Lewisham council refuses plans for Deptford Bridge scheme - but fails to raise ambition for creek

Developer RER London's plans for Deptford Reach span the border between Lewisham and Greenwich and would build 802 homes in tower blocks from 10 to 30 storeys high, around Deptford Creek.

Lewisham and Greenwich council's planning committees were due to make individual decisions about the plans on the same day Thursday 24 September.

Lewisham has taller blocks on its side, ranging up to 30 storeys high, and plans would provide 548 homes in the borough, at the former Lewisham College site.

Just 9 of the 548 homes are for social rent and 5 for shared ownership affordable housing.

Plans for Greenwich have lower blocks, with the tallest at 19 storeys, and provide 254 homes, with just 10 affordable.

Greenwich planning committee held a three minute discussion on the item before making a decision to defer it.

Committee chair Jeremy Fraser said he would like "an overall picture of where the item lands" with Lewisham, and that the plans "literally could not go ahead because of the access road and so forth" until Lewisham had confirmed its position.

Across the borough boundary, Lewisham's meeting addressed the plans.

Planning officers presented their report, recommending that the scheme be refused on grounds of heritage, urban design and the lack of a section 106 legal agreement.

They said they recognised benefits including new homes, education floorspace, riverside walks and ecological enhancements, but that these did not outweigh the harms to designated heritage assets and failed to achieve the "high standard of urban design required by the council's Development Plan".

They mentioned the scale, massing and composition of elements of the development, in effect the height, footprint and combined layout of the towers.

Lewisham College vacated the building in 2024 and since then Goldsmiths University has occupied the building.

Sign-up for our free weekly newsletter - Salamander News in your inbox

Planning consultant Hugh Sowerby presented the plans on behalf of the applicant, describing the site as "unique and remarkable", but not contributing to the borough as it should.

He explained that the development "would open up the creek to the public".

Sowerby pointed out that Lewisham council is currently delivering just 65% of its housing targets and said that the scheme would provide "a genuine new residential community around the creek".

In response to a question from councillor Pauline Dall, he confirmed that the applicant had been working with the council and Lewisham Design Review Panel, and revisions had been made as a result.

But this had led to a reduction in the number of total homes by 100, while the percentage of affordable homes has reduced from 11% to the 3%.

Two of the tower blocks have been reduced in height and in one case, footprint.

Four objectors spoke on behalf of their organisations and community groups.

Kelvin Shewry, chief executive of Creekside Discovery Centre objected to the plans saying that the developer fell short of meeting Lewisham council’s planning framework.

He referenced the council's motion the evening before, "declaring an urgent need for climate adaptation, biodiversity recovery and river health recovery, and which recognised that public bodies have a responsibility to help turn those ambitions into reality".

He argued: "Deptford Creek is not simply the backdrop to this development. It is the defining environmental feature of this site. It provides the distinctive character, identity and economic value on which this development depends ..

"Yet throughout the planning process, the creek has been ignored, or treated as a constraint to be managed rather than an environmental asset to be enhanced ..

"If sufficient ambition exists to deliver development on that scale there should be equivalent ambition to restore, enhance and steward the environmental asset from which so much of its value is derives."

He referenced the planning framework "which also seeks biodiversity enhancement, habitat creation and river restoration".

He called on councillors to refuse the plans and request that developers engage with Creekside and the Environment Agency and come back with an ambitious programme for ecological enhancement for Deptford Creek.

The next objector, Matthew Kennedy, explained that he lived with his partner and children on a houseboat on the Theatre Arm of Deptford Creek. He spoke on behalf of Crossbones co-op and Theatre Arm residents association.

"Theatre Arm has 13 homes and 27 people .. Nine children have been brought up there. We pay council tax and this has been a residential mooring since 1987, we hold a licence from Port of London Authority."

He added that the group had a 100 year lease "but this is how the applicant described us: 'The transient nature of the boats means it is questionable whether they should be tested'".

He argued that the daylight harm to the boats was the same as for nearby houses, "yet the proposed mitigation for every boat was 'nil'".

He requested a further reason for refusal, harm to residential moorings, loss of daylight, sunlight and outlook and privacy and appealed to "put the boats into the decision".

Edwin Collins objected on behalf of Lewisham Peoples Assembly and Save Deptford High Street on the grounds of the "shocking" lack of affordable housing in the development, saying: "It's a joke".

Alan Hall, representing Lewisham TUC, said that the scheme "falls well short of the social housing required, especially in Deptford. He raised concerns at the loss of Further Education facilities.

He also raised heritage concerns and flooding concerns, asking whether the flooding data for Deptford Creek had been updated recently.

He said he agrees with the the developer that "this is a unique and remarkable site but this development is neither unique or remarkable .. and Deptford deserves better."

Daniel Jenkins, councillor for Deptford and chair, asked the objectors how the engagement went. Kennedy responded: "I'm speechless, I feel like I was totally gaslit by the situation ..

"The plans will plunge us into darkness for most of the year".

Shewry noted that none of the opportunities for enhancement brought up in the developer's initial conversations with the Creekside centre were brought forward until a much later stage, and then only a reduced number of small enhancements were added.

Developers did not follow the advice to engage with the Environment Agency, he added.

"What strikes me as really quite shocking is that actually they have pretty much ignored the river itself."

Addressing the developer's claims that the current plan would "reconnect people to the creek" he said: “The creek is our natural heritage. I think that’s a wonderful answer.

"It sounds like they love it almost as much as we do, but if that were the case I would ask why it feels like they’ve ignored it in two very clear instances.

"I would say first, the ecological baseline does not include habitats on their wall frontages, which is part of the land they own, or any habitats in the river…

"And then secondly, if they were so interested in connecting people with the river, why has there been .. so little investment to enhancements in the river?"

Planning officers insisted that the issues identified by the council's ecology officer could be addressed with a condition.

Councillors proposed that the impact on the houseboats be added in as further grounds for refusal.

Planning officers said that the boats had been considered and that unfortunately, even when there is a substantial impact on sunlight and daylight on houses or houseboats, this can still be "considered reasonable in the urban setting".

They said, there is harm but it doesn't outweigh the tilted balance, and that they did not consider the fourth reason of loss of sunlight or daylight because they didn't consider that would stand up if the applicant went to appeal.

However, councillors voted on the motion to refuse the plans on four grounds, adding in the impact on the houseboats.

Four Green councillors voted in favour, with two Labour councillors abstaining.

Two Green councillors, Becky Saunders and Robin McGhee recused themselves at the start of the meeting item, due to potential conflict of interest.

It is unfortunate that their input was lost since both have a strong background in ecology and environmental issues.

Support local independent journalism from just £2 per month or leave a tip.