Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallLewisham Council refused the Lewisham part of RER London’s Deptford Reach proposal on 24 September 2026. The committee cited harm to heritage assets, unacceptable height and design, an incomplete Section 106 agreement, and daylight and sunlight impacts on residential moorings beside Deptford Creek. Greenwich, which considered a separate application for its part of the site, deferred its decision that day; the refusal was not a decision by both boroughs.
What was proposed for Deptford Creek?
RER group companies proposed redeveloping the former Lewisham College site around Deptford Creek, where the boundary between Lewisham and Greenwich follows the waterway. The scheme comprised 802 homes in eight buildings, with heights ranging from one to 30 storeys. It was divided into two separate planning applications, one for each borough.
| Application area | Proposed homes | Buildings and maximum height | Committee position on 24 September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lewisham | 548 | Four buildings, including a 30-storey tower | Planning permission refused |
| Greenwich | 254 | Four buildings; maximum 19 storeys | Decision deferred |
The Lewisham plans included the 30-storey Building A, Building B stepping from 11 to seven storeys, and 15- and 17-storey buildings on the creek peninsula. The Greenwich plans proposed four buildings, up to 19 storeys. These are application details, not completed homes or buildings. The Greenwich Wire’s committee report and Lewisham News’ coverage describe the proposals and proceedings.
The plans also included education space and public-realm elements. Pre-meeting coverage described 5,212 square metres of education floorspace on the Lewisham side and a scheme that was car-free apart from 27 Blue Badge spaces. These were proposed features, not facilities delivered through the refusal.
Recommended Free Tools
#1 Best Overall
- Revell Model Kit #14576, Skill Level 4, Contains 74-Parts, Recommended for ages 12 and up
- High-rise four-wheel-drive suspension. Detailed small-block Chevy V-8 engine.
- Old-school spoke “wagon” wheels with oversize off-road tires.
- All-new decal sheet.
- Molded in white and clear with soft black tires. Paint and glue required(not included).
Why did Lewisham refuse its application?
The committee’s recorded reasons—not simply the earlier officer recommendation or objections raised at the meeting—set out four grounds for refusing permission. The official Lewisham committee record is the primary source for the decision.
Heritage harm
The committee found that the scheme’s height, scale, massing and siting would harm the significance of conservation areas and listed buildings. The concern was how the proposed development would affect designated heritage assets, not just the appearance of one tower in isolation.
Height, townscape and design
The recorded reason also said the height, scale, massing, layout and design of Buildings A and B, together with the cumulative effect of taller buildings, failed to respond appropriately to local character and the heritage context. This was a formal planning judgment about the scheme’s fit with its surroundings.
Rank #2
- It needs to be assembled, there is no drawing, and there is a number corresponding to the wall to be assembled on the laminate.
- The assembly is simple and requires glue.
Missing Section 106 agreement
The application did not have a completed Section 106 obligation to secure mitigation and other planning obligations. A Section 106 agreement is a legal mechanism used to secure agreed planning requirements. The committee listed the missing agreement as a refusal ground.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsDaylight and sunlight for residential moorings
The committee added a refusal reason concerning Buildings C and D, proposed close to residential moorings on the creek’s Theatre Arm. It concluded that their height, scale and siting would substantially reduce daylight and sunlight for a number of existing residential receptors.
A resident, Matthew Kennedy, asked councillors to include a specific ground on daylight impacts. Local reporting attributes to him the statement that 13 homes and 27 people were associated with the mooring community. Those figures reflect his testimony at the meeting, not independently audited counts. The committee’s formal wording refers to a number of residential receptors. The Greenwich Wire’s account of the mooring residents’ case reports his comments.
Rank #3
- V8 POWER: The model features a 400 cubic inch V8 engine, reflecting the muscle and power that defined the GTO's reputation.
- DETAILED SUSPENSION & EXHAUST: The kit incorporates separate rear suspension and exhaust detailing, adding to the realism of the model.
- BUCKET SEATS & CONSOLE: The model's interior features bucket seats and a floor shifter with a console, capturing the iconic look and feel of the GTO.
