The Strategic Planning Committee of Lewisham Council met on Tuesday 24 February 2026 to discuss a planning application for the redevelopment of Sun Wharf in Creekside, London SE8. The meeting's agenda focused on a single item: the proposed demolition of existing buildings and comprehensive redevelopment to provide residential dwellings, purpose-built student accommodation, and commercial floorspace.

Sun Wharf, Creekside, London SE8 (DC/25/140992)

The primary item for discussion was the planning application for Sun Wharf, located in the Deptford ward. The proposal involved the demolition of existing structures to allow for the construction of three new buildings. These buildings were scheduled to comprise residential dwellings (Use Class C3), purpose-built student accommodation (sui generis), and commercial floorspace (Use Class E(b) for cafes and E(g) for offices/light industrial). The plans also included landscaping, public realm works, improvements to the river wall and a public riverside walkway, accessible parking, cycle parking, and refuse/recycling stores.

The report pack indicated that the officer's recommendation was for approval, subject to planning conditions and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement. This recommendation remained unchanged following the submission of an addendum report that provided minor updates regarding a mirror testing assessment for daylight and sunlight impacts, clarifications on neighbour amenity impacts, and details on heritage and affordable housing provisions.

The addendum report clarified that a mirror testing assessment had been undertaken to compare the impacts of the proposed development with an existing development. This assessment concluded that the proposed development would generally have less or equal impact on daylight to neighbouring properties compared to a hypothetical mirror image of the existing block. The report also provided clarifications on neighbour impact assessments, noting that while the proposed development would result in substantial and perceptible reductions in daylight, particularly for living/kitchen/diner areas, this harm was considered to be outweighed by public benefits.

Further clarifications were provided regarding heritage assets, confirming that viewpoints were considered appropriate and that no harm was anticipated to other viewpoints. For affordable housing, an amendment was noted regarding the number of social rent units. The report also clarified that a viability review for the scheme was not required as it met the London Plan's fast-track threshold for affordable housing provision on non-designated industrial land. Finally, an update was provided regarding purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA), noting the inclusion of a PBSA scheme previously granted permission in a nearby location.

The report pack detailed the extensive considerations for the application, including:

• Principle of Development: The proposal was considered in line with national and local planning policies promoting sustainable development, optimising land use, and supporting mixed-use employment locations. The principle of a tall building was deemed acceptable given the site's designation and context.
• Housing: The development proposed 50 residential units, all to be provided as affordable housing (32 Social Rent and 18 Shared Ownership). This was considered a significant contribution to Lewisham's housing targets, especially when combined with the PBSA provision, which, based on a 2.5:1 ratio, equated to an additional 242 C3 dwellings. The report highlighted the Council's failure in housing delivery, engaging the tilted balance in favour of approving sustainable development.
• Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSA): The scheme included 605 PBSA bedspaces, with 37.6% designated as affordable. This was seen as contributing to London's PBSA target and addressing a local need, with evidence suggesting an undersupply in Lewisham. Concerns about overconcentration were addressed by assessing impacts at the Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) level, concluding that the proposed development would not lead to an overconcentration.
• Employment: The proposal included 1,443 sqm of flexible commercial floorspace, with 10% designated as affordable workspace. This was considered appropriate for the Creative Enterprise Zone location and would contribute to job creation.
• Urban Design and Heritage: The design, scale, and massing were considered comparable to a previously consented scheme. The development was assessed against impacts on listed buildings, conservation areas, and strategic views, with officers concluding that the proposal would preserve the settings of designated heritage assets and that identified harm to views would be outweighed by public benefits.
• Living Conditions of Neighbours: The report detailed potential impacts on daylight, sunlight, outlook, and privacy for neighbouring properties, particularly Kent Wharf and Cockpit Arts. While substantial reductions in daylight and sunlight were identified for some units, these were considered acceptable in the urban context and outweighed by public benefits, especially given the flexibility required when applying BRE guidelines in dense urban environments.
• Transport: The development was proposed as car-free, with limited Blue Badge parking. It included significant cycle parking and financial contributions towards highway and public realm improvements. The proposal was considered acceptable in transport terms, promoting sustainable travel.
• Sustainable Development: The scheme aimed to achieve significant carbon reductions through energy efficiency measures and the use of Air Source Heat Pumps and solar PV panels. It also included measures for urban greening, flood risk mitigation, and sustainable drainage.
• Natural Environment: The development was projected to achieve a substantial Biodiversity Net Gain, exceeding statutory requirements through landscaping, green roofs, and habitat creation. Measures were proposed to mitigate impacts on the Sand Martin/Kingfisher bank and to manage potential pollution risks to Deptford Creek.
• Public Health, Well-being, and Safety: The development was considered to have a minor adverse impact on local medical facilities and educational provision, which was deemed manageable and outweighed by substantial CIL contributions. The design was intended to promote healthy lifestyles and community cohesion. Fire safety and security measures were also addressed.

The meeting was scheduled to consider recommendations for referring the application to the Mayor of London, authorising officers to negotiate a Section 106 agreement, and granting planning permission subject to conditions.