- 33 -
Committee STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE Item
Report Title BLOCK A, THAMES WATER SITE, DEAL’S GATEWAY SE8
Contributors Louise Holland
Class PART 1 Date 11 SEPTEMBER 2003
Reg. Nos. DC/03/54087 and DC/03/54252 (Duplicate
Applications dated 27.5.03
Applicant Sellwood Planning on behalf of St James Homes Ltd
Proposal The construction of a part eight, part ten storey building
comprising commercial floorspace (Use Class
A1/A2/A3/B1) at ground floor level, office/’Life Lab’ B1
space at first floor level, 16, one and two bedroom flats
and 35, one bedroom live/work units on part of the site
of the former playing fields, Brookmill Road SE8,
together with associated landscaping.
Applicant's Plan Nos. 521_1330 Rev.B, 131 Rev.B, 1312 Rev.B, 1318 Rev.B,
1320 Rev.A, 1321 Rev.B, 1322 Rev.B & Design
Background Papers (1) Case File - DE/121/A/TP
(2) Adopted Unitary Development Plan
(3) Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan
(4) Planning and Design Brief May 2000
(5) PPG 1: General Policy and Principles
(6) PPG 3: Housing
(7) PPG 13: Transport
Zoning Adopted UDP – Area of Archaeological Priority
Revised Deposit Draft UDP – Sustainable Living Area;
Area of Archaeological Priority; Mix of Housing and
Employment Uses including Live/Work
CONSULTATIONS AND REPLIES ON BOTH APPLICATIONS
Appropriate planning conditions previously suggested in order to safeguard archaeological
London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority
Comments made in relation to access for fire appliances.
Highways Agency Any response to be reported verbally.
London Transport Planning No reply
Transport for London Street Response to be reported verbally.
Reg. Nos. 03/54087 & 54252 (Cont’d) - 35 -
No further comment. Detailed conditions and advice on environmental best practice
provided in connection with original application.
Transport for London Docklands Light Railway
Reply to be reported verbally.
London Borough of Greenwich Reply to be reported verbally.
Deptford Discovery Team No reply
Neighbours & Local Amenity Societies
St John’s Society
Telegraph Hill Society
Lewisham Environment Trust
6-80, 7-41 Blackheath Road
1-24 Sylva Cottages, 27-35 Brookmill Road
1-36 Crosslet Vale
2-52 Deptford Bridge
Flats 101-112, 201-212, 301-312, 401-412, 501-508, 601-604 Indiana Building
Flats 1-4, 101-109, 201-210, 301-310, 401-410, 501-510, 601-605 Dakota Building
Flats 1-15, 101-116, 201-216, 301-316, 401-416, 501-510 Montana Building
Flats 1-7, 101-108, 201-208, 301-308, 401-408, 501-508, 601-604 Idaho Building Deal’s
Notice on Site and Press Notice
A letter has been received from the One SE8 Residents Association
- Do not wish to oppose plans outright but express a number of concerns
- Impact of additional flats on the complex as a whole and the services supplied, concern
that these (park, gym, café etc) will be overburdened, resulting in increased wear and
- Security is growing concern and additional building may place additional strain on
- Concern about additional vehicles, no spots designated for disabled, deliveries, site
workers and visitors.
- Request that additional facilities are provided such as an additional gym, improved
security, and conversion of unsold parking to visitors/disabled parking.
A letter from J Cardosa on behalf of Residents and Leaseholders of One SE8 and the
Deal’s Gateway Residents and Leaseholders Association expresses similar concerns as
those above and suggests that in relation to concern about the shortage of visitor parking
additional short term bays could be provided in the surrounding area for which residents
could purchase pay and display cards. Concerned that density is excessive.
A letter from the resident of 603 Idaho Building objecting on the grounds that existing
facilities within the development are insufficient and the environment will be overcrowded
(Letters are available to Members)
Design & Conservation Panel The Panel had no further comment to make.
Highways & Transportation Unobjectionable in principle
Reg. Nos. 03/54087 & 54252 (Cont’d) - 36 -
Environmental Health Residential - No comment
Pollution Control Conditions suggested in relation to previous phases
OBSERVATIONS ON BOTH APPLICATIONS
Planning permission was originally granted in February 2001 for the redevelopment of the
Deal’s Gateway site with a mixed-use development comprising 457 flats, 40 live/work units,
B1, and A1/A2 and A3 floorspace. Construction of the development is now partially
complete and a significant part of the development is occupied.
The applications, which are the subject of this report, relate to the northern part of the Deals
Gateway site closest to the Deal’s Gateway entrance to the development. This part of the
site, which has an area of 0.18.hectares, was formerly part of a public open space known as
Broadway Fields, and was more recently used as a site compound for construction of the
The Deal’s Gateway site overall has an area of 2.91 hectares (7.2 acres), and lies to the
south of Deptford Bridge, close to the junction with Blackheath Road and Greenwich High
Road. The DLR railway station and an adjacent vacant site in the borough of Greenwich
separate the site from Deptford Bridge. Access into the site is via Deal’s Gateway.
