620-home mixed-use redevelopment at Leegate Shopping Centre, London SE12

The site and its setting

The site is allocated for development, lies in a district centre and growth node, and has public transport and several flood-risk designations.

“Designation: Site Allocation LEA SA3 District Centre Lee Neighbourhood Forum Growth Node PTAL 3 Flood Risk Zone 1, 2 & 3 Air Quality Management Area…”

Officer report

Earlier permission and changes

The proposal amended an earlier permission and a later non-material amendment, with changes to building heights, parking, healthcare, energy and commercial space.

“Proposal: Application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the approval of a Minor Material Amendment to planning permission ref. DC/22/126997, as amended by s96a Non-Material Amendment dated 30 June 2025 (DC/25/140113) - 'Proposed development at Leegate Shopping Centre SE12, bounded by Burnt Ash Road, Eltham Road, Leyland Road and Carston Close, for the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of buildings to…”

Officer report

Who addressed the committee

The committee heard from the planning officer, applicant representatives, three objector representatives and ward councillors speaking for community interests.

Members’ main concerns

Members considered the balance between social benefits and local impacts, including height, building quality, engagement and healthcare provision.

“The Officers responded by explaining the raise of height: • The additional height to Building A1 was essentially one storey plus parapets rather than two full floor, representing 6.4 metres additional height. • The height had been discussed robustly at pre-application stage for several months. • Different options had been considered up to 20 storeys, which officers considered inappropriate.”

“Officers had noted the scheme did not comply with the local plan recommendation but weighed this against the public benefits including commercial floor space, housing and affordable housing. • The assessment was conducted in context of the Council having failed the housing delivery test, which made paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework applicable - the tilted balance.”

Minutes

The vote

A councillor proposed accepting the officer recommendation, another councillor seconded it, and members voted unanimously.

“Cllr Lavery propose to accept the officer’s recommendation was seconded by Cllr Krupski, then voted on by Members present at the meeting.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee authorised changes to the legal agreement and approved the application subject to a satisfactory agreement and planning conditions.

“C. To authorise the Head of Law to complete a Deed of Variation of the legal agreement under Section 106 (dated 1 November 2024) of the 1990 Act (and other appropriate powers) to cover the principal matters as set out in Section 7.3 of the report, including other such amendments as considered appropriate to ensure the acceptable implementation of the development.”

“D. That subject to completion of a satisfactory legal agreement, authorise the Head of Planning to GRANT s73 PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditions including those set out in the report, and such amendments as considered appropriate to ensure the acceptable implementation of the development.”

Minutes

Why permission was granted

Approval reflected the balance of housing, commercial and affordable housing benefits against identified harm, with conditions and legal obligations required.

“Height of the plan excess the Local Plan Policy’s height: • The policy did not state that exceeding the height required refusal. When an application exceeds the recommended height, officers weighed planning benefits against dis-benefits in the planning balance. Officers did not feel the scheme could be refused for height reasons and did not believe this would hold up…”

Minutes