19-storey student accommodation at 301-303 Ilderton Road, London SE15

Earlier permissions

Two existing permissions allowed 15-storey buildings, first with conventional homes and later with 169 student rooms and modest industrial floorspace.

“The application site benefits from two extant planning permissions (planning references: 20/AP/3560 and 24/AP/3819). In both cases, a single building of 15 storeys was consented, with the earlier application comprising 59 conventional Class C3 dwellings, while the more recent application comprises a 169-bedspace purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) premises. Both applications also contained a modest quantum of light industrial floorspace.”

“The application hereunder consideration, which proposes a 241-bedspace PBSA premises, to be entirely direct-let (i.e. not linked to any specific university or college) at market rate, would not include any affordable student rooms.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the scheme an efficient, high-quality use of an underused brownfield site that would contribute student housing, jobs and affordable housing funding.

“Without any on-site conventional affordable homes proposed, the 25/AP/3804 scheme is inherently less likely to contribute to a mixed and inclusive neighbourhood than it might otherwise. However, the impact would not be substantial enough to outweigh the benefits of using brownfield land for meeting identified housing needs via on-site delivery of student homes and a payment-in-lieu, and indirectly through releasing local family housing…”

“As the report explains, the proposal would make efficient use of an under- utilised site to deliver a high quality and sustainable development that on balance accords with the Council’s aspirations for the area. In addition to the economic benefits brought by this proposal, such as the construction-related jobs and training, a range of financial contributions will be secured to offset…”

Officer report

Main effects considered

The assessment found additional daylight and sunlight effects, but considered them not unduly harmful, while the design, accommodation, transport and environmental measures were acceptable.

“The application site is situated in a location where tall buildings are considered appropriate, subject to demonstration that they would achieve an exemplary standard of design and meet the requirements of the London Plan and Southwark Plan in all other regards.”

“The proposal would cause some adverse daylight and sunlight impacts to neighbouring properties. However, relative to the impacts already deemed acceptable in the granting of the recent extant planning permission, the degree of additional impact is not significant and, importantly, in no instance would the effect by unduly harmful to residential amenity.”

Officer report

What people said

Two public responses objected to the development’s scale, height, design, neighbour impacts, infrastructure effects, construction disturbance and loss of the car wash.

“Neighbour amenity impacts: - Loss of daylight/sunlight to properties and external spaces (the negative effects of which include causing increased use of artificial lighting and raising energy costs); - Shadowing of properties and external spaces; - Infringement on privacy and overlooking; and - Increased sense of enclosure to surrounding properties.”

“It should be noted that the member of the public who raised the issue of the impact on the Hard Car Wash subsequently contacted the case officer saying “I have given it a second thought and respect what you are trying to do in the area and the betterment of the environment. Please carry on with your plans and wish you the very best of success with the project”.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s representatives addressed the committee and answered members’ questions; no supporters or ward councillors wished to speak.

Members’ consideration

Members heard the officer’s introduction, considered the addendum report and asked officers questions before the application was put to a vote.

“The committee heard the officer’s introduction to the report and addendum report. Members put questions to officers.”

“The applicant’s representatives addressed the committee and answered questions put by members of the committee.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to grant permission as recommended was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

“A motion to grant planning permission as on paper, was moved, seconded, put to the vote and declared carried.”

Minutes

The decision

Full planning permission was granted subject to conditions, Mayoral referral and a satisfactory legal agreement, with authority to refuse if requirements were not met by 23 September 2026.

“That full planning permission be granted for 25/AP/3804, subject to conditions, referral to the Mayor of London and the applicant entering into a satisfactory legal agreement; and…”

“That, in the event of requirements of paragraph 1 above not having been met by 23 September 2026 the Director of Planning and Growth be authorised to refuse planning permission for 25/AP/3804, if appropriate, for the reasons set out in paragraph 533 of this report.”

Minutes