The application site is that element identified on the plans of the approved scheme as Block
A, which was intended to form the majority of the B1 content of the scheme.
The junction of Deal’s Gateway with the A2 is light controlled and divided into three lanes,
one of which turns left only to London, another, straight ahead and the third for traffic
entering the site. The borough boundary runs along the northern and eastern parts of the
The site is separated from Blackheath Road by commercial buildings which adjoin the site
to the rear. That on the corner is a 1920’s three storey office building next to which is a
more recent development of single storey commercial buildings occupied by car repairs
and servicing uses. Applications for the redevelopment of these buildings have been
submitted by St James Homes to the London Borough of Greenwich.
As part of the DLR proposals a land exchange took place involving the Council
exchanging the part of Broadway Fields to the east of the DLR alignment for Thames
Water land in Brookmill Road.
Following completion of a Section 106 Agreement, planning permission was granted on 23
February 2001 for the redevelopment of the whole Deal’s Gateway site with a mixed use
scheme comprising residential development (170 one bedroom and 287 two bedroom
units), B1 offices, 40 live/work units, A1, A2 and A3 units, an ancillary gym/fitness centre,
together with associated car parking and landscaping.
The approved development comprised 15 blocks ranging in height from 2 to 8 floors with the
tallest building (Block K) being close to the western boundary of the site. The main access to
the development would remain from the north via Deal’s Gateway and the approved scheme
also includes the extension of Beck Close to provide access to the southern area of the site.
It is not intended to provide a vehicular through route from Deal’s Gateway to Beck Close.
Reg. Nos. 03/54087 & 54252 (Cont’d) - 37 -
The non-residential uses are largely concentrated in the northern part of the site closest to
Deptford Bridge. The approved development includes a total of 3,798 m2 of B1 commercial
floorspace to be accommodated mainly in the seven storey Block A at the apex of the site,
and also on the ground floor of Block B.
In August 2001 planning permission was granted for four separate applications in respect
of revised proposals for Blocks C, D, E and F. The revised proposals involved revisions to
the proposed mix of units, a reduction in storey heights together with the provision of an
additional floor to Blocks C, D and E, and up to two additional floors to Block F.
Cumulatively the revised proposals provided for up to 69 additional units and up to 89
additional habitable rooms.
In March 2002 the Planning Committee approved applications in respect of revised
proposals for Blocks G, H, J and K comprising the provision of 39 studio flats, 128 one
bedroom, 93 two bedroom and 1 three bedroom flats. The revised proposals provided for
85 additional units.
In November 2001 planning permission was granted to the Stephen Lawrence Trust for an
education centre with business space, incubator offices, exhibition space and support
facilities, including offices for the Trust. This would provide an alternative development for
the site which is the subject of the current proposals.
Following an earlier refusal of planning permission, the Council has been consulted on
further planning applications by St James Homes for the development of 6-42 Blackheath
Road with a mixed use scheme submitted to the London Borough of Greenwich in
February 2003. The proposed development comprises a mixed scheme of residential,
live-work and a mix of commercial uses including A1, B1 and B8 floorspace fronting
Blackheath Road. The development would step up from five storeys adjacent to the listed
school building to 7 storeys at the corner of Deal’s Gateway. This scheme envisages that
the residential and B1/B8 car parking will be provided at basement level and would be
accessed via Deal’s’ Gateway. The scheme includes provision to relocate within the
development the Kwik Fit tyre and exhaust-fitting unit that currently occupies part of the
site and this element of the proposed development would continue to be serviced from the
existing access off Blackheath Road. Decisions on the applications have not yet been
made by LB Greenwich.
At the meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee on 8 April 2003 members resolved to
grant permission in respect of revised proposals for Block B comprising 38 one bedroom
and 2 two bedroom live/work units, 47 one bedroom and 12 studio flats, and 960m2 of
‘Life Lab’ office floorspace. This proposal also includes two levels of car parking at
podium and basement levels beneath Blocks A and B and a vehicle access through the
basement to serve proposed development at 6-42 Blackheath Road. A Section 106
Agreement in relation to this development remains to be completed.
The current duplicate applications relate to Block A. The original consented scheme for this
block was for a seven storey building comprising some 3,000m2 of B1 floorspace with
A1/A2/A3 floorspace on the ground floor. The alternative development for Block A by the
Stephen Lawrence Trust was for an eight storey building with a curved form following the
line of Deal’s Gateway.
