The Strategic Planning Committee convened to discuss proposed amendments to a previously approved development plan for the Leegate Shopping Centre site. Councillors unanimously approved the application for a Section 73 minor material amendment, which includes increasing the number of residential units, affordable housing, and the height of some buildings, while reducing commercial space and car parking. The committee also addressed concerns raised by residents and ward councillors regarding the height of the development and its impact on the surrounding area.

Leegate Shopping Centre Redevelopment

The committee approved a Section 73 application to amend the existing planning permission for the redevelopment of the Leegate Shopping Centre site. The application, submitted by London Square, seeks to make several changes to the scheme that was originally granted permission in November 2024, including:

• An increase of 59 residential units, bringing the total to 620.
• An increase in affordable housing from 36.2% to 46.3% by habitable room.
• An increase in the height of Building A1 from 15 to 17 storeys, with smaller increases to other buildings on the site.
• A reduction in residential and commercial car parking, making the scheme car-free except for 21 residential and one commercial blue badge bays.
• Relocation of the medical centre to the ground floor of Block B.
• A reduction in overall commercial floor space.

Geoff Whiteson, Planning Officer at Lewisham Council, presented the application, highlighting that the key planning considerations included urban design, heritage impacts, reduction in commercial floor space, the car-free nature of the development, the increase in residential units and affordable housing, impacts on neighbours, infrastructure, and the council's housing delivery test¹. He noted that the council is failing on its housing delivery test, which creates a presumption in favour of granting permission for new housing development.

Arguments for the Development

Vanessa Joyce from London Square explained that the amendments were necessary to address new fire regulations and to optimise housing delivery. She stated that the increase in affordable housing, including a higher proportion of three-bedroom social rent units, would help to address the critical shortage of family housing in the borough. She also noted that the reduction in commercial floor space was a result of conversations with retailers, who preferred a smaller convenience store that would not directly compete with the neighbouring Sainsbury's.

Ward councillors Councillor James Rathbone and Councillor Luke Warner spoke in support of the development, highlighting the need to redevelop the derelict shopping centre and provide more housing in the area. They welcomed the increased number of affordable homes and the relocation of the medical facility to the ground floor.

Objections to the Development

Simon Bucks, representing the Lee Manor Society, objected to the proposed 17-storey tower, arguing that it would dominate and dwarf the surrounding Victorian and Edwardian houses in the Lee Manor Conservation Area. He also raised concerns about the lack of additional infrastructure and parking to support the increased number of residents.

Emma Warren, a resident of Leyland Road, echoed these concerns, stating that 81% of neighbours objected to the proposal. She argued that the developer had not earned the trust of the community and was disregarding the council's own planning policies.

Committee Deliberations

Councillors discussed the concerns raised by residents and ward councillors, particularly regarding the height of the development and its compliance with local planning policy QD4, which recommends a maximum height of 12 storeys for buildings in the area.

In response, Geoff Whiteson clarified that the policy does not prohibit buildings taller than 12 storeys, but rather states that they shall not normally exceed that height. He explained that the officer's report had weighed the non-compliance with the policy against the public benefits of the scheme, including the provision of housing, affordable housing, and commercial floor space. He also noted that the council's failure to meet its housing delivery test meant that there was a presumption in favour of granting permission for new housing development, as outlined in paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

David Robinson, Major and Strategic Projects Manager within the Planning Service at Lewisham Council, added that the design review panel had considered the height of the tower and had concluded that it would read distinctly as an individual tower, rather than coalescing into one large block of massing.

Decision

Despite the concerns raised, the committee voted unanimously to approve the application, subject to the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement. Councillor stated that the benefits of the scheme, including the provision of 89 additional affordable homes, outweighed the concerns about the height of the development.

Medical Centre Provision

Councillor Paul Bell raised concerns about the provision of a medical centre within the development, questioning whether the space would be offered to the National Health Service (NHS) at a commercial rate. He expressed concern that if a GP provider did not take up the space due to cost, it would negatively impact the community, given the large number of new housing units being added to the area.

Officers clarified that the Section 106 agreement² for the previously approved scheme secured the space for a medical facility, and that this requirement was unchanged in the current application, other than the relocation of the facility to a more preferable ground floor location. They confirmed that the developer would be required to market the space to the NHS and other recognised health providers for at least 12 months, and that if they were unable to secure a tenant, they would need to demonstrate that they had undertaken reasonable endeavours to do so.

Melanie Dawson, Head of Legal Services and Legal Advisor to Planning Committee, reminded members that the committee was there for planning purposes and that the specific arrangements for healthcare facilities were not a planning matter. She clarified that while the Section 106 agreement was a planning matter, the committee could not look behind how that agreement was captured or get involved in landlord-tenant arrangements.