Officers advise Lewisham to refuse 802 homes in towers up to 30 storeys by Deptford Creek, while Greenwich's advise approval. Committees vote 24 September.

Plans for 802 homes on the former Lewisham College site at Deptford Bridge go before two planning committees on the same evening this Thursday, 24 September, and the two councils’ own planners have reached opposite conclusions.

The 1.9 hectare site straddles the borough boundary along the Ravensbourne as it flows into Deptford Creek, so separate applications were made to each council in March 2025. Lewisham officers recommend refusal of the larger Lewisham half. Greenwich officers recommend approval of theirs.

There is a catch in the Greenwich paperwork that makes Lewisham’s vote the one that counts. Greenwich’s recommended permission is conditional on “the prior grant of planning permission” for the Lewisham application. If Lewisham refuses, the Greenwich half cannot go ahead on its own.

Graphic comparing the two halves of the former Lewisham College scheme: 548 homes in buildings up to 30 storeys with 14 affordable homes in Lewisham, where officers recommend refusal, and 254 homes in blocks up to 19 storeys with 10 affordable homes in Greenwich, where officers recommend approval. Both committees vote on 24 September 2026
One site, two boroughs, two opposite officer recommendations.

What is proposed

The applications were submitted by companies in the RER group, Deptford Bridge (RER Deptford Bridge) Limited in Lewisham and RER Deptford Limited in Greenwich, through the agent DP9. They would demolish the former college buildings and build eight blocks between one and 30 storeys.

On the Lewisham side, 548 homes across four buildings:

  • Building A, at 30 storeys the tallest on the site, on the corner of Deptford Bridge and Deptford Church Street, with 231 private homes above education floorspace
  • Building B on Deptford Church Street, 11 storeys stepping down to seven, with 63 homes
  • Buildings C and D on the creek peninsula, 15 and 17 storeys, with 254 private homes between them

The Greenwich side would take 254 homes in Blocks E to H, topping out at 19 storeys after Block E was cut from 24 during the application. The scheme is car-free apart from 27 Blue Badge bays, and Lewisham’s share includes 5,212 square metres of education floorspace and 111 new trees.

24 affordable homes out of 802

Every one of the scheme’s 14 Lewisham affordable homes, nine for social rent and five shared ownership, would sit in Building B. That is 5% of the Lewisham housing by habitable room, or 2.55% of its units. Greenwich would get 10 more, 5.1% by habitable room on its side, making 24 affordable homes across the whole 802-home site.

The offer has fallen during the application. The original March 2025 scheme had 903 homes and an 11% affordable share in Lewisham; when 49 Lewisham units were cut, the affordable provision fell with them.

Lewisham’s report calls the level “disappointing given the acute need for genuinely affordable housing within the Borough”, but accepts it. The developer’s viability appraisal, based on a gross development value of about £476.8 million against roughly £323.1 million of construction costs, was tested by an independent consultant for both councils and separately by the Greater London Authority, and officers accept the scheme “cannot accommodate a greater level of affordable housing whilst remaining viable”.

Why Lewisham’s planners say no

The refusal recommendation rests on heritage and design, not housing numbers. Officers conclude the towers would cause:

  • a moderate degree of harm to the Deptford High Street and St Paul’s Church Conservation Area and the Grade II listed buildings at Tanners Hill
  • a low degree of harm to the Deptford Creekside Conservation Area, the listed buildings at Deptford Broadway and Carrington House
  • the loss of an identified important view towards the Grade II listed Mumford’s Mill

They also find Building A “visually prominent and incongruous” in key views and Building B an “abrupt and unjustified transition in scale”. The public benefits, in their judgement, are “substantially outweighed” by that harm.

Greenwich’s officers weighed similar evidence for their side and reached the opposite balance. They assess the heritage harm in their borough as “less than substantial” and outweighed by the public benefits, including the 254 homes and 15 years of affordable workspace in Block H.

The college is gone, and Goldsmiths is going

Lewisham College left the Deptford campus in 2024. Goldsmiths, University of London still occupies parts of the site, but the Lewisham report records that since late 2025 it has been planning to move into the old Town Hall in Catford from September 2027. The new education floorspace would be bigger than what Goldsmiths uses now, yet officers acknowledge “there is currently no identified education occupier”.

The application drew 134 objections, 63 letters of support and three comments. The support letters came in through the Just Build Homes and Shared Voice platforms after door-to-door canvassing carried out on the applicant’s behalf; officers accepted them as valid. No local meeting was held, which the council’s rules permit when an application is being recommended for refusal.

What it means for you

  • Both committee meetings are public. Greenwich’s Planning Board meets at 6.30pm on Thursday 24 September at Woolwich Town Hall, and Lewisham’s Strategic Planning Committee at 7pm at the Civic Suite in Catford.
  • Committees can and sometimes do vote against their officers’ advice, so neither recommendation is a decision yet.
  • Both applications must also be referred to the Mayor of London, who has powers over schemes of this size. Lewisham’s refusal would only be issued if no direction comes back from the Mayor or the Secretary of State.
  • If refusal stands, the applicant can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
  • You can read both applications in full: DC/25/139390 on Lewisham’s planning register and 25/0798/F on Greenwich’s. Our Lewisham planning applications page explains how to search and comment on applications in the borough.

Sources