The current proposal for the site of Block A is for a building comprising two basement levels,
ground and nine upper storeys containing 35 live/work units, 16 apartments, 593m2 of
A1/A2/A3/B1 space on the ground floor and 515m2 of B1 space on the first floor.
Reg. Nos. 03/54087 & 54252 (Cont’d) - 38 -
The two basement levels would accommodate car parking and are not part of this
application, as this part of the development forms part of the recently approved scheme for
The applicant is seeking flexibility between uses A1/A2/A3/B1 for the ground floor of the
building. The first floor would be occupied by 515m2 of B1 floorspace, which is intended to
operate as a serviced office facility and flexible workspace linked to both the live/work units
and the apartments. The application is accompanied by a supporting town planning
statement. A brochure explaining how the ‘life lab’ floorspace is intended to operate was
submitted in support of the recent Block B application and is also relevant to this proposal.
The basement car parking approved as part of the Block B scheme comprises 114 car
parking spaces on two levels extending under both blocks together with vehicular access
through to the proposed development fronting Blackheath Road.
The building generally occupies the site of the consented Block A and would also have a
curved frontage. A landscaped podium level to the rear above the basement car park is
Each of the one-bedroom live/work units has a separate workspace; these are of varying
sizes, and are distributed throughout the building. Of the 16 apartments, 12 are one-
bedroom units and four have two bedrooms.
The eight storey element would be adjacent to the proposed block on the corner of
Blackheath Road and Deal’s Gateway, and the building steps up to 10 storeys adjoining
Block B which in the recently approved revised scheme is also ten storeys. The access to
the lower level car parking and the rear of Blackheath Road is between Blocks A and B.
The elevation treatment reflects the design of the first phases of the development, featuring
elevations mainly of coloured render.
Approved Development Brief
On 11 May 2000 the Planning and Highways Committee - Lewisham Deptford considered
and approved a Planning and Design Brief for the site. That Brief was adopted as
Supplementary Planning Policy Guidance following consultation with the public and other
Accordingly, for formal planning purposes, the Brief would carry considerable weight. The
Brief sets out a number of objectives for the site including regeneration, high quality design,
sustainable development and a sustainable quality living environment, a balance of mixed
uses, local employment and enhancement of the local economy.
The Brief sets out the relevant UDP policies.
The Brief also drew attention to the fact that the London Borough of Greenwich is the traffic
authority for the A2 and advised that Blackheath Road is a priority red route and that
controls extended into Deal’s Gateway. It also mentioned that any site access
arrangements affecting the operation of Blackheath Road would require a variation of the
Local Road Local Plan which was prepared by the Traffic Section of Greenwich Strategic
Planning. Alterations to that Plan would require the approval of Transport for London.
The Brief places emphasis on the potential of the site to illustrate the benefits of a design led
approach to urban regeneration and sets out a number of general principles and site specific
issues; in relation to height and massing, the Brief states that a distinct visual presence
adjacent to the DLR station would be appropriate.
Reg. Nos. 03/54087 & 54252 (Cont’d) - 39 -
Government policy statements of particular relevance to these proposals are contained in
Planning Policy Guidance 1, 3 and 13.
In outlining the Government’s approach to planning, PPG 1 indicates three key strands:
sustainable development, mixed use and design. Government guidance in relation to
securing sustainable development advocates concentrating development of uses which,
generate a large number of trips, in locations well served by public transport.
PPG 3: Housing, in setting out the Government’s objectives, states that local planning
authorities should, among other things:-
plan to meet the housing requirements of the whole community, including those in
create more sustainable patterns of development by building in ways that exploit
and deliver accessibility by public transport to jobs, shopping, leisure, education
and other facilities;
place the needs of people before ease of traffic movement in designing the layout
of residential developments;
seek to reduce car dependence by facilitating more walking and cycling, by
improving linkages by public transport between housing, jobs, local services and
amenities and by planning for mixed use;
promote good design in new housing developments in order to create high quality
living environments in which people will choose to live.
The focus of Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport is to integrate land use and
transport planning, to reduce the need to travel and to contribute to sustainable
Adopted Unitary Development Plan
As mentioned above the approved development brief for the site would carry considerable
weight in the context of the current proposals. The Brief took account of the main policies in
the adopted Unitary Development Plan and the application must be considered in the
context of those adopted policies.
The main policies referred to in the Brief relevant to the current proposal are EMP 10
Location of Small Office Developments; EMP 17 New Industrial and Commercial
Development; EMP 20 New Development Infrastructure Requirements; SPAN 15 Industrial
Development; HSG 11 Dwelling Mix – New Residential Development; HSG 25 Child Density
and Play Space, HSG 24 Amenity Space in New Residential Development; BLT.ENV 1
Urban Design; BLT.ENV 3 Landscape; BLT.ENV 4 Trees; HSG 14 Housing for People with
Disabilities; HSG 19 Layout and Design of New Residential Development; LSR 5 Art in
Public Places; ENV.PRO 4 Development of Contaminated Land; ENV.PRO 11 Waste
Recycling; BLT.ENV 20 Archaeology; and HSG 29 Affordable Housing.
