At a meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee of Lewisham Council, councillors approved a hybrid planning application for the redevelopment of Lewisham Shopping Centre and its adjacent land, despite concerns about the level of affordable housing offered. The development, proposed by Lancelike Lewisham Limited, includes residential units, student accommodation, town centre uses, and community spaces. The approval is subject to conditions, including further review by the Mayor of London and the completion of a Section 106 agreement¹.

Planning Application for Lewisham Shopping Centre

The committee reviewed a hybrid planning application for the comprehensive, phased redevelopment of land at Lewisham Shopping Centre and adjacent land, bounded by Lewisham High Street, Molesworth Street and Rennell Street, submitted by Lancelike Lewisham Limited. The application seeks permission for demolition of existing buildings and construction of new buildings for a range of uses, including retail, residential and community. The key planning considerations included:

• Principle of development
• Housing and affordable housing
• Town centre uses
• Placemaking and design
• Impact on heritage assets
• Transport and access
• Sustainable development
• Natural environment
• Fire safety
• Environmental Impact Assessment
• Delivery and phasing
• Local finance considerations
• Equalities considerations

The application was recommended for approval subject to planning conditions and completion of a Section 106 agreement.

Decision: The committee voted unanimously to approve the officer's recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 agreement.

Affordable Housing

A major point of discussion was the level of affordable housing proposed in the application. Councillor Sakina Sheikh, Cabinet Member for Culture, Communities, Libraries and Sports, expressed concerns that the proposed 16% to 20% of affordable housing did not meet the council's policy target of 50%. David Syme, Head of Strategic Planning at Lersham, explained that the applicant's offer had been subject to robust interrogation by the council's viability consultants, and that the current offer was the maximum viable amount. He added that the Section 106 agreement secured four future viability assessments, providing opportunities to increase the affordable housing offer as the scheme progresses. Councillor Hau-Yu Tam, Deputy Leader of the Lewisham Green Group, expressed the view that social housing should take priority over profit. Faris, a resident objector, argued that the affordable housing offer was even lower than 15% because it included discount market rent, which the London Plan does not recognise as affordable. He also raised concerns about the scheme's financial viability, citing a £492 million deficit and the need for an 8% increase in property values for the development to be profitable. John Watson from Lansec, the applicant, said that the company would be doing everything it could to make sure that the scheme delivered more than 16% affordable housing in the future.

Community Assets

Councillor Sheikh asked about the governance model for the proposed music venue and the possibility of bringing forward a community cafe to be part of phase one. Mr Watson confirmed that the music venue would be a not-for-profit community venue, with the governance model to be agreed with the council. He explained that the community cafe was planned for phase three, but that the applicant was open to exploring other community uses for space in earlier phases.

Transport and Access

The reduction of car parking spaces from 880 to 60 blue badge spaces was a concern for Councillor Sheikh. Mr Watson explained that the decision was based on spatial issues, traffic considerations, and a desire to promote sustainable transport. He acknowledged that some customers may choose to go elsewhere due to the lack of parking, but expressed confidence that the development would attract new customers through its improved amenities. He also committed to working with the council to improve cycle infrastructure in the town centre.

Lewisham House

Chris Benham, Head of Planning at Night Frank, speaking on behalf of the long-term owner of Lewisham House, objected to the application, arguing that Landsec's scheme included an alternative scheme for their building that they did not own and could not deliver without compulsory purchase. He stated that their proposals were real, deliverable, and policy compliant, and asked the committee to defer the decision and allow the Landsec master plan to be reconsidered. Mr Syme responded that the applicant had made reasonable efforts to engage with all relevant landowners, including the team at Lewisham House. He also noted that the competing scheme had 0% affordable housing.

Other Issues

• Councillor John Muldoon asked about the demand for purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) in Lewisham. Mr Watson responded that while Lewisham has good transport links, its student population is slightly lower than the London average. He added that the proposed student rooms would only shift the percentage of students in Lewisham Central ward by 2%.

• Councillor Peter Bernards asked for clarification on the viability assessment. Mr Syme explained that the strategic target for affordable housing was 50%, but that this was subject to viability testing. He added that the 16% offer was the maximum viable offer, and that the council had secured four viability assessments throughout the lifetime of the scheme.

• Councillor Ese Erheriene, Cabinet Member for Business, Jobs and Skills, asked about the 70/30 affordable split between key worker housing and social rent. Mr Syme responded that the split was what was offered by the applicant, and that the council had worked hard to ensure that the key worker housing offer was the best possible for residents.

• Councillor John Paschoud proposed that the committee accept the recommendations that had been made to them near the end of the report. The motion was seconded by Councillor Peter Bernards and passed unanimously.