The Mayor of London, Sir Sadiq Khan, has formally declined to intervene after Lewisham Council refused planning permission for a major 802-home development spanning Deptford Creek.
Developer RER London sought to demolish the former Lewisham College campus to build its “Deptford Reach” masterplan across the boundary of Lewisham and Greenwich. The proposal envisaged demolishing the former Lewisham College campus on Deptford Bridge, a brownfield site that straddles the boundary between the two boroughs.
Lewisham Council rejected the 548-home application within its jurisdiction during late September, raising serious objections over excessive tall building heights and the resulting harm to local residential amenities. The scheme featured a central 30-storey skyscraper alongside an 11-storey block facing Deptford Church Street and further 15- and 18-storey blocks bordering Deptford Creek. Lewisham planners concluded that two of the proposed towers appeared out of scale with their surroundings.
Greenwich approval that falls away
The planning divide deepened on 13 October when Greenwich Council’s planning committee voted to resolve to grant planning permission for its portion of 254 flats. However, Greenwich officers explicitly attached a clause specifying that if the adjacent Lewisham application was formally refused or withdrawn, the Greenwich approval would similarly fall away. With Lewisham’s refusal now standing and the Mayor declining to override it, the Greenwich permission is left without a scheme to attach to.
Following the developer’s call for mayoral intervention, Greater London Authority officers evaluated the entire development package. GLA planners acknowledged that the scheme would make a positive contribution to brownfield housing supply and local employment spaces across both boroughs. However, officers severely criticised the low level of affordable housing provided: the developer had proposed only 24 affordable housing units across the entire scheme — just 5 per cent of the overall residential provision, falling significantly below the strategic target of 50 per cent outlined in the London Plan. City Hall also noted the complete absence of a signed Section 106 legal agreement with Lewisham Council.
Creek, community and a vacant site
Beyond visual impact, local environmental and community groups voiced significant opposition during council meetings. Representatives from the Creekside Educational Trust criticised the masterplan for treating Deptford Creek as a “constraint to be managed” rather than prioritising natural habitat restoration. Nearby residents living on houseboats moored along the creek also raised concerns.
RER London maintained that the proposal offered substantial local advantages, asserting that the project would open up public access to that section of the creek for the first time in more than a century. The site had previously functioned as a flour mill before being converted into educational facilities during the 1970s. The site is further complicated by severe access constraints, as the only viable vehicular access point into the plot is situated via Deptford Church Street, located entirely on the Lewisham side of the boundary.
For local residents, community groups and houseboat occupants along Deptford Creek, the outcome provides immediate protection against the construction of the proposed 30-storey tower. But for those awaiting affordable and social accommodation in south London, the ongoing planning deadlock means the brownfield site will remain vacant for the foreseeable future. Until a revised application capable of securing joint council approval or meeting London Plan requirements is submitted, no new homes, educational facilities or public riverside pathways will be delivered at Deptford Bridge.
The decision stands in sharp contrast to the other end of the borough’s housing story this week: Greenwich has just completed 452 new council homes at Kidbrooke Park Road, all of them social housing, while the Thamesmead DLR extension edges forward. In Deptford, by contrast, the homes on offer came with just 5% affordable housing — and that, in the end, was the figure that sank the scheme.