The Council’s policies with regard to residential development are set out in Chapter 6 of the
UDP. The policies require that new development is constructed to a high standard of
design, is well laid out to ensure safety and privacy, is accessible, and is compatible with the
scale and appearance of the surrounding area, and which does not adversely affect the
Reg. Nos. 03/54087 & 54252 (Cont’d) - 40 -
amenities of adjoining residents by reason of overlooking, loss of light, noise and general
Policy HSG 20 relates to the density of new residential development and states that the
Council will expect new residential development to be built within a density range of 70-80
habitable rooms per acre. The policy sets out a number of exceptions to the policy where
higher densities can be acceptable in certain cases.
Policy HSG 19 relates to the layout and design of new residential development and states
that the Council will only permit new residential development which complies with the
general design and layout criteria in policies BLT.ENV 1 and 3; meets the specific housing
design and layout criteria in policies HSG 11, 20 to 24 and 36; meets the parking standards
as outlined in policy TRN 18 and, has regard to the amenities and security of any existing
community to which it may be attached.
Revised Deposit Draft Review of Unitary Development Plan
The Revised Deposit Draft UDP started its second deposit stage in August 2001 and the
policies within the Revised Deposit Draft have been adopted as Council policy. The
Inspector’s report was received on 20 June 2003.
Policy HSG 4A Dwelling Mix states:
“The Council will seek a mixture of dwelling sizes in the case of residential
developments of 15 units or more. The mix will be determined by reference to the
housing needs of the area, the nature of the development and its proposed
relationship to the surrounding area.”
The reasoned justification to the policy continues:
“According to PPG 3 local authorities should 'adopt policies which take full account
of changes in housing needs in their areas and which will widen the range of
housing opportunities to allow these to be met’. In order to create communities that
are balanced and sustainable it is essential that greater choice in the range of
housing types, styles and tenures is promoted within the Borough. The provision of
a mix of dwelling sizes (including family houses, single person units; and retirement
homes) will provide opportunities for existing residents to stay within the Borough as
they move along the housing ladder.
Just over two thirds of Lewisham households consist of no more than two persons.
The number of single person households in Lewisham is projected to grow to
42,000 by 2016 accounting for just over 1 in 3 households in the Borough. The
Council will encourage the development of housing particularly in the Sustainable
Living Areas to meet the needs of this group…..”
In the Revised Deposit Draft UDP the site is within one of the Sustainable Living Areas
(SLA) identified by the Council. In those areas, policies HSG 12 and 13 of the Revised
Deposit Draft would apply. Policy HSG 12 deals with density and other planning standards,
and states that new residential development should usually be built within a density range of
180 to 210 habitable rooms per hectare, the upper limit of which is equal to approximately
84 habitable rooms per acre except in certain circumstances. Those circumstances include
occupation by elderly or students (where a higher density may be appropriate where car
parking can be reduced accordingly, in a conservation area where design considerations will
have greater weight, where an approved planning brief indicates that a higher density may
be appropriate, where housing is a subsidiary use to another main use (such as commercial,
retail or industrial development) in a mixed use scheme. The policy states further that all
proposals for high density residential development will be expected to demonstrate a high
Reg. Nos. 03/54087 & 54252 (Cont’d) - 41 -
quality of design in keeping with the character of the area and a high level of public transport
Draft policy HSG 13 deals with sustainable living areas and states that, in such areas, the
Council may apply density, parking and other planning standards more flexibly.
In the reasoned justification for those policies, the Revised Deposit Draft UDP recognises
the influence that density can have in reducing demand for travel and promoting economy in
the use of land. It recognises that higher density housing can have a beneficial impact
primarily in areas where people can walk to at least local facilities and public transport
connections. The draft recognises that, at such locations, greater density can increase the
number of people who can meet most of their daily needs without the need for a car. The
draft continues by stating that, through careful manipulation of density, car parking and
dwelling mix in SLAs, an increased density of housing redevelopment may be achievable
without detriment to the residential environment. The major and district centres in the
Borough have been designated as SLAs because they are considered to have real potential
for sustainable development and innovative forms of urban living on the basis of their
accessibility to town centre services and public transport links. When high quality schemes
are proposed in the SLAs the Council may apply planning standards more flexibly.
Policy EMP 1A Promotion and Retention of Creative Industries states that the Council will
seek to retain existing premises in use by the Creative Industries and to promote the
development of new premises.
The approved Development Brief took account of the UDP deposit draft and mentions some
of the relevant policies, many of which are substantially similar to the adopted UDP.