- OPTIONAL SUPERCHARGER: For those seeking more power, the kit offers an optional supercharger, allowing you to customize your model.
- CLEAR & COMPREHENSIVE INSTRUCTIONS: The included instructions are clear and user-friendly, making the kit accessible to modelers of different skill levels, from beginners to experienced hobbyists.
How did the refusal differ from the officers’ advice?
Before the meeting, Lewisham planning officers had recommended refusal on heritage, design and the absence of a completed legal agreement. The committee’s final decision also included the daylight and sunlight impact on residential moorings. Keeping those stages separate matters: the officers’ recommendation was advice, while the four grounds above were the committee’s recorded reasons for refusing permission.
During the meeting, the acting head of development management, David Robinson, reportedly cautioned that a daylight-loss argument might carry limited weight if the applicant appealed, citing other appeal decisions and Greater London Authority judgments. That was an attributed comment about possible weight, not a decision on this application or a prediction of an appeal outcome. Local meeting coverage records the exchange.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
What were the housing and affordable-housing figures?
The application proposed 802 homes across both boroughs: 548 in Lewisham and 254 in Greenwich. Committee coverage reported 24 proposed affordable homes in total—14 on the Lewisham side and 10 on the Greenwich side. Of Lewisham’s proposed allocation, nine were social-rent homes and five were shared ownership. These were proposed numbers, not homes secured or built.
Rank #4
- DIMENSIONS: Detailed skyscraper model measures 6.3 inches tall, 2.7 inches wide, and 1.4 inches deep, perfect for miniature city displays
- DESIGN FEATURES: Architectural model features a distinctive pointed roof and classical arched windows on the ground floor
- LIGHTING CAPABILITY: Compatible with LED lighting setups to create realistic illuminated cityscape scenes at night
- VERSATILE USE: Ideal for urban planning presentations, architectural displays, model train layouts, and diorama projects
- CONSTRUCTION DETAIL: Precisely crafted with multiple floors of detailed windows and a curtain wall glass facade design
Local reporting said the earlier scheme began with 903 homes and an 11% affordable share in Lewisham, and that provision was reduced as the plans were revised. The percentage refers to the earlier Lewisham proposal; it should not be read as the affordable share of the final 802-home scheme. Reporting also said consultants for the councils and the Greater London Authority reviewed the developer’s viability appraisal. That appraisal process does not, by itself, establish an independent conclusion that the scheme was or was not financially viable. Lewisham News’ pre-meeting coverage reported the affordable-housing and viability details.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What benefits were weighed against the concerns?
The applicant argued that the development would provide homes and open access to the creek. Officers also identified housing, education floorspace, riverside walks and ecological enhancements as benefits. In recommending refusal, officers concluded that those benefits did not outweigh the heritage and design harms they identified. The committee’s decision was ultimately recorded against its four formal refusal grounds.
At the meeting, Creekside Educational Trust chief executive Kelvin Shewry argued that the creek should be treated as a defining environmental feature of the site. His comment was a speaker’s view, rather than a committee finding. Salamander News’ meeting coverage reports his remarks and the discussion of the scheme’s public benefits.
What happened to the Greenwich application?
Greenwich considered its own application for the other part of the site. Before the meeting, reporting said Greenwich officers had recommended approval subject to planning permission being granted for the Lewisham application. That recommendation was not a committee approval.
On 24 September, Greenwich’s Planning Board deferred its decision. Its chair, Jeremy Fraser, said he wanted an overall picture of the application after Lewisham had decided. He also referred to an access-road issue, but contemporaneous reporting says he did not elaborate; it was not raised in Lewisham’s discussion. It should not be treated as a verified technical reason for Lewisham’s refusal. The Greenwich Wire reported the deferral and chair’s comments.
The latest located status for this article is the 24 September deferral. No later Greenwich decision, call-in, appeal or change to Lewisham’s refusal was verified in reporting available through 5 October 2026. That cutoff does not establish that the application remains undecided today; the live borough planning records are needed for a current procedural update.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →
