Blackheath station car park development recommended for approval
Plans to build housing on Blackheath station car park are set to be decided next week with planning officers recommending approval.
A meeting on Tuesday 27 January will decide on a proposal by Acorn Property Group to build “45 new homes, 3 commercial units, a new market square, parking and associated public realm”.
The plans have proven controversial with 1,202 objections according to a report before the meeting.
Many objectors state the loss of parking will damage shops in Blackheath village alongside the weekend market which is held on the car park. Acorn plan to include a space for market stalls though some argue it’s insufficient and the market will be harmed during construction.
However according to the report the market’s operator supports the plan. During construction an alternative site would be needed. This is not yet finalised.
“Due to the site constraints, it would not be possible to accommodate the market on site during the construction phase so a temporary location would be required while the development is built.
“At the time of writing a location has not been finalised (and is likely to be subject to the need for a separate consent) but LFM have been working with Council Officers within the highways, public realm and market teams to secure a location within the town centre.”
“While the temporary location would be subject to sperate consents, the need to secure relocation which is generated by this development would. The relocation will however give rise to the need for the Council to incur costs in facilitating a relocation.
“These costs would include a Traffic Management Order, traffic management measures, publicity / consultation and a cleansing regime. Given the relationship between the development and the costs to be incurred, it is considered appropriate for a planning obligation to be secured as part of the s106 agreement, securing a financial contribution to those costs has has been agreed with the applicant.”
Revised design
The current designs were revised late in 2024 with a number of design changes to buildings on site.
That application also stated in relation to a reduction in parking that “The loss of car parking is supported by planning policy and justified by strong public transport accessibility and declining usage trends.” The councils report before next week’s meeting states that public transport accessibility is given as a PTAL rating of 4 out of 6.
The National Planning Policy Framework is also referenced in regards to the loss of car parking:
“Policy SD7 goes on to stipulate that development plans should identify sites suitable for higher density mixed-use residential intensification capitalising on the availability of services within walking and cycling distance and current and future public transport provision”.
The report states the London Plan “specifically identifies surface level carparks in such locations as being suitable for mixed-use residential development intended to optimise delivery and increase housing supply, see Policy H1. This is echoed in the spatial strategy for town centres within
Policy SD7”.
Some objections have highlighted that the site is not included in Lewisham Council’s site allocations strategy. The report states “the lack of a site allocation does not exclude a site from being redeveloped and the proposed uses are considered acceptable for a town centre location”.
Past use
In total the development would include 17 parking spaces. Parking has existed on the site since the 1970s. It was previously used as railway sidings.
An entrance to the station is located along the platform facing onto the car park. Network Rail have called for designs to ensure sufficient access when the London Marathon is held.
There are no plans to undertake changes to the entrance with, for example, staffing or ticket gates.
Housing totals
A key issue in determining the application is how many homes Lewisham have seen in relation to targets. Lewisham are some way behind which means there is a presumption to approve:
“The Housing Delivery Test is an annual statutory measurement of housing delivery. It provides a similar but parallel performance measurement to that required under the five year housing land supply statement.
“The latest Housing Delivery Test results demonstrate that across Lewisham housing completions are significantly underperforming, at 32% of the requirement delivery target.”
Objectors state the presumption to approve, or “tilted balance”, shouldn’t apply as “impacts of the development, set out in the report below, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits”.
Levels of “affordable” housing are eight units or 42 habitable rooms (21.3%) after a viability test. These are at London Affordable rent levels. It’s possible that level may fall in future as the government and Mayor have recently agreed to reduce “affordable” housing targets from 35 per cent to 20 per cent.
It’s possible that no Community Infrastructure Levy will be paid by developer Acorn to Lewisham Council for improved infrastructure in the borough after the current government and Mayor recently agreed to waive the Community Infrastructure Levy requirement which often funds services such as transport, schools, healthcare and public realm.
Meeting
Further issues around massing and transport, to give just two issues, are covered in the 143-page report. One issue raised is the tallest block located close to John Ball school and there’s plenty more featured.
Next week’s meetings should prove to be a contentious one given various objections. It could well be rather emotive.
I’m not a fan of the biggest block but overall it seems relatively well thought out. Some of the objections are simply ludicrous, curtain twitching stuff. Have you seen what the opponents are putting out?
An example claims we should have no new public space, even one that’s minimal as it “could become a meeting point for anti-social behaviour”. Why have anything nice eh? Better lock up every park, street and space at all times.
Another is the car park needs to stay for school drop-offs. It’s London! Walk. Use a bus. A train. It’s not the back of beyond.
The campaign against it then lost all credibility with me when they featured a picture of what looks like a tall, crumbling Russian communist-era block beside talk of a bulky overly dense development. The tallest is five storeys and as said I have reservations but it’s hardly how they portray. Hysterical overreaction.
There’s a lot more hyperbole and waffle but you get the point. Any good points lost amongst the nonsense.
What’s worse is they don’t seem to have a clue about planning law and rules at any level of government when putting out silly claims.
I agree London desperately needs new homes and agree the development which i like the look of is in London not in a rural area. However, that said sadly we are seeing Sadiq Khan Mayor of London and TFL are cutting bus services by cutting frequencies and axing routes across London.
We need to see new developments much better setved by local bus services so people am use buses more for local journeys including going to shops schools etc.
Oh yep and not just buses. Rail services have been cut through Blackheath and still not returned. That includes trains to Charing Cross during much of the off peak period as well as trains from Woolwich/Charlton to Blackheath when the market Is running.