The principle of a mixed-use high density scheme has already been established by the
previous permissions and the main issues involved in the current applications would be to
consider whether the current proposals would provide an acceptable alternative
development to the schemes already approved for this part of the Deal’s Gateway
Development, in the context of the objectives of the Development Brief and the Council’s
policies; and to assess the proposal in terms of its relationship to neighbouring properties.
As Members will recall, when the previous applications for revised proposals for Blocks C,
D, E and F were made, Council officers took legal advice on whether a fresh application
for the entire site should be required.
The legal opinion was that those applications should be treated as free-standing
applications for planning permission for specific areas within the scheme and would
effectively be alternatives for the development of the areas affected. The current
applications raise similar issues and would, if permitted, exist as alternatives to the
existing permissions for Block A.
For that reason, the current revisions should be assessed mainly in the context of the
changed approach to Block A, the principle of the use of the building for live/work and ‘Life
Lab’ units, the effect of increased residential densities and any related impacts such as
additional traffic impact, and any design issues.
In addition Members should also consider the impact of changes to the external
appearance of the block and any impact on neighbouring residents.
Reg. Nos. 03/54087 & 54252 (Cont’d) - 42 -
Stephen Lawrence Trust
In October 2000 during consideration of the original application for the development of the
whole site, the Council and the applicants were approached by representatives of the
Stephen Lawrence Trust in relation to the provision of an architectural education facility as
part of the development. It was envisaged that this project could be incorporated into the
scheme and substituted for Block A, subject to the phasing of construction of the
development and funding for the project; timed phasing to allow this to be progressed was
incorporated into the original S106 Agreement.
Although negotiations with the Stephen Lawrence Trust in connection with the acquisition
of the Block A land had been proceeding since October 2000 and planning permission
was granted in November 2001, the Trust has been unable to secure sufficient funding to
proceed with the Technocentre at Deal’s Gateway.
An alternative option for the provision of premises for the Trust in the area has been put
forward by St James Homes. This is described in a statement submitted by the applicants
in support of the current proposals, as follows:
“ Following many months of discussions with both the Trust and your
Council, it is considered that a solution has been achieved whereby the Trust
receive a building on Brookmill Road adjacent to the Deal’s Gateway site,
whilst St James obtain a planning permission for Block A which accords with
the adopted Development Brief whilst responding to the poor state of the
current office market in the Deptford area.
Dealing first with the accommodation for the Stephen Lawrence Trust,
Thames Water own the late Victorian office building adjoining the Deal’s
Gateway site on the western side of the River Ravensbourne. This site
fronts Brookmill Road to the west and has Brookmill Park to the south. The
site also has excellent footpath and cycleway links to the Deptford Bridge
DLR station, Lewisham College and Deal’s Gateway. The building is a two
storey structure comprising approximately 580m2 (6250 ft2) of floorspace.
This building will be transferred to the Trust on a 999 year lease at a
peppercorn rent. This will allow the Stephen Lawrence Trust the opportunity
to immediately establish a presence in the local area and unlock wider
funding which is already committed to the Trust. The precise use of the
building will be determined by the Trust (subject to any further planning
permission that may be required).”
The Thames Water building at Brookmill Road was recently damaged by fire. Although
the building was badly damaged, the structure remains sound and capable of restoration.
It is understood that Thames Water intend to construct a temporary roof to prevent further
deterioration. It is envisaged that the applicants will enter into a Unilateral Undertaking
that will secure the building for the Stephen Lawrence Trust.
The principle of an alternative development of Block A has already been accepted by the
Council. The current proposal would both secure alternative premises for the Stephen
Lawrence Trust and provide a building comprising a mix of uses consistent with the
Council’s planning brief for the site.
Live/Work - Life Lab
The revised proposal for Block A is essentially an expansion of the revised proposal for
Block B which is a combination of live/work units, with the addition of a further 16
residential units connected to serviced workspace.
Reg. Nos. 03/54087 & 54252 (Cont’d) - 43 -
The concept is described in the applicants supporting statement as ‘Life Lab’. They state
that they consider that speculative office space would prove difficult to let and now
propose an expansion of the ‘Life Lab’ concept. The supporting information submitted by
the applicant states:
“It has long been recognised that Deptford is not an established location for
B1 occupiers and in the last two years the general office market has
weakened in both London and the south east as well as in the Deptford area.
In order to avoid the situation where new offices are provided but cannot be
let, St James has decided to expand the concept of live/work units and ‘Life
Lab’ from the adjoining Block B into Block A. This has the benefit of tapping
into the small business potential of both existing residents of Deal’s Gateway
and those who would like to come to Deal’s Gateway to live and work in the
Whilst live/work units are well understood in their operation, it is the case that
traditional live/work suits some people and some types of businesses but is
not suitable for everyone. Some businesses need to share IT equipment
and facilities whilst others find a staff reception and the availability of meeting
rooms to be essential. Some individuals also find traditional live/work lacks
the ‘buzz’ of social interaction.
For those people who would like to live and work from the same building but
find that traditional live/work does not work for them, Johnson Naylor
(consultants to St James) extended the concept of living and working
together to form ‘Life Lab’. Critical to this is the creation of the business hub
which may be on the first floor of Block A or in Block B. This area will be
subdivided into three parts:
(a) the fully staffed reception area
(b) the semi private area containing meeting rooms, ‘touch down’ space
and refreshment facilities
(c) the private workstation areas.
The key element is that the opportunity to lease space in the ‘Life Lab’ will be
given to every residential occupier in Block A (including the traditional
live/work units). The concept is inherently flexible since all units will be
marketed with the opportunity for the purchaser to lease between one and
four workspaces in the ‘Life Lab’. Subject to space being available, it is also
envisaged that the small business occupier of the ‘Life Lab’ will gradually
increase or decrease the number of leased work spaces. It is proposed to
put a ‘cap’ on the number of work spaces leased by any one company, since
we feel that it would be undesirable if the workspaces became dominated by
one or two companies and it would run contrary to the concept of
encouraging small and starter companies. It is also felt that by the time a
company has reached the point where it has four or five employees that it will
wish to set up its own office. Given that these successful small companies
will have been established in Deal’s Gateway for their formative years, it is
hoped that they would wish to retain their local contacts by relocating
elsewhere in the Deptford area. Thus the ‘Life Lab’ can act as a catalyst to
the wider regeneration of the area.
Since all units will be fully ‘wired’ into the ‘Life Lab’, the revised Block A will
offer the occupants of the apartments the following options,
Reg. Nos. 03/54087 & 54252 (Cont’d) - 44 -
(a) the use of one of the live/work units as a traditional live/work with no
interface with the ‘Life Lab’ (although each unit will be fully ‘wired’ to
enable use of the Life Lab).
(b) The use of one of the live/work units as traditional live/work but with the
ability to use the common facilities of the Life Lab (eg. Reception, IT,
meeting rooms) but no workspaces.
(c) The use of one of the live/work units as traditional live/work but with full
additional participation in the Life Lab (one or more workspaces).
(d) The use of any of the apartments in association with the Life Lab.
However the IT ‘wiring’ of each flat does additionally mean that the
occupier does have the ability to remote access the Life Lab from their
From preliminary market research already undertaken in respect of Block B,
St James Homes is confident that there will be a demand for the level of
live/work and Life Lab units proposed in Blocks A and B. Initially the Life Lab
business space will be located in the ground floor of Block B, however the
current application contains the flexibility to extend the Life Lab business
space into the first floor of Block A.”
The proposals offer a range of sizes of live/work accommodation. It is considered that
expansion of the ‘life lab’ concept of residential accommodation combined with the
opportunity to connect to a range of serviced workspaces would facilitate a range of
options for working from home and would be a satisfactory alternative proposal for Block
Should the adjacent site in Greenwich be developed in accordance with the proposal now
under consideration, a significant part of the site fronting Blackheath Road would be
developed with commercial and live/work floorspace resulting in a satisfactory mix of uses.
As part of their submissions in respect to Block B the applicants submitted a further report
by transport consultants assessing the impact of the proposed additional dwellings. The
report also included the impact of traffic on the local road network of the proposed
development at 6-42 Blackheath Road, since it will also use the access of the Deal’s
As part of that application 114 parking spaces are proposed on two basement levels
below Blocks A and B. This is intended to maintain the parking level throughout the
development at 50%. The access would also serve a further 65 spaces proposed in
connection with the development of 6-42 Blackheath Road.
The report concluded that the additional units would increase traffic flows only marginally
at peak periods at the Deal’s Gateway junction, and that, even taking account of the
proposed redevelopment of 6-42 Blackheath Road, which is the subject of a separate
Traffic Impact assessment, the additional traffic can still be accommodated utilising the
same signal settings on the Deal’s Gateway arm of the junction.
The Transport Statement also contains a brief comment on the sustainability/access to
public transport of the site and, finds that it is very highly accessible to public transport
being adjacent to the DLR station and close to the bus routes along the A2 and,
additionally, refers to the proximity of the strategic cycle route and the availability of the
Car Hire Club to be implemented as part of the permitted scheme.
Reg. Nos. 03/54087 & 54252 (Cont’d) - 45 -
Transport for London raised no objection to the scheme. Improvements to the Deal’s
Gateway junction with the A2 were however agreed with Transport for London in relation
to a previous revision and will be carried out prior to occupation of the 250 th unit.
It is not considered that there would be significant transport or highway implications arising
from the current proposal.
