Single-storey two-bedroom dwelling at Land rear of 65 Eglinton Hill, Plumstead, London SE18

What was proposed

The application proposed a single-storey detached two-bedroom home fronting Mayplace Lane, with parking, cycle storage, landscaping and associated works.

“Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a single storey detached two-bedroom dwelling.”

“The proposed dwelling would be sited on land to the rear of no. 65 Eglinton Hill and would front Mayplace Lane. The dwelling would be 10.4m at its deepest and 8.4m at its widest. The dwelling would have an eaves height of 2.7m and an overall height of 5m utilising a hipped roof with a lower gabled feature to the rear. See figure 5 below for the proposed elevations.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was a treed, shrub-covered former garden plot beside Mayplace Lane, with a protected pear tree and residential properties nearby.

“The site sits on the western side of Mayplace Lane, an historic lane that runs from Dallin Road to the north and Plum Lane to the south. The land is presently devoid of any built form and is covered in shrubbery and trees. The site historically formed part of the rear garden of no. 65 Eglinton Hill to the west.”

“To the north of the site lies the rear gardens and plots of land to the rear of Eglinton Hill that sit along Mayplace Lane. Some of which contain small garages within. The lane then meets Dallin Road, a residential street. The entrance to Mayplace Lane at the junction of Dallin Road is shown in Figure 4 below. Opposite the site to the east lies the rears of the dwellings along Dallin Road.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and changes

Earlier schemes were refused, while an adjacent single-home appeal was allowed; this proposal changed the design and added ecological information.

“App Number: 23/2685/F Decision: Refused Decision Date: 03/01/2023 Address: Land to the rear of Eglinton Hill, Plumstead, London, SE18 3NT Description: Construction of a single storey detached two bedroom dwelling on land to the rear of 65 Eglinton Hill fronting Mayplace Lane and all associated works. Reason for refusal: 1.”

“App Number: 20/1518/F Decision: Refused (Allowed on appeal: APP/E5330/ W/21/3269 946) Decision Date: 09/12/2020 Address: Land to the rear of 67 and 67A Eglington Hill, Plumstead, London Description: Construction of a 3 bedroom 5 person dwelling, construction of a new access, boundary treatments and other associated works. Reason for refusal: 1.”

Officer report

What people and consultees said

Fifteen neighbours objected over construction, trees, character, privacy, wildlife and biodiversity, while highways and waste officers raised no objections.

“Summary of Comments Officers comments • Disruption during construction works with regard to noise and impact on the Mayplace Lane highway. A condition has been recommended for the decision notice requiring a construction method statement addressing how the impact on the surrounding dwellings and highways network will be mitigated. • Loss of ten trees unacceptable.”

“These impacts are assessed with the principle of development section below in the report within section 9. • Loss of wildlife including priority species • Unacceptable impact on bats and hedgehogs • At odds with the Greenwich Biodiversity Action Plan • Loss of biodiversity and failure to provide a 10% Biodiversity Net Gain on site • The site is a safe-haven for wildlife.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two residents, a ward councillor and the applicant’s agent addressed the committee about biodiversity, trees, overlooking, construction protection and site conditions.

What members considered

Members focused on the reported 61% biodiversity loss, environmental effects, protected species, inconsistent ecology information and risks to adjacent protected oak trees.

“As Members did not wish to debate the application the Chair put the recommendation to grant planning consent to the vote with – 0 Members in favour 3 Members against 3 Members abstaining…”

“Before declaring the vote Members clarified their reasons for refusal were on the basis of the 61% loss of biodiversity and the impact on the environment and protected species and inconsistent ecology reports had been presented.”

Minutes

The final decision

The committee granted permission subject to the listed conditions, requiring an ecologist during clearance and tree protection measures for two adjoining oak trees.

“That consent be subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 2, its addendums, and the following amendment – · Condition 14 – that the Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) include the requirements for an ecologist to be on site during the clearing stage, to detect and protect any endangered or protected wildlife in habitation.”

“And the additional condition – · Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan relating to the two (2) Oak Trees on the adjoining site.”

Minutes