# Land adjacent to 115 Loampit Vale, Lewisham

- **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: David Wyborn
- **Authority:** Lewisham (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010822
- **Application reference:** DC/25/141630
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Four-storey infill building with 9 purpose-built student bedrooms
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 65
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), DP3(2)(g), N2, S4(1)
- **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, D4, H15, T6, T6.1, Lewisham Local Plan 2025 HO2, HO7, QD1, QD7, QD8, QD10, SD11, TR4, Small Sites Design Guide SPD 2021
- **Main issues:** character, neighbour living conditions, PBSA policy, BNG, parking, contamination
- **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, design-refusal, student-accommodation, bng-exemption-not-shown, 5yhls-shown, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
A four-storey, 9-bedroom purpose-built student block on an overgrown gap site on Loampit Vale, Lewisham. Dismissed. The height was acceptable in principle, but the design was poor (DP3(1), DP3(2)(g)). It would also overbear a neighbouring garden, left PBSA and car-free obligations unsecured, and had no BNG baseline. HO7 attracted substantial weight, but the overall benefits were moderate. The inspector read L3's density support as conditioned by DP3, and found the benefits substantially outweighed under S4 (DL ¶56-59).

## What made the difference
Design quality in a detailed application, which the inspector said cannot be redesigned by condition (DL ¶16). Unsecured obligations and missing BNG evidence added to it. L3 intensification support does not apply where the DP3 character test is failed (DL ¶56).

## Policy findings
- **DP3(1): fail.** plain, austere, poorly related elevation; zinc top storey overemphasises height; cannot be fixed by condition (DL 12-17)
- **L3: neutral.** density support qualified by character (L3 read with DP3), so no full L2/L3 compliance (DL 56)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to 9 rooms even though PBSA obligations unsecured; overall benefits moderate (DL 56-57)
- **N2: fail.** exemption claim withdrawn at appeal; no baseline or small-sites metric (DL 32-40)
- **S4(1): fail.** design, neighbour enclosure, unsecured PBSA and car-free obligations, BNG failure substantially outweigh benefits (DL 53-59)

## Key facts
- HDT 32% previously, 65% for 2025; council now shows a Framework-compliant supply after the 2025 plan
- Draft UU never completed; PBSA nomination, affordable student rooms and car-free not secured
- Parking survey used a road largely in another CPZ

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010822
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4ce29b9e-a8b9-4f53-8546-05a6ba0ead62

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010822.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.