Changes to the Design and Appearance
The revised Block A proposes a mainly ten storey building; the original Block A was to
have been seven storeys, and the Stephen Lawrence Technocentre design envisaged an
eight storey building, though due to lower storey heights the current proposal for Block A
would be no higher than the Technocentre proposal.
The form of the building is largely defined by the shape of the site, which is curved on the
main frontage to Deal’s Gateway. The primary elevation features a curved façade
elevated on double storey height columns to create a colonnade behind which the ground
floor uses (café etc) would have a largely glazed frontage. At upper levels the main
frontage would have a ‘cut out’ façade and the apartments would be provided with
projecting balconies set within the cut out element. At the rear it is envisaged that the
building would have access to a landscaped podium above the car park. The building
would function in urban design terms as a visual link between the recently approved Block
B and the proposals for the Blackheath Road site. While the building continues and
reflects the architectural style of the scheme overall the proposal develops the design
approach and would provide increased visual interest and emphasis at the entrance to the
Coloured render elevations are proposed. A condition is proposed requiring that details of
facing materials be subject to detailed consideration.
It is not considered that the revised proposal would cause overlooking, overshadowing or
loss of privacy to any existing dwellings.
The introduction of 16 additional units would result in an increase in the number of units
from 680 to 696 (excluding the 35 additional live/work units). Based on the additional
accommodation proposed under the current proposals, i.e. 16 additional flats and 36
additional habitable rooms, the residential density would be 576 habitable rooms per
hectare compared with 540 habitable rooms per hectare as previously revised. These
figures include the residential part of the live/work units.
The policies on residential density and unit mix in the Revised Deposit Draft of the UDP
are outlined earlier in this report.
Concerns have been raised by some residents of the development about the increased
number of dwellings and pressure on facilities provided within the development. The
development is very well located in proximity to Brookmill Park, Broadway Fields and the
shopping and leisure facilities and amenities in and close to Deptford High Street. It would
not be reasonable to require the provision of additional private gym facilities as part of the
A refusal of the applications would need to show that demonstrable harm would result
from the additional units. In that context, it would also be relevant to consider the
additional habitable rooms and the changed mix of units in relation to the UDP policies
and the Brief. Officers consider that although the density of the development has been
Reg. Nos. 03/54087 & 54252 (Cont’d) - 46 -
further increased, the overall effect of the additional accommodation would be unlikely to
prejudice the eventual environmental quality and residential amenity of the new
development or the surrounding area.
Section 106 Agreement
As Members will recall, a Section 106 Agreement was completed in relation to the original
planning permission granted in 2001 to secure a package of community benefits. The
Section 106 Agreement consists of the following:
Provision of on site affordable shared ownership housing – 47 units.
A financial contribution to off site provision of affordable housing - £1.67m.
Contribution to environmental improvements in the local area - £250,000.
Two pieces of public art – minimum £30,000 each.
Phasing of B1 element.
Green travel plan including provision of bicycles for residents use.
Public access area.
Deeds of variation to the Agreement were entered into following the previous revisions to
the scheme to update the contributions on a pro rata basis; and the applicants have
confirmed their agreement to enter into a similar deed of variation in respect to the current
applications. The S106 Agreement contains provisions in relation to the phasing of the
development of the Block A proposal, and the deed of variation would also need to contain
appropriate clauses to secure the development of the current scheme for Block A.
In respect of the off-site affordable housing contribution the sum would be adjusted to take
account of the commercial element of the proposed ‘life-lab’ units.
Members and local residents previously expressed concerns about further ad hoc
increases in height and density within the scheme. As part of the Deed of Variation
entered into in October 2001, the applicants undertook not to make any further planning
applications in respect of the blocks closest to Crosslet Vale, namely Blocks L, M, N, X,
and Y where the effect of the application would be to increase the height or mass of the
block. The current applications for Block A accord with the requirements of this obligation.
Comments received have been taken into account in the preparation of this report and the
This application represents a further modification of the approved scheme. With regard to
the residential density and mix of the scheme, one overriding consideration is that the site
is within one of the Sustainable Living Areas and is exceedingly well placed for public
transport. It is unlikely that the Council could successfully demonstrate that the site would
appear unduly over developed as a result of these further changes.
Reg. Nos. 03/54087 & 54252 (Cont’d) - 47 -
Accordingly, subject to agreement on a revised approach to the Section 106 Agreement to
reflect this further application, Members are recommended to grant permission for the
Authorise officers to negotiate a deed of variation to the original Section 106 Agreement in
respect of Application Nos. DC/03/54087 and DC/03/54252 in relation to revised
requirements in connection with the employment floorspace obligations, affordable
housing, contribution to environmental improvements in the local area, public art, local
employment, and the provision of bicycles for residents use.
Subject to the completion of a deed of variation to the original Section 106 Agreement,
authorise the Head of Planning to GRANT PERMISSION in respect of Application Nos.
