Skip to property details

55 Lidiard Road, London, SW18 3PN

UPRN:100022664142End Terrace House3 bedsBuilt 1930-1949
FreeholdCouncil Tax: Band DEPC: C (79)
Data freshness:Listing· 8mo agoListing: stale, refreshed 8mo ago (2026-03-19T13:52:17.943725+00:00)Ownership· freshOwnership: fresh, refreshed 5d ago (2026-11-10T13:32:01.299024+00:00)EPC· 3mo agoEPC: ageing, refreshed 3mo ago (2026-08-21T08:01:38.247857+00:00)Risk· 5mo agoRisk: stale, refreshed 5mo ago (2026-06-18T00:00:00+00:00)Crime· freshCrime: fresh, refreshed 4d ago (2026-11-11T13:01:03.839912+00:00)Connectivity· 1mo agoConnectivity: ageing, refreshed 1mo ago (2026-10-03T06:43:10.905825+00:00)Amenities· 2mo agoAmenities: ageing, refreshed 2mo ago (2026-09-23T00:00:00+00:00)Area· Census 2021Area: static reference data (Census 2021); authoritative and does not refreshCouncil Tax· 6mo agoCouncil Tax: stale, refreshed 6mo ago (2026-05-20T09:33:12.870431+00:00)
55 Lidiard Road, London, SW18 3PN

HP Score

Strong
Verdict
4 days ago
  • Verdict: INVESTIGATE, on a scale of Buy, Investigate, Avoid.

    Strong fundamentals; flood risk not assessed

Evidence
18 of 21 sources
Sale Estimate
£1,216,000
£1.16M - £1.28MHigh
Estimate
£1.22M
Range
£1.16M – £1.28M
Rent Estimate (pcm)
£4,700
£4k - £5k
Monthly
£4,700
Yield
4.64%

Verdict

Derived from HomePortfolio scores

55 Lidiard Road earns an INVESTIGATE rating with HP Score 80/100. Investment score 58/100 reflects moderate fundamentals. Crime intensity is very low. Walkability is good (82/100). Flood risk is not assessed: check the Environment Agency long-term flood map before offering. Tenure is freehold. Every figure here comes from the live HomePortfolio API; anything it does not publish is left out.

Key SourcesEPC RegisterPortal listingsOfcom Connected NationsOfcom mobile coverageMarket estimates (third-party AVM)HM Land Registry sales matched to addressDefra strategic noise mapping, England Round 4 (Contains Defra data © Crown copyright and database right 2023-2024, Open Government Licence v3.0)Walk ScoreONS Census 2021Police.ukHM Land Registry covenantsHM Land Registry Price PaidPlanIt / council planning portalsOverture Maps PlacesOfsted / DfE GIAS
HP Score
80/ 100
Strong
Investment Score
58/ 100
Moderate
Crime Score
9/ 100
Low
Walkability
82/ 100
High
Transit & Bike
Transit 35Bike 60
Walk Score, out of 100

Valuation & Market

Sale Estimate£1,216,000
Rent Estimate (pcm)£4,700
Gross Yield4.64%
1y Growth+17.2%
3y Growth-0.2%
5y Growth+0.2%
10y Growth+0.0%
Last Sold Price£785,000 (2016-09-14)

Risk Overview

  • Flood RiskUnknown
  • SubsidenceSignificant
  • RadonLow
  • MiningUnknown
  • LandslideLow
  • Air QualityLow
  • NoiseLow

Planning Activity

Recent Apps
7SW18 3PN
Approval Rate
0%12mo
Development
low
  • PA2026/0688
    T1 Sycamore (x1) Reduce crown by 3-4m all around (back to previous points of reduction). Reason: To contain the spread and height in context to garden size. Prevent overhang over neighbouring property. T2 Robinia (x1) Reduce crown by 3m all around. Reason: To maintain the size of the tree at a smaller size. General maintenance.
    Approved
  • PA2026/0669
    T1 Sycamore: Fell to ground level / Section dismantle T1 is a large sycamore in a small rear garden, close to the boundary and neighbouring dwelling. It has outgrown its location, and its size, position and continued development are increasingly incompatible with the available space and the reasonable use and enjoyment of the adjoining property. The crown extends significantly over the neighbouring garden and dwelling, causing concerns about encroachment, potential contact with the roof, obstructed gutters, excessive shading, and nuisance from leaf and seed fall. The main stem is immediately adjacent to the boundary fence and already interfering with it, making fence maintenance or replacement impractical without addressing the tree. The tree has not yet reached full size. Sycamore is a vigorous, large-growing species capable of exceeding 20 metres with a substantial spreading crown. As it matures, its crown spread, stem diameter and spatial conflicts will inevitably increase. Pruning has been considered as an alternative, but there is no satisfactory long-term solution. Substantial crown reduction would be needed to achieve meaningful clearance from the neighbouring property, significantly altering the tree’s natural form and appearance. Sycamore also responds vigorously to heavy pruning, with rapid regrowth requiring frequent repeat work. This would create ongoing maintenance without addressing the tree’s unsuitable position. In terms of public amenity, the tree is in a rear garden and cannot be seen from the main road. Although partly visible from Openview, its contribution to the wider public landscape is limited when weighed against its constrained location and ongoing conflicts with neighbouring properties. Its removal would have limited impact on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal does not intend a permanent loss of tree cover. The owner has confirmed willingness to plant a smaller, more appropriate replacement species in a suitable location, able to reach maturity without similar conflicts with buildings, boundaries or residential amenity, while maintaining the garden’s contribution to local greenery and biodiversity. Conclusion Considering the tree’s size relative to its restricted growing space, its encroachment over the neighbouring dwelling and garden, its direct conflict with the boundary fence, its potential for further growth and the lack of a satisfactory long-term pruning option, removal is considered the most appropriate and sustainable arboricultural solution. The replacement planting would ensure continuity of tree cover and a more suitable long-term contribution to the landscape. On balance, the practical and residential benefits of removal, with the replacement planting commitment, outweigh the limited loss of public amenity. Accordingly, consent is respectfully sought for the removal of T1 sycamore, subject to appropriate replacement planting within the garden.
    Pending
  • PA2026/0598
    T1 Silver Birch (x1) Reduce crown height by 2m and 1.5m off width. Reason: To maintain the tree at a smaller size. General maintenance.
    Approved

Ownership

  • Corporate Ownership52%
  • Overseas OwnershipNo
  • Lease Term Remaining-
  • CovenantsRestrictive
  • Lease TypeFreehold
  • Last Ownership Change2016-09-14
  • SourceLand Registry

Connectivity

Broadband (Standard)
3 Mbps
Mobile 4G/5G Coverage
EEThreeO2Vodafone
EV Charger
-
PTAL Rating
-

Area Profile

Median EarningsLocal authority£49,310
Population Density-
Owner Occupied69%
Age Distribution
0-15 24%16-64 67%65+ 9%

Schools Nearby

  • Chelsea Hall School
    0.1 mi
    Inspected by ISI
  • Earlsfield Primary School
    0.1 mi
    Outstanding
  • Beatrix Potter Primary School
    0.2 mi
    Good
  • Burntwood School
    0.3 mi

    Inspected as Burntwood School (URN 101059) on 11 May 2011

3 of 9 nearby schools with published figures were oversubscribed in 2026 - demand, not a catchment.

Comparables

View All
  • 15 Lidiard Road
    -
    £990k
    -
  • 35 Lidiard Road
    -
    £1.23M
    -
  • 25 Lidiard Road
    -
    £1.23M
    -
  • 27 Lidiard Road
    -
    £872k
    -