Six dwellinghouses at Land to the rear of 39-50 Vicarage park, Plumstead, London SE18

What was proposed

The application proposed six homes with landscaping, refuse and cycle storage, improved pedestrian access and external alterations.

“That full planning permission be granted for the development of land to the rear of 39-50 Vicarage Park for the construction of six dwellinghouses with associated landscaping, refuse and cycle storage, improved pedestrian access and associated external alterations.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The site was described as a derelict former stable yard that had become associated with fly-tipping and antisocial behaviour.

“The Committee accepted an address from the Applicant’s agent and architect speaking in support of the application. He said that the site had been derelict for many years as an overgrown former stable yard and had become a source of fly-tipping and antisocial behaviour. The proposals would redevelop the site to provide six family homes arranged around a shared landscaped garden whilst retaining and protecting most of the existing mature trees.”

Minutes

Earlier committee action

The item had previously been deferred for a members’ site visit, while additional objections were received.

“This item was on the agenda for the 24 th June 2026 Local Planning Committee. It was deferred by members before the case was presented by officers for a site visit to be carried out. A site visit by members is due to be undertaken prior to the to the 14 th July Local Plan Committee meeting.”

“ITEM NO: 5 2.2 Since the item was deferred on the 24 th June, the application has received, and continues to receive a number of additional objections. These additional objections will be summarised and addressed within a 2 nd addendum, prior to the 14 th July Local Planning Committee.”

Officer report

Concerns raised

A ward councillor and local residents objected over parking, flooding, ecology, amenity, safety, access, land stability, subsidence and boundary impacts.

“The Committee accepted an address by Councillor Stewart Christie, speaking as a Ward Councillor, in objection. He questioned the validity of the parking survey as he felt it did not accurately reflect local parking demand due to the timing being both late at night and during the Easter school holidays. Parking demand in the area was high due to the nearby school and temple and so the development would increase parking displacement across a much wider area than anticipated.”

“The Committee accepted an address from local residents all speaking in objection to the proposals. They raised concerns about the design of the proposals and the impact on crime and safety requirements and emergency access issues; the loss of amenity for neighbouring residents; the impact on the ecology of the site including the removal of 300 year old trees and the impact on bats and hedgehogs and concerns about land stability, subsidence and rights of access to the land.”

Minutes

Who spoke

A ward councillor and local residents spoke against the proposal, while the applicant’s agent and architect spoke in support.

How members voted

Refusal motions on amenity, enclosure, parking and disability access failed; a further ecology survey deferral was not seconded.

“The Committee moved to Determination. A Member put forward a refusal motion on the basis of loss of amenity for neighbouring residents, sense of enclosure and concerns regarding parking.”

“A further refusal motion was proposed on the basis that the disability access was insufficient. The Motion was seconded and the Chair put the Motion to the vote and with…”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted permission for six homes with the recommended conditions and additional requirements for sustainable drainage and stabilisation works.

“The Chair put the substantive Motion for approval to the vote, with the additional conditions as outlined by the Development Control Manager, East, on sustainable urban drainage and site stabilisation and with…”

Minutes