DC/03/54087 and DC/03/54252 subject to the following conditions:-
(1) Detailed elevations of the building and facing materials (including their colour and
texture) in respect of Block A shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority before any works are commenced to the relevant part of
(2) B09 Plumbing or Pipes
(3) N13 External Lighting – Residential (Substitute ‘the relevant part of the
development’ for ‘site’)
(4) L01 Planting, Paving, Walls Etc. (Substitute ‘the relevant part of the development’
(5) L05 Trees – 5 Year Replacement
(6) C11 Construction Hours
(7) N10 Dust Minimisation Scheme
(8) AR2 Archaeological Programme (Insert ‘on the previously undeveloped northern
part of the site’)
(9) The glazing and ventilation scheme proposed by the applicant for protecting each
residential habitable room from external noise, comprising double glazed units
with a specification of 4mm glass – 16mm air gap – 4mm glass with passive trickle
ventilators, shall be completed before each of the permitted dwellings is occupied.
(10) The proposed soil contamination remedial works shall be carried out in full on site
in accordance with approved methodology and best practice guidance. If during
any works contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified
then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate
remediation scheme submitted to the local planning authority for approval in
writing. Upon completion of the works, a closure report shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The closure report shall
include details of the remediation works carried out, (including waste materials
removed from the site and certification of top soils tested to ICRCL standards) and
details of post-remediation sampling.
Reg. Nos. 03/54087 & 54252 (Cont’d) - 48 -
(11) The construction of the surface water drainage system, including source control
measures, shall be carried out in accordance with details submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development
(12) No soakaways shall be constructed in contaminated ground.
(13) The method of foundation construction shall be submitted to and agreed in writing
by the local planning authority before the relevant part of the development
(14) No spoil or materials shall be permanently deposited or stored on that part of the
site lying within the area of land liable to flood.
(15) Any walls or fencing constructed within or around the site shall be designed to be
permeable to flood water, and retained as such thereafter.
(16) LW1 Live/Work Units - No Subdivision
(17) LW2 Live/Work Units - No Use Detrimental to R A
(18) LW3 Live/Work Units - Work Element Tied to Residential
(19) LW4 Live/Work Units - Residential Tied to Work Element
(20) LW5 Live/Work Units - Work Element for B1 Use Only
(1) In order that the local planning authority may be satisfied as to the details of the
proposal and to ensure that the proposed development is not detrimental to the
appearance of the locality, and to comply with Policies BLT.ENV 1: Urban Design
in the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and URB 2 Urban Design of
the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (August 2001).
(9) To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the proposed dwellings and to
comply with Policies TRN 32: Noise and Vibration From Rail Traffic in the
Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and ENV.PRO 9 Noise Generating
Development in the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (August
(10) To ensure that the local planning authority may be satisfied that potential site
contamination is remedied in view of the historic use(s) of the site, which may
have included industrial processes, and to comply with Policies ENV.PRO 4:
Development of Contaminated Land in the Council’s adopted Unitary
Development Plan and ENV.PRO 8 Contaminated Land in the Revised Deposit
Draft Unitary Development Plan (August 2001).
(11) To prevent pollution of the water environment.
(12) & To prevent pollution of the groundwater.
(14) To prevent the increased risk of flooding due to impedance of flood flows and
reduction of flood storage capacity.
Reg. Nos. 03/54087 & 54252 (Cont’d) - 49 -
(15) To prevent obstruction to the flow and storage of floodwater, with a consequent
increased risk of flooding.
(1) Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior written consent of the
Environment Agency is currently required for any discharge of sewage or trade
effluent onto or into ground and for surface runoff into groundwater. Such consent
may be withheld. If there is an existing discharge the applicant should ensure that
any increase in volume is permitted under the present conditions. Contact Alistair
Ray on 01276 454300 for further details.
(2) Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior written consent of the
Environment Agency is required for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent into
controlled water (e.g watercourses and underground waters) and may be required
for any discharge of surface water to such controlled waters or for any discharge
of sewage or trade effluent from buildings or fixed plan into or onto ground or into
waters which are not controlled waters. Such consent may be withheld. Contact
David Decoster on 01276 454300 for further details.
(3) Construction Code of Practice.
(4) The local planning authority wishes to ensure that archaeological remains on this
site are preserved in situ. The detailed proposals should include appropriate
drawings, notes and method statements showing how the objectives of in situ
preservation are to be achieved. Particular attention should be paid to the design
of foundations and new ground works including any piling, underpinning, new slab
levels, slab construction, lift shafts or new service trenches. The applicant be
advised to contact the English Heritage’s Archaeological Advisor to discuss the
submission of details required to satisfy this condition. The applicant is also
advised to contact the Council’s Building Control department to ensure that all
Building Control regulations are met.