LSC.09B by United+Industrious

LSCM.09 VOL 2 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT VOLUME 2 TOWNSCAPE, VISUAL AND BUILT HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT P.07 VOL 2

TOWNSCAPE, VISUAL AND BUILT HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT LEWISHAM SHOPPING CENTRE

OCTOBER 2024

Written by: Harriet Suter, Thomas Bender and David Taylor © Copyright 2024. All worldwide rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any other means whatsoever: i.e. photocopy, electronic, mechanical recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. Any enquiries should be directed to: Montagu Evans 70 St Mary Axe, London, EC3A 8BE Tel: +44 (0)20 7493 4002 All Ordnance Survey Plans are © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Licence Number: 100007624

CONTENTS NON-TECHNICAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY �� 3 1.0

INTRODUCTION �� 8

2.0

METHODOLOGY �� 14

3.0

4.0

The Site The Proposed Development Purpose of the Report Structure of the BHTVIA

Scoping and Baseline Assimilation Heritage Townscape and Visual Cumulative Effects Mitigation Climate Change Future Evolution of the Baseline

LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY �� 28 Legislation Development Plan National Policy Material Considerations Emerging Policy Policy Discussion

BASELINE: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT �� 34 Historical development of Lewisham: An Overview History of the Site

5.0

BASELINE: BUILT HERITAGE �� 44

6.0

BASELINE: TOWNSCAPE �� 64

Designated Heritage Receptors Non Designated Heritage Receptors Section Summary Townscape Character Areas Townscape Summary

7.0

BASELINE: VISUAL �� 74

8.0

CONSULTATION AND MITIGATION BY DESIGN �� 80

9.0

ASSESSMENT: HERITAGE RECEPTORS �� 90

Extent of Visibility Visual Receptors Representative Views Static Views Summary

Demolition and Construction Operational Indirect Effects (Setting Impacts) Conservation areas Non-Designated Heritage Receptors: Cumulative Section Summary

10.0 ASSESSMENT: TOWNSCAPE �� 106 Demolition and Construction Operational Direct effects Indirect effects Cumulative Section Summary

11.0

ASSESSMENT: VISUAL ��112 Representative Views Demolition and construction stage The Completed Development Stage Static Views

APPENDICES 01: VERIFIED VIEWS AND METHODOLOGY PREPARED BY MILLER HARE 02: ASSET PLANS (INCLUDING ZONE OF THEORETICAL VISBILITY) 03: NON-VERIFIED VIEWS STUDY – PREPARED USING VUCITY 04: HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT RECORD (HER) SEARCH 05: HERITAGE STATEMENT PREPARED BY MONTAGU EVANS 06: HISTORIC FABRIC STUDY PREPARED BY MONTAGU EVANS 07: LEWISHAM CLOCK TOWER STUDY PREPARED BY MONTAGU EVANS

NON-TECHNICAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

NON-TECHNICAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides an assessment of the impact of a planning application for redevelopment of Lewisham Shopping Centre and adjacent land on heritage, townscape and visual receptors. The report forms Volume 2 of the Environmental Statement submitted with the planning application. ‘Heritage’ and ‘Townscape and Visual’ are treated as individual disciplines and separate assessments are provided in accordance with legislation, planning policy and best practice guidance. In particular, the heritage assessment is carried out in accordance with the Historic England guidance document Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (2017). The townscape and

The location of the viewpoints has been informed by architectural

retailing, whilst securing opportunities for higher density employment, leisure

and historic accounts of the area, an appraisal of the existing site and

and residential development in a high quality environment.’

surroundings, and planning policy. The location of the viewpoints has been agreed with the London Borough of Lewisham during the pre-application process.

HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT The Industrial Revolution changed the landscape of Lewisham, as the mills

Within this strategic context, the Lewisham development plan stipulates

industrial purