Greenwich councillors have given the green light to controversial plans for 254 flats at Deptford Bridge – but the developer was criticised for including just seven homes for social rent.
RER London wants to build hundreds of flats at the former Lewisham College site, which straddles both Deptford Creek and the borough boundary, and open up the riverside to the public.
The Lewisham side contains 548 homes, with a 30-storey tower and 11-storey block facing Deptford Church Street, as well as 15 and 18-storey blocks by the creek. Councillors there rejected the proposals for their side of the border last month.
Their counterparts in Greenwich were asked to assess a 19-storey tower and two ten-storey blocks, along with a single-storey row of commercial units on the east side of the creek. Planning officers recommended they approve it, and a decision was delayed last month after councillors voted to wait for Lewisham’s meeting.
The Greenwich side of the scheme, with the remaining 254 homes, cannot go ahead if the Lewisham side does not, as the main access route is across the border in Deptford Church Street.
Lewisham’s refusal could be overturned by the London mayor. A decision on whether Sir Sadiq Khan will “call in” the scheme for further scrutiny is due in the coming days. Angela Rayner, the secretary of state for communities, could do the same if Khan chooses not to. RER is also likely to appeal against Lewisham’s decision.
While Lewisham’s main concerns were the effects of the new development on the local landscape, and the loss of light to houseboats in the creek, it was the paltry offer of “affordable” housing that generated most scrutiny in Greenwich.
Just seven of the 254 flats would be for Greenwich’s waiting list, with a further three for shared ownership. Across the whole scheme, just 3 per cent of the homes are classed as “affordable”. RER said it could not afford to provide any more, while a viability assessment showed the scheme had a deficit of £19 million.
Olu Babatola, a Middle Park & Horn Park Labour councillor who sat on the planning board, said it was the first time he had seen an a scheme that offered “next to zero” for the waiting list.
“Let’s remind developers: this is the Royal Borough of Greenwich, not any other London borough,” he told council planning officers. “So please, next time when you are recommending, can you stress that in Greenwich, we value developers coming and developing here. However, they need to meet the threshold. This is the lowest I have ever seen.”
The two Green councillors for Greenwich Park ward, Karin Tearle and Stacy Smith, spoke against the scheme, while their Labour predecessors Aidan Smith and Pat Slattery had also submitted objections.
Tearle told the planning board that the low level of “affordable” housing was “hardly making a dent in our own waiting list of over 28,000 households” and should be refused.
Andrew Jones, a viability consultant advising the council, said a number of factors were making the scheme expensive to deliver, such as the college still being partially in use. “There’s a viable site in its current use,” he said. “It’s partially let. It could be let more than it is at the moment if there were a continuation of its present buildings, so it makes it a valuable site, which is a big hurdle to overcome.
There were also “difficult physical issues” caused by the creek as well as high building costs and a falling residential market, Jones said.
The £19 million deficit meant the development was “simply not going to deliver the profit that would be seen as a normal level of profit in the development market”, he added. “So there is some profit in it. It is worth doing. It’s just not at a level that will be considered to be commercially viable for planning viability purposes.”
If the scheme goes ahead, viability will be reviewed twice to see if more “affordable” housing can be delivered.
There were also concerns about the loss of light to neighbouring homes in Greenwich, although councillors were told that because the area had such little development at present, homes already had more light than most, while planning rules encourage denser developments near stations and in “opportunity areas”.
There had been 128 objections to the scheme and 82 messages of support: but only one resident addressed the committee with concerns about the development.
“I am surprised there are not more people speaking against,” one of the planning board members, Pat Greenwell, a Conservative councillor for Eltham Town & Avery Hill, said.
Asked whether the scheme could be adjusted to provide more “affordable” homes in future, Matthew Ham, RER London’s development manager, said: “We are optimists. We hope the position will improve.
“Wwhat we do want to do is make sure that we’re coming forward with an application that is deliverable. I don’t think that it’s within anyone’s interest for us to come forward with a scheme that cannot be built.”
Jonathan Marginson, of the DP9 planning consultancy, speaking for RER, told councillors that Greenwich was not meeting its housing targets and that the 254 homes would “make a substantial contribution to housing in the borough”.
Despite voicing concerns, Greenwell and Babtola were among those to support the scheme, along with Labour councillors Jane Dickenson (Eltham Page), Jahdia Spencer (West Thamesmead), Lewis Hurst (Kidbrooke Village) and Jeremy Fraser, the planning chair and an Eltham Park councillor.
Green councillor Austin McGrath (Greenwich Peninsula) also voted for the scheme – his party colleague Leonie Barron (Plumstead Common) was the only councillor to vote against.
The developer – and both councils – will now be waiting to see if the mayor calls in the scheme to decide himself.
❤️ Get better local news on your phone. Add The Greenwich Wire as a preferred source on Google.
📩 Follow The Greenwich Wire on Bluesky, Facebook, LinkedIn or Threads. You can also sign up for WhatsApp alerts – or subscribe to our emails through the blue box above.
You must be logged in to post a comment.