Two backland dwellings at Land to the rear of 53 Wyndcliff Road, London SE7

What was proposed

The application sought two single-family dwellings after demolishing outbuildings, with refuse and cycle storage, landscaping and a permeable shared access.

“Full planning permission is sought for the demolition of existing outbuildings to facilitate the construction of two single-family dwellings, in addition to the provision of refuse and cycle storage, landscaping and permeable shared access, and all other associated works. For clarification, dwelling 1 refers to the dwelling located in the north-western portion of the site, whilst dwelling 2 refers to the dwelling in the south-eastern portion of the site.”

“The proposed dwellings would be sited on land to the rear of no.53 Wyndcliff Road, which currently features part of its rear garden. Being a two-storey development, the building would vary in height but would be no greater than approximately 7.11m. The overall design of the proposed dwellings is of a high quality and contemporary design, featuring angled and flat roof forms.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The vacant rear site contains a substation, a home gym, vegetation and trees, slopes downwards, and is surrounded by two-storey terraced homes.

“The subject site is a rear property approximately 706m2 in size and is currently vacant of development except for a small substation and a home- gym which serves the adjoining property at 53 Wyndcliff Road which currently owns and has access to the site. There is some existing vegetation on the site, including two larger trees and hedging/shrubs along boundaries.”

“The site features lightly undulating topography that slopes downwards from Wyndcliff Road to the south-west and also downwards towards the properties along Sandtoft Road.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the development acceptable because it would provide two well-designed homes without unacceptable effects on character, neighbours, highways or parking.

“The proposed development would bring forward two residential units which would have a high-quality design and would provide an acceptable quality of accommodation to prospective tenants.”

“The submissions have adequately demonstrated that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the local highway network or car parking pressure within the immediate area.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Residents spoke against the proposal, and the applicant’s agent supported it by referring to assessments, consultation, design, conditions and emergency-service discussions.

What members debated

Members considered the proposal overdevelopment and dominant in an enclosed garden, while noting concerns about privacy, biodiversity and outstanding matters needing clarification.

“The Local Planning Committee accepted representations from local residents speaking in objection. They raised concerns about the unsuitability of the site for the construction of dwellings of the size proposed and the impact on their amenity it terms of overlooking and associated loss of privacy as well as concerns about fire safety.”

“In determining the application Members commented that they felt the proposals represented an overdevelopment of the site. Whilst they felt this was land that could be used for housing, the proposals submitted made for a dominant feature in what was an enclosed garden in a high density residential area. Members noted the concerns re privacy and overlooking and the impact on biodiversity and that there were a number of outstanding issues that needed further clarification.”

Minutes

The final decision

Permission was refused because the development would intrude on neighbouring amenity and the ecological survey was inadequate to assess possible harm to protected species.

“That Full Planning Permission be REFUSED at Land to the rear of 53 Wyndcliff Road, London, SE7 7LP for the demolition of existing outbuildings to facilitate the construction of two dwellings, in addition to the provision of refuse and cycle storage, landscaping and permeable shared access, and all other associated works.”

“Due to the timing of the Ecological Survey, it is considered that this is inadequate to demonstrate whether the site provides habitats for protected species, as such it is not possible to determine whether the proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the ecology of the site.”

Minutes