The Lee Manor Society will be objecting on the basis that the proposals for a higher tower block exceed the provisions set out in the newly adopted Lewisham Local Plan as well as the clear guidance given with the Lewisham Tall Buildings Study Addendum. If approved, the proposals will also mean the removal of all able-bodied resident and commercial parking, which may put extra demand on parking around the site and in turn may then lead to new and unwanted CPZ’s.
The Lewisham East MP Janet Daby is to take up worries about London Square’s plan to increase the height of the proposed Leegate Tower with Lewisham Council.
Ms Daby met representatives of local community groups, including the Lee Manor Society recently. She was told that there were concerns about both Lewisham Council’s and developer London Square’s commitment to transparency over the submission and consultation process of their recent Section 96A application and to ‘meaningful’ consultation with local residents.
Crucially Michael Haste, the Lee Manor Society planning expert and a retired architect flagged that by approving the recent removal of any reference to the heights of the proposed buildings at Leegate from the Planning Decision Notice (that Lewisham Council approved on 30th June 2025), the Council was now publicly stating that no developer in future would be required to provide any height information in any future Planning Application. Such information might now only be found in drawings and other documents making up a Planning Application.
The meeting was also attended by Sarah McMichael of the Lee Forum and former Councillor Jim Mallory, chair of the Lee Green Consortium, who raised other issues including the absence of general parking in the new development.
London Square says it doesn’t plan any residential parking except for Blue Badge spaces and two Car Clubs slots on Leyland Road. Ms Daby was told that London Square would be compelled by way of the agreed Section 106 Agreement (signed between Lewisham Council and Galliards) to enter into legally binding contracts with new Leegate residents to prevent them from even applying for CPZ parking permits in the area.
It is expected that Ms Daby will pass on the residents’ concerns to Lewisham Council by letter.
Lewisham Planners have approved the application by London Square to remove the wording in the existing planning consent which refers to a tower block of 15 storeys.
This is despite objections by the Lee Manor Society, the Blackheath Society, and the Lee Forum.
London Square has made clear that the application (under Section 96a of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990) was its first move towards getting permission to increase the height of the tower. At its exhibition for residents in May it announced it now wanted to make the tower 18 storeys high.
London Square argued that this initial change was “non-material” but the Lee Manor Society and other objectors said it was material because it was clearly a precursor to a bid to increase the height of the tower under a Section 73 application.
However, Lewisham planners said the effects of the amendments would not alter the substance of the development from that already granted permission. “As such, Officers consider that the non-material amendment procedure is the correct route for the alterations. Considering the above, Officers are satisfied the description change is non-material.”
The planning report also says: “Neighbour consultation is not required for s96a applications, however it is noted that 88 objections have been received from neighbours and local groups, including Lee Forum, Lee Manor Society and Blackheath Society. The objections mostly relate to the plans that were presented at a public exhibition which showed Building A1 had been increased by 3-storeys from the consented 15, in addition to height increases elsewhere. At the time of this report, Leegate proposals remained at pre-app stage, and the exhibition proposals had since been revised.”
Meanwhile London Square has lodged a new application to change another condition of the original planning consent. This time they want permission to start demolition without an approved scheme of floodplain storage mitigation.
Floodplain storage mitigation in urban development involves using floodplains to store excess water during storms, reducing flood risk in downstream areas. This can be achieved through various methods, including creating or restoring natural floodplains, constructing reservoirs, and implementing sustainable drainage systems.
The Leegate site, which is currently awaiting redevelopment, was pounded with German bombs during World War II, according to a fascinating report submitted to Lewisham Council.
It says there were 46 High Explosive bomb strikes within a 300-metre radius of the site.
The report, by the unexploded ordnance specialists Brimstone, adds “Two incendiary bomb ‘showers’ were also recorded within a 300m radius of the Site; one of these is partially recorded over the eastern extent of the Site.
“Furthermore, LCC bomb damage records structural clearance to a structure on Eltham Road in the north of the Site, with further structures in the south-western extent recorded as sustaining ‘general blast damage- not structural.’ The closest substantial damage within LCC mapping is approximately 20m west of the Site, where structures were ‘damaged beyond repair’”
The report is included in an application recently lodged by London Square to discharge a condition attached to the original planning consent for Leegate concerning possible UXBs – unexploded bombs.
The original condition said that “No demolition of structural elements of the existing buildings shall be carried out until an Unexploded Ordnance Threat Assessment has been completed, and (in the event that the Threat Assessment makes recommendations for further surveys and/or measures to protect the safety of the public, of future occupiers of the land and of workers on the site) then structural demolition shall be carried out fully in accordance with the recommendations of the Assessment(s).”
London Square is arguing that the risk of unexploded ordnance being found on the site is low to moderate and has proposed several mitigation measures if the requirement is dropped.