Absolutely. J Smith. I totally agree both bus and rail services cut. Not ideal when trying to encourage people to use public transport more.
I welcome new homes amd always great done. I wonder how much the new homes will cost being in the heart of Blackheath Village..
@Graham: ‘London desperately needs new homes …’, but these will be out of the reach of the desparate. It’s not as if Lewisham council acquired the land with plans to build social housing. That would be an outrage.
re “could become a meeting point for anti-social behaviour” – that must be same objector as the comment raised against the supermarket in the village, “as some loud person might buy a beer there”
A zone 3 station does not require a car park. London does need new homes. Build Build. Build.
I agree London desperately needs new homes and agree the development which i like the look of is in London not in a rural area. However, that said sadly we are seeing Sadiq Khan Mayor of London and TFL are cutting bus services by cutting frequencies and axing routes across London.
We need to see new developments much better setved by local bus services so people am use buses more for local journeys including going to shops schools etc.
Say goodbye to the 108 and anything else that runs through Blackheath until the works are over.
It’s a 45 home plan. We’re not talking 2,000 homes here. Far fewer staff and lorry movements than big developments. It’ll be fine.
This building works will not require permanent road closures. Look at what has just been built across London in the last 20 years without requiring permanent road closures. We are desperately short of homes. As a society we cannot allow those with homes and their extremist lobbying wings such as the local amenity societies to constantly use nonsense arguments (like a lack of buses, too little social housing, too much/too little public space) to prevent the building of more homes. This space is a barely used car park next to a train station – get it built.
This car park is in use full day for shoppers, school runs and market.
On market day, there are 3000 people coming over, helping local businesses to pay for their business rates.
The current design shows a corridor for the market. What I can tell you is I won’t go anymore there if it is to be directed in a one way circulation flow like a sheep.
The ones who say: take the bus or train: wrong. 1st train or bus fares are more expensive than a 2 hrs park for 3 people.
The tfl service is like a sub developed country with very poor reliability, frequencies of service and weekend closures.
If this development should go ahead, none of them should be for affordable housing: people under this scheme pay little to none council tax, which boroughs need. Stop social housing, this will force people to move their a** and find jobs. Why a 20y old need social housing? Go to work.
Aren’t you a horrible man!
I’m looking forward to these being built and then buying one, knowing full well you won’t be anywhere near the area.
You are not wrong Peter TFL services sre unreasonable and becoming less frequent with frequencies reduced on many bus routes. Train services do not fare much better with services reduced and some services axed no longer serving stations like Charing Cross.
You are right Local Councils do need more income from council tax so all households should be brought in to paying some council tax. As everyone uses council services in some form whether it be schools, parks, libraries, they all have street lighting and bins collected etc etc.
I always thought tbe car park was well used to be honest. What ever happens i would like to see the market remain..
You are not wrong Peter TFL services sre unreasonable and becoming less frequent with frequencies reduced on many bus routes. Train services do not fare much better with services reduced and some services axed no longer serving stations like Charing Cross.
You are right Local Councils do need more income from council tax so all households should be brought in to paying some council tax. As everyone uses council services in some form whether it be schools, parks, libraries, they all have street lighting and bins collected etc etc.
I always thought tbe car park was well used to be honest. What ever happens i would like to see the market remain..
Usually, the reality never ends up looking like the renders. The market area seems quite squeezed in and not very welcoming. The colourful awnings and the fake bakery sign are quite misleading, in my opinion. I think it’s important to have some space around you when you’re wandering around a market. Perhaps the market should move elsewhere (for example, around the church on the heath).
On another note, building houses is generally positive but for whom? Let’s not forget that quite a few properties in London are bought as investments rather than homes.
Who would pay a mil plus to live at the train station?
Vitalii Trofymenko: ‘Who would pay a mil plus to live at the train station?’ People who commute for work. 😂😂😂 I’ve always lived very close to a station since I don’t want to spend time getting there and back again.
Prediction: It’s rejected with an eye on the next election. The chair of the planning committee is standing to be Lewisham’s next leader. She’s also the councillor for Blackheath. Alienating local voters now is a bad look. Planning is supposed to be non political but lets be real.
Then its approved on appeal as it conforms to planning law. Lewisham council and taxpayers will have to foot the costs. Councillors can say we tried.
I like the development as it will be centrally locatec by a station which comuters like.
The flats will appeal to young professionals who like to be near transport and a local community with shops pubs and restaurants.
I am.guessing tbe flats HoweverI will be expensive to buy with a Blackheath price tag.
I do agree that we neec to see improvements to public transport in the area along witb neighbouring Kidbrooke and Kibrooke Villagre development..
So the car park next to the railway station at Blackheath could be replaced by new apartments. Does anyone use the station car park to park their car and to use the train to commute into Central London and Kent.
I regret that I saw these comments too late. It is just plain ugly and of no architectural merit whatsoever. Compare the unimaginative boxes with what other architects managed in even smaller sites:https://www.peterbarberarchitects.com/north-street-1
I am so disappointed that this site will not be used for good design and instead becomes another run-of-the mill crammed in development. The existing neighbourhood is just been disregarded.
Why not just keep the station car park as it is instead of being demolished and replaced by new apartments next to the railway station. Or is the car park not used as much and the council have seen an opportunity for new flats to be built on. And to see the regeneration of Blackheath in Southeast London.
‘Due to the site constraints, it would not be possible to accommodate the market on site during the construction phase so a temporary location would be required while the development is built.’ I wouldn’t be surprised if the market never returns to the station site because of the high cost of pitches being charged by the developers, with not enough stallholders who can afford the rent.