Plumstead Community Residents Petition against Planning Application 25/3803/F

1. Harm to Residential Amenity (Privacy, Noise and Disturbance)
 
The siting and scale of the proposed dwellings would result in unacceptable overlooking, loss of privacy, and increased noise and disturbance to existing residents. The development would fundamentally change the quiet enjoyment of neighbouring homes and gardens.
 
No adequate assessment has been provided to demonstrate that noise from increased residential activity, refuse movements, and deliveries—particularly given the site’s enclosed, ravine-like topography—would be properly mitigated.

 2. Loss of Biodiversity and Harm to the Conservation Area Setting
 
The site performs an important ecological role as a green buffer adjacent to Plumstead Common Nature Reserve, a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. The proposal would result in significant biodiversity loss, including the removal of mature trees and habitat.
 
In addition, the scale and engineered nature of the development would harm the setting and landscape character of the adjacent Plumstead Common Conservation Area, eroding its semi-natural character.

 3. Fire Safety and Emergency Access Concerns
 
The site is landlocked and lacks suitable vehicular access for fire and emergency services. The application relies on internal fire suppression systems and pedestrian access routes, which do not provide a safe or reliable alternative to proper emergency vehicle access. This presents an unacceptable risk to future occupants and neighbouring residents.
 
4. Parking, Traffic and Construction Impacts
 

The absence of on-site parking would worsen existing parking pressures on surrounding narrow residential streets, harming highway safety and residential amenity. The application also fails to demonstrate how construction traffic, heavy machinery, materials, and excavation works could be safely managed without causing disruption or damage to neighbouring properties.  Furthermore, the application has incorrectly counted parking spaces on Manthorpe Road which is permit parking only.

The proposal design and appearance are not in keeping with current locality and any decision must be consistent with established officer judgement and as it stands is incompatible with Local Plan DH1 and DH(a).

Case Ref 21/3156/DP (2021) was refused because a dormer was judged over dominant and congruous, harmful to character and appearance, and out of keeping with the locality.  

Case Ref 132/471F was refused due to out of keeping with the host property

and fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Plumstead

Common Conservation Area, contrary to Policies 7.4, 7.8 of the London Plan,

Policies SD1, D1 and D16 of the Unitary Development Plan, Policies DH1, DH3 and

DH(h) of the Draft Core Strategy and the Plumstead Common Conservation Area.

 

Case ref 90_0184P was refused due to the proposed development having an adverse effect on the local environment and on the amenities of adjoining occupiers  by reason of noise and other disturbance contrary to Policy ENV15 of the Borough Plan.