they considered the appearance to be acceptable.
Councillor Taylor agreed with Councillor Jackson that the building was hideous, and said that she was not a fan of office to residential conversions. She also raised concerns about complying with affordable housing requirements under the London Plan.
Councillor Frazer Brooks said that if there was nothing there now and you were going to build that, it would have been a hard no from him, but given where they were, it couldn't look worse. He also asked whether anything had been considered to ameliorate the congestion that could be caused by building works, and whether they could mandate that the building be painted a nice shade of white.
Officers confirmed that there was a management and logistics plan to be submitted prior to commencement, and that this would include management of construction associated vehicle movements and parking. They also confirmed that there were conditions on the final finish and materials, and that it did not have to be that hideous grey concrete block.
Councillor Slaughter said that she did not like this way of providing housing, and that she would be less happy than it was some other shade.
Officers confirmed that the proposal met the London Plan space standards, as well as the national space standards.
Officers also confirmed that they would take away and amend condition three to have a bit more control over the final colour and finish of the external piece.
The committee voted to approve the application, subject to conditions.
-
Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) is a designation in Greater London that provides similar protection to green belt land. ↩
Attendees













Topics
No topics have been identified for this meeting yet.
Meeting Documents
Additional Documents