Taller Leegate tower approved — but developer sorry for Blackheath branding.

More than 600 dwellings and a 17-story tower will now replace the defunct Leegate shopping mall, but Lewisham councillors chastised the developer for calling the project “Blackheath Gate”.

The 1970s mall, which has been vacant since last year, has long been planned for development, with the most current proposal for 562 dwellings and 15-story towers approved in July 2023 despite opposition from local councils and residents’ groups.

A separate developer has since purchased the land, which is located on the Lewisham-Greenwich borough boundary near Lee Green.

London Square has added 620 dwellings and boosted the quantity of “affordable” homes, with 149 available for social rent and 112 for shared ownership.

That has also resulted in taller buildings, with the main tower currently standing at 17 stories, much to the chagrin of nearby residents’ groups.

Greenwich Council also opposed, noting the impact on historic structures on their side of the border.

But the developers’ decision to call the site “Blackheath Gate” sparked even greater outrage, with the developer acknowledging it made the incorrect decision at a meeting of Lewisham’s strategic development committee on Tuesday.

While the area is near to streets with the SE3 postcode associated with Blackheath, both Lewisham and Greenwich authorities recognise Lee as a district core with its own identity.

Locals had derided the name online, and marketing materials incorrectly referred to “Blackheath Common” – a name that the heath has never had.

Paul Bell, the cabinet member for health and a committee member, asked: “Are you going to change the name from Blackheath Gate to something more appropriate for the area?”

I understand that it is primarily intended to increase the value of the properties, but it does not contribute to the area’s legacy.

Vanessa Joyce, London Square’s senior development manager, criticised the marketing department and stated that the corporation would collaborate with the community to choose a new name.

“We appreciate that that was an error on our site and we’ll be speaking to community groups about the future name and that that has now been removed from the hoarding,” according to her.

“There’s obviously a lot of interest in the site, and we’ve been blown away by the level of attention; everyone clearly wants something to happen on this site, and that enthusiasm is shining through.

We’d appreciate feedback on the name going forward.”

Simon Bucks of the Lee Manor Society accused the developer of “contempt” for the neighbourhood, while James Rathbone, a Lee Green Labour councillor, claimed the naming dispute showed larger concerns with London Square’s attitude towards its neighbours.

“It is the latest example of a pattern of behaviour where they have made commitments to the local community about how they will listen, engage, talk to us, and take our concerns into account and then they’ve gone away and done something completely differently, based upon whatever they wanted,” according to him.

The development will contain a pub to replace the Sir Edmund Halley, a convenience shop, a community centre, and space for a GP clinic, however the local NHS has stated that it would prefer to receive a cash contribution to strengthen existing services.

However, residents pointed out that Lewisham’s standards recommended a maximum of 12 storeys for buildings at Lee, and London Square went even farther.

Bucks claimed the tower would “dominate and dwarf” nearby low-rise dwellings, while Emma Warren, a resident, stated, “We are voters.

Listen to us. Why are you allowing this developer to take advantage of you when there is an election coming up? We understand your policy allows for a maximum height of 12 stories.

It is hardly nimbyism to expect councillors to follow their own policy.” Joyce stated that in response to residents’ and Lewisham Council’s concerns, London Square reduced the main building by one floor. She went on to say that the market for new homes was bad, and the original design, which was just approved last year, “isn’t deliverable”.

“I know it sounds mad as it was only consented last year, but the fire regulations have changed to such an extent that we’ve had to change the lifts, because you need escape corridors and new ventilation,” she told me. “There are a number of new regulations affecting the sector right now.

With the borough failing to meet housing targets in recent years, David Robinson, Lewisham’s major and strategic planning manager, cautioned councillors that there was a “high bar for refusal”.

Committee member Jack Lavery, a Sydenham councillor, stated that the altered project brought “89 extra affordable homes” and added, “I recognise there are some trade-offs and recognise that the increase in height of that tower hasn’t been well received by everybody.”

The all-Labour committee, which included Lavery, Bell, Rosie Parry (Deptford), deputy mayor Louise Krupski (Rushey Green), John Paschoud (Perry Vale) and Peter Bernards (Forest Hill), unanimously endorsed the project.

Read more on Straightwinfortoday.com