Leegate redevelopment plans revised again
Yet another revision to plans for redeveloping the Leegate Centre have been revealed.
Buildings have increased in height with an uplift in “affordable” housing to 45 per cent with 150 being at social rent level. Total homes would rise from the previously agreed 561 to 640.
Commercial space remains “broadly similar” according to consultation documents while a healthcare facility moves from the first floor to ground floor level.
If the corner block looks a tad familiar that could well be because architects are CZWG who were also behind the recently unveiled plans for homes on a former Lewisham College site in Deptford.
They replace Rolfe Judd behind the prior plan.
Long delays
Proposals to rebuild the post-war centre have been around for many years. Way back in 2014 I was covering plans for a rebuild of the site which at the time included an Asda supermarket.
A number of plans have been and gone in the intervening period. Galliard Homes secured planning permission in 2023 before selling to London Square.
During that time many businesses have been forced to close.
London Square are now in charge and are currently planning to build 600 homes in Crayford town centre as well as Woolwich Central either side of the town centre Tesco supermarket.
Click here to view consultation documents including further images of the proposal.
It is great to see progress being made on this site (site hoarding boards are already in place along Burnt Ash Road) and the sensible relocation of the medical centre to the ground floor. This site has been crying out for redevelopment for years and is an eye-sore in the area.
However, I am concerned about the increased heights being proposed.
As noted in the consultation documents, Local Plan policy QD4 states that “the maximum height of buildings shall not normally be more than 32.8 meters (10 storeys) to 39.2 meters (12 storeys)”. I was disappointed that the previously approved scheme allowed the principal tower (at the junction with Lee Road) to be 15 storeys, as the marketing imagery showed it to be disproportionately high with respect to the surrounding buildings.
This new application recommends increasing that tower to 18 storeys (with the proviso that this will help increase the share of affordable housing). Although it is great to provide more social/affordable housing in an area such as this, perhaps any additional apartments could be found increasing the height of other blocks in the development (to no more than 12 storeys) rather than creating a domineering high tower at the entrance to the development, which just does not fit in.
I agree with this comment. Instead of having one 18 story building dwarfing everything around it, why not increase the height of all the other buildings which will blend in nicely.
Just because this is better than what is currently doesn’t mean that they should be able to build anything they like which will not positively contribute to the area in the lon run.
I am very concerned with the provision of parking exclusively for disabled badge holders. This is completely unrealistic. There will be people living in the new flats which will need cars for their jobs, not as a leisure option. This is just creating a disaster for decades to come.
I live just along the road from Leegate and while the site has been boarded up, demolition is a year out according to the surveyors that have set up shop in one of the closed units.
@Levi Akins: ‘Instead of having one 18 story building dwarfing everything around it, why not increase the height of all the other buildings …?. Alternatively, scale back the retail element. The rents being asked are too high and a lot of retail space remains unlet in these developments. There is a big Sainsbury’s across the road and other businesses that already serves the needs of the locality.
@Eva: driving is a privilege and not a right. Those who can afford to run a car, should look elsewhere.
Totally agree.
If they need to use a car they can hire one.
“@Eva: driving is a privilege and not a right. Those who can afford to run a car, should look elsewhere.”
I completely agree; society urgently needs to move away from its dependence on cars. I say this as someone who owns and drives a car myself. While cars are undeniably convenient and, in some cases, necessary, especially for people with disabilities or those living in areas with poor public transit, we have to acknowledge that the majority of car trips are unnecessary and could be replaced with walking, cycling, or public transportation.
Our overreliance on personal vehicles contributes to traffic congestion, pollution, climate change, and a host of public health issues. It also fuels urban sprawl, isolates communities, and makes cities less safe and accessible for non-drivers. Moving toward more sustainable, people-centered transportation isn’t just good for the environment, it’s essential for creating healthier, more equitable, and more livable cities for everyone. Owning a car shouldn’t be the default, it should be one option among many.
@Levi Akins: car owner and occasional driver, too. I mostly use public transport, but the car comes into its own for weekend shopping and trips to the DIY sheds that are strung out along retail parks that involve multiple changes of buses and a fair bit of walking from where I live. This car dependent madness has to be curved and I am glad that planners recognise that there cannot be parking for every single unit in a new development.