1-3A Doggett Road, Catford

Decision

allowed, 11 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: H Marriott

Authority

Lewisham (London)

Appeal reference

6004929

Application reference

DC/25/140280

Procedure

written representations

Development

Demolition of 13-bed HMO and erection of 4-storey building with 9 flats and a commercial unit

Homes

9

Site context

inside settlement, PDL, flood zone 3, flood zone 2, near station

Green Belt

No

Housing Delivery Test

65%

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S3, S4, HO7, L2, L3, F5, F6, DM5

Development plan policies

London Plan 2021 D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, H9, HC1, T5, T6, Lewisham Local Plan 2025 QD1, QD8, QD10, HE3, HO1, HO3, HO8, SD7, TR4, Small Site Design Guidance SPD 2021

Main issues

character and heritage; loss of HMO; affordable housing viability; living conditions; cycle parking; neighbour privacy; flood risk

Summary

A 4-storey building with 9 flats and a café, replacing a poor-quality 13-bed HMO on a corner plot next to Catford Bridge station. Lewisham refused it, and the appeal was allowed. No sequential test had been done, even though part of the site is in Flood Zone 3a. The inspector found conflict with F5 and the plan's SD7, but gave substantial weight to HO7 (HDT 65%) and to L2/L3 PDL reuse. Removing the basement bedrooms was a real flood-safety gain. On that basis the S4 balance favoured approval.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "The main parties were given the opportunity to comment on the revised Framework" (DL ¶3).
• Character / NDHAs — HE7, DP3: PASS. The building would make "a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area" and would not harm the settings of the NDHAs (DL ¶19).
• Loss of HMO: acceptable. The local plan policy protects good-quality HMOs, not ones that merely meet licensing. This HMO fell "short of those reasonably associated with good quality HMO" (DL ¶¶24–25).
• Affordable housing — DM5: viability accepted. "the Council has not contested the conclusions of the VA ... the VA nevertheless indicates a significant viability deficit even in the absence of those costs" (DL ¶32).
• Flood — F5: FAIL; F6/F7: PASS. "While a sequential test has not been undertaken in line with Policy F5 of the Framework, the considerations in Policy F6 remain relevant" (DL ¶50). "the ability to make the development safe ... does not negate the requirement to apply the sequential test" (DL ¶52). The resulting conflict is "principally one of policy compliance rather than direct flood risk harm" (DL ¶56).
• DM7. Accessibility details were left to Building Regulations: "Policy DM7 ... advises decision-makers to assume that other regulatory regimes will operate effectively" (DL ¶17).

Planning balance

S3/S4 balance. For the scheme: HO7 substantial weight (HDT 65%), L2/L3 substantial weight for PDL in a sustainable urban location, limited economic weight. Against it: a sequential-test conflict under F5 and SD7, with flood risk actually reduced. "the benefits of approving the proposed development would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶60). Material considerations justified departing from the plan (DL ¶61).

What made the difference

The Council did not defend its reasons. It produced no appeal statement on viability, no conditions and no sequential-test evidence. The inspector also judged the missing sequential test a matter of procedure: much of the surrounding area floods too, so a sequentially preferable site was unlikely, and moving bedrooms out of the basement reduced actual risk. With HO7 plus L2/L3 both at substantial weight on a PTAL 6a PDL site, the S4 bar of "substantially outweighed" could not be met. A greenfield site, or a scheme that increased the number of people exposed to flooding, would probably have failed on F5.

Transferable points

• A failure to carry out a sequential test (F5) can be outweighed in the S4 balance when it is "principally one of policy compliance rather than direct flood risk harm" and the scheme reduces the number of people exposed (DL ¶¶50, 56, 60).
• F6 considerations "remain relevant" even where the sequential test has not been passed (DL ¶50).
• HO7 and L2/L3 can each carry substantial weight in the same S4 balance for urban PDL redevelopment (DL ¶57).
• Unchallenged viability evidence under DM5 displaces HO8 and the local plan's affordable housing requirement for small sites (DL ¶¶29–33, 59).
• DM7 lets accessibility and door-width concerns be left to Building Regulations (DL ¶¶17, 41).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Existing 13-bed HMO of poor quality (basement rooms, limited kitchens/showers); loss acceptable under LP HO8 (DL 22-27)
• HDT 32% in the past, 65% for 2025 (DL 26)
• PTAL 6a, car-free by condition in place of an unsubmitted s106 (DL 53, 64)
• Viability appraisal first submitted at appeal and admitted (Wheatcroft-type test) (DL 4)
• Bat surveys obtained during the appeal on the inspector's invitation (DL 5)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.