Council planning record

FRONT/SIDE: ONE Beech (T1 in TPO A2)(ht.24m) FELL. Reason: The tree works are proposed to stop the influence of the tree(s) on the soil below building foundation level and provide long term stability to adjacent Wood Cottage, Dome Hill Park London SE26 6SP, proposed replanting - see informatives and conditions below (Silver Birch is not sufficiently large canopy replacement species).FRONT/SIDE: ONE Beech (T2 in TPO A2)(ht.24m) FELL. Reason: The tree works are proposed to stop the influence of the tree(s) on the soil below building foundation level and provide long term stability to adjacent Wood Cottage, Dome Hill Park London SE26 6SP, proposed replanting - see informatives and conditions below (Hawthorn is not sufficiently large canopy replacement species).The County of London (Lewisham No.2)(Dome Hill Park, Sydenham Hill) Tree Preservation Order, 1957 Informative A: retention of the 2 beech trees is encouraged or retention of one beech tree, together with alternative mitigation. A feasibility study of a flexible copper impregnated root barrier is encouraged, and consideration of underpinning or piles to stabilise the side extension's shallow foundations as site investigation reports are not conclusive that the two beech trees are the main influence causing structural issues at Wood Cottage. The agent's email reply dated 12.11.25 to the tree officer's email of 20.8.25 indicates indicates they are happy to review alternative mitigation proposals. Informative B: The main issue appears to be the very shallow foundations of the left-hand extension of Wood Cottage which has only 300mm foundation with no projection (TP/BH2), which is well below current NHBC foundation guidance and additionally the agent confirms in email 12.11.25 the soil samples from (TP/BH2) are very soft and gravelly. As the extension is located on the SE side of the original house where the ground slopes away, ground movement is likely even without the proximity of the beech trees. Informative C: latest level monitoring in Oct 2025 confirms most movement is at the front of Wood Cottage (points 5 and 6) where the very shallow (300mm) foundations of the left-hand extension on soft soils are likely to be causing the differential movement at the junction with the original house with 1.1m foundations (TP/BH1). Informative D: crack monitoring and photographs are of internal cracks only, classed as category 2 ? 'slight' in BRE Digest 251 for low-rise buildings, which can usually be managed with decorative repairs.Informative E: the soil in all three TP/BHs is of Intermediate plasticity (change potential) which is the second lowest in the plasticity scale of: Low, Intermediate, High, Very High, Extremely High. This means there is low potential for significant ground movement and subsidence from the influence of tree roots. However, heave is a possibility if the beech trees are removed. The original house was built in 1938 with the later extension. With diameter of 650mm the beech trees are approx.80yrs old and likely to predate the extension. Informative F: the Engineering final report is incorrect in stating the clay is significantly desiccated below foundation depth. Except for depth 2.4m in TP/BH2, at all other depths in TP/BH1, TP/BH2, TP/BH3 soils are not desiccated. Also, there has not been a drainage survey to check for defective drains which is a common cause of ground movement (NHBC ? Guidance Notes Cracking in homes). Informative G: if felling of one or both beech trees is undertaken, please leave high stump(s) with trunk(s) left lying on site and habitat log piles created from arisings for wildlife and biodiversity. Informative H: The Bat Conservation Trust advises checking thoroughly for roosting bats before and during tree works with soft fell process followed to proceed with care and with cut timber left grounded over night to allow any bats to make their way out, tree works ideally during Sept/Oct to avoid maternity and hibernation seasons when bats are most vulnerable to disturbance.Informative I: 2x replacement trees are a condition of the decision notice (see condition 2 below) species to be two Hornbeam trees to be planted on the third-party property, The Beeches, to maintain the urban forest character of Dome Hill Park and the adjacent Hillcrest Estate (High Level Drive) Ancient Woodland Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). Hornbeam is a large canopy species of the former Great North Wood which spanned high ground across this area and is a species in the NHBC low water demand list.

THE BEECHES, DOME HILL PARK, LONDON, SE26 6SP

UnknownReference: DC/25/140031London Borough of Lewisham

Last published check: 3 Oct 2026, 08:55. Check the council record for more recent changes.

Application location

THE BEECHES, DOME HILL PARK, LONDON, SE26 6SP

This record has no verified map location.

View council map

Application summary

Status
Unknown
Application type
Tree Preservation Order
Received
8 May 2025
Validated
30 May 2025
Determination deadline
Not published
Local authority
London Borough of Lewisham

Application overview

FRONT/SIDE: ONE Beech (T1 in TPO A2)(ht.24m) FELL. Reason: The tree works are proposed to stop the influence of the tree(s) on the soil below building foundation level and provide long term stability to adjacent Wood Cottage, Dome Hill Park London SE26 6SP, proposed replanting - see informatives and conditions below (Silver Birch is not sufficiently large canopy replacement species).FRONT/SIDE: ONE Beech (T2 in TPO A2)(ht.24m) FELL. Reason: The tree works are proposed to stop the influence of the tree(s) on the soil below building foundation level and provide long term stability to adjacent Wood Cottage, Dome Hill Park London SE26 6SP, proposed replanting - see informatives and conditions below (Hawthorn is not sufficiently large canopy replacement species).The County of London (Lewisham No.2)(Dome Hill Park, Sydenham Hill) Tree Preservation Order, 1957 Informative A: retention of the 2 beech trees is encouraged or retention of one beech tree, together with alternative mitigation. A feasibility study of a flexible copper impregnated root barrier is encouraged, and consideration of underpinning or piles to stabilise the side extension's shallow foundations as site investigation reports are not conclusive that the two beech trees are the main influence causing structural issues at Wood Cottage. The agent's email reply dated 12.11.25 to the tree officer's email of 20.8.25 indicates indicates they are happy to review alternative mitigation proposals. Informative B: The main issue appears to be the very shallow foundations of the left-hand extension of Wood Cottage which has only 300mm foundation with no projection (TP/BH2), which is well below current NHBC foundation guidance and additionally the agent confirms in email 12.11.25 the soil samples from (TP/BH2) are very soft and gravelly. As the extension is located on the SE side of the original house where the ground slopes away, ground movement is likely even without the proximity of the beech trees. Informative C: latest level monitoring in Oct 2025 confirms most movement is at the front of Wood Cottage (points 5 and 6) where the very shallow (300mm) foundations of the left-hand extension on soft soils are likely to be causing the differential movement at the junction with the original house with 1.1m foundations (TP/BH1). Informative D: crack monitoring and photographs are of internal cracks only, classed as category 2 ? 'slight' in BRE Digest 251 for low-rise buildings, which can usually be managed with decorative repairs.Informative E: the soil in all three TP/BHs is of Intermediate plasticity (change potential) which is the second lowest in the plasticity scale of: Low, Intermediate, High, Very High, Extremely High. This means there is low potential for significant ground movement and subsidence from the influence of tree roots. However, heave is a possibility if the beech trees are removed. The original house was built in 1938 with the later extension. With diameter of 650mm the beech trees are approx.80yrs old and likely to predate the extension. Informative F: the Engineering final report is incorrect in stating the clay is significantly desiccated below foundation depth. Except for depth 2.4m in TP/BH2, at all other depths in TP/BH1, TP/BH2, TP/BH3 soils are not desiccated. Also, there has not been a drainage survey to check for defective drains which is a common cause of ground movement (NHBC ? Guidance Notes Cracking in homes). Informative G: if felling of one or both beech trees is undertaken, please leave high stump(s) with trunk(s) left lying on site and habitat log piles created from arisings for wildlife and biodiversity. Informative H: The Bat Conservation Trust advises checking thoroughly for roosting bats before and during tree works with soft fell process followed to proceed with care and with cut timber left grounded over night to allow any bats to make their way out, tree works ideally during Sept/Oct to avoid maternity and hibernation seasons when bats are most vulnerable to disturbance.Informative I: 2x replacement trees are a condition of the decision notice (see condition 2 below) species to be two Hornbeam trees to be planted on the third-party property, The Beeches, to maintain the urban forest character of Dome Hill Park and the adjacent Hillcrest Estate (High Level Drive) Ancient Woodland Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). Hornbeam is a large canopy species of the former Great North Wood which spanned high ground across this area and is a species in the NHBC low water demand list.

Proposal details

Reference
DC/25/140031
Alternative references
PP-14002605
Ward
Sydenham

Sign in to view all collected council fields and recorded changes.

Sign in to view collected details

Documents 15 of 15

DocumentPublishedAction
Decision noticeDecision · PDF25 Jan 2026View
Tree image 3Photographs6 Jun 2025View
Tree image 4Photographs6 Jun 2025View
Tree image 5Photographs6 Jun 2025View
Tree image 6Photographs6 Jun 2025View
Site investigation reportCase Copy Documents · PDF29 May 2025View
Arb reportCase Copy Documents · PDF8 May 2025View
Crack monitoring reportCase Copy Documents · PDF8 May 2025View
Site location planSite Location Plan8 May 2025View
Claim assessment reportCase Copy Drawings · PDF8 May 2025View
Tree image 2Case Copy Drawings8 May 2025View
Tree image 1Photographs8 May 2025View
Application formApplication Form · PDF8 May 2025View
Addendum report- engineering final reportCase Copy Documents · PDF8 May 2025View
Level monitoring reportCase Copy Documents · PDF8 May 2025View

Documents open on the council website. Browse council documents if a link has changed.

Application timeline

Council milestones and published deadlines. A deadline passing does not confirm a decision.

  1. Application Received Date

    Published milestoneCouncil source
  2. Application Validated Date

    Published milestoneCouncil source
  3. Latest Neighbour Consultation Date

    Published milestoneCouncil source
  4. Decision Made Date

    Published milestoneCouncil source
  5. Decision Issued Date

    Published milestoneCouncil source

Decision & conditions

Granted
Decision notice
Planning conditions

Conditions aren’t listed here. Read the council decision notice for the full decision and conditions.

Related records

Understand this planning record

All planning guides
  • Understanding planning · 13 min read

    Planning application documents: what to read first

    Understand planning application documents, officer reports and decision notices. Use a reading checklist, document table and worked example to inspect a case.

  • Understanding planning · 13 min read

    Planning application statuses explained

    Understand pending consideration, approved, refused and withdrawn planning applications. Compare status labels and find the documents explaining each outcome.

  • Understanding planning · 13 min read

    Planning permission drawings: how to read plans

    Read planning drawings, floor plans, elevations and sections. Use labelled diagrams, a drawing comparison table and revision checks to understand a proposal.