Monthly Archives: February 2011

Planning Decisions 2nd Feb 2011…

Link to the full draft decision on

Strategic issues

The majority of the site is currently designated as a safeguarded wharf. The principle of release of some of this land for residential-led mixed use redevelopment of this site is acceptable, given that use of the full safeguarded wharf site would bring unacceptable impacts on the existing residential areas. The application is seeking permission for a range of development parameters, including those for three tall buildings, which given that this is an outline application, make it challenging to secure high architectural quality. The proposed density of the development would be high and the potential quantum of development would generate high levels of additional trips for which the transport impacts have not yet been suitably resolved. The detailed breakdown of the mix of housing on the site, including the proportion of affordable units is at present only indicative. There are outstanding issues to be resolved regarding energy, in particular the connection to SELCHP. The impact of the proposed retail element, particularly on Deptford town centre has not been satisfactorily addressed or justified. There is a lack of detail in relation to inclusive design principles.


That Lewisham Council be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 152 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 154 of this report could address these deficiencies.







Several London Plan policies are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:

 Mix of uses: the proposed mix of uses does not accord with London Plan policy but could be permitted if the issues regarding the remaining safeguarded wharf are resolved.

 Safeguarded Wharf: the proposal to reduce the wharf to an area of 2.3ha on land plus a 0.3ha jetty is acceptable in principle but must be provided as part of phase one of the development and the applicant must demonstrate that the whole of the remaining wharf area is viable including the proposed jetty structure.

 Urban design/Density/Quantum of development: the outline stage of the application presents a number of serious difficulties in assessing the acceptability of the proposals. The scale parameters for the development parcels are set too wide to give assurance that the detailed applications are likely to be acceptable. Whilst aspects of the indicative layout give some cause for optimism, equally there are grounds for a concern that the overall quantum of development cannot be acceptably accommodated on the site. This concern is reinforced by the overall densities that would be required to reach the upper level of development quantum. The design approach to development parcels that are on podium levels above car parking will be challenging. The access and servicing proposals are insufficient and there are concerns about the access onto Grove Street not coming forward until phase 2 of the development.

 Inclusive Design: Insufficient information is currently available to ensure that more detailed applications will meet the London Plan requirements.

 Tall buildings/Strategic views: the views assessment demonstrates that the tall building area outside View management corridor 5A.2, however, the lack of detail and scale parameters in relation to the three tall buildings gives concern regarding their final quality and makes it impossible to fully assess their impact, including that on the nearby view corridor and the setting of Listed Buildings/structures and the adjacent Conservation Area.

 Climate change /Energy: the intention to connect to SELCHP is welcomed and in line with London Plan policy and particularly relevant to this site, in order to be acceptable however further information is sought.

 Blue ribbon network: despite a lack of other water uses for the proposed released safeguarded wharf area, the proposals are considered to be broadly in line with the London Plan.

 Flood Risk The flood risk assessment demonstrates general compliance with London Plan policy 4A.12 and 4A.14.

 Housing: Although the proposals will make a sizeable and valuable addition to housing provision in south east London, in the absence of an affordable housing offer or viability assessment, the application does not comply with London Plan policy 3A.10. Further information is required in order to ensure compliance with London Plan policy 3A.3 and the Housing Design Guide given the likely densities proposed.

 Open space/Children’s play space: there is an absence of any detail although the indication in the illustrative diagram would suggest that the proposal can make a valuable contribution to public space in this part of London.

 Transport: the transport aspects of the scheme do not currently comply with the full range of London Plan transport policies and in some aspects fall seriously short of what may be acceptable.

 Retail impact: the application does not fully address the likely impact and does not undertake the relevant tests satisfactorily

 Noise/Air Quality: the detailed stage will need a strategy to deal with potential impact particularly in relation to the wharf.



On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan.







The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:


 Safeguarded Wharf: the phasing parameter should include a working wharf, other than the site’s own construction compound as part of phase one of the development and the applicants should demonstrate the long term viable of the wharf areas furthest from the river by selecting a wharf operator to work with and by resolving how the jetty would function.

 Urban design/Density/Quantum of development: the scale parameters for development parcels B and D should be revised and/or development parcels B and D should be split to establish more acceptable scale thresholds adjacent to surrounding existing development. A quantified masterplan should be prepared to enable an assessment of the impact of the maximum quantity of development and determine if it is likely to be acceptable. Typical flat layouts should be set out for the development blocks and these should indicate how density and design quality are to be addressed. Further details on access and servicing arrangements are required and the inclusion of the second main access route in phase 2 should be re-considered.

 Tall buildings/Strategic views: more detailed designs and/or tighter parameters should be established for the three tall buildings and illustrations showing the effect on the View Management corridor should be submitted including indications of the likely design quality of the detailed proposals.

 Inclusive Design: further information is required as set out in paragraphs 54-57.

 Climate change /Energy: Further information is required in relation to exceeding 2010 Building Regulations, cooling, roof area for photovoltaic and carbon savings.

 Housing: The applicants should commit to an initial level of affordable housing, tenure mix and review mechanism.

 Transport: considerable further work is required to address the numerous TfL concerns listed in paragraphs 82-118

 Retail impact: further work is required to justify the level and impact of retail development on the site.

 Noise/Air Quality: an indication of how these issues will be managed is required.