Three two-storey houses at 113 Dartmouth Road, London SE23

What was proposed

The application proposed three two-storey, two-bedroom houses in the rear garden, with gardens, a car-free layout and pedestrian access between existing properties.

“Is this report easy to understand? Please give us feedback so we can improve. Go to https://lewisham.gov.uk/contact-us/send-us-feedback-on-our-reports 10 The site is Flood Risk Zone 1 area and has a low risk of fluvial flooding and surface water flooding. Transport 11 The site has PTAL rating of 4, indicating a good level of public transport accessibility. The site is served by bus stops on Dartmouth Road serving three bus routes.”

“The scheme is car free, and the houses would be accessed via an existing narrow pedestrian access between 113 and 115 Dartmouth Road. The houses will be two storeys in height and all are laid out as 2 bedroom/3person houses with rear garden. They would laid out in terrace formation but would have staggered building lines. The houses would be finished in light off-white render at ground floor and yellow London stock brick at first floor level.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is an annexed rear garden behind a converted period property, with trees, a narrow side passage and nearby residential buildings and conservation areas.

“Screening: N/A SITE AND CONTEXT Site description and current use 1 The site is annexed rear garden land of a three storey semi-detached period property converted into 4 self-contained flats facing north-west onto Dartmouth Road. The shape of the site is irregular and some of it is directly behind gardens of dwellings (with flats) at Nos. 115 and 117 Dartmouth Road. The annexed rear garden is accessed from a side passage between 113 and 115 Dartmouth Road.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Residents submitted 29 objections and one comment, raising concerns including overdevelopment, access, safety, privacy, daylight, parking, trees, biodiversity, drainage and construction impacts.

“A full planning application submitted 2023 was subsequently withdrawn and was followed up by a further pre-application in 2024. A site notice was displayed 02/10/2024 and a press notice was also published on the same date. Letters were sent to residents and business in the surrounding area, the Forest Hill Society and the relevant ward Councillors on 27/09/2024 and 30/09/2024 respectively. 28 30 number responses received, comprising 29 objections and 1 comment.”

“Applicant did not consult with neighbours This is not a requirement for the developer to undertake. Request previous application documents These are available to view on the Council’s website. Impact on property value Not a material planning consideration. NEUTRAL COMMENT Side access next to 113 shared with 115 Noted by officers. INTERNAL CONSULTATION 29 The following internal consultees were notified on 27/09/2024.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

The applicant’s agent supported the scheme, while a planning consultant speaking for local residents objected on access, safety, design, overdevelopment and affordability grounds.

What members discussed

Members questioned bedroom sizes, access width, disabled access, tree protection and whether accessibility and tree effects should be resolved before deciding.

“That Condition 12 of the report required tree protection measures to be implemented before development begins. These measures must follow the approved tree protection plan and statement. Even if trees were outside the site and not owned by the developer, protection (such as fencing) could be installed on the developer’s site to safeguard the roots of neighbouring trees during construction.”

“Condition 18 also required proof of right of way for any proposed side gate access, ensuring legal use. - Plans showed a possible platform lift for House 3, if needed for disabled access. - M4-3 (wheelchair user dwellings) did not apply, as it was only required for developments of 10+ homes. M4(2) (visitable dwellings) was relevant, but the proposed alleyway was not wide enough for wheelchair access according to British planning law.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee voted four to three to authorise permission, subject to a satisfactory legal agreement and conditions, with refusal possible if the agreement was not completed.

“In reaching a decision on the application and considering submissions made at the meeting Councillor Lavery moved the recommendation on the proposal subject to conditions in the report, which was seconded by Councillor Muldoon and voted upon with 4 votes in favour and 3 against The Committee…”

“MOVED, SECONDED and RESOLVED subject to completion of a satisfactory legal agreement to AUTHORISE the Director of Planning to GRANT PERMISSION:”

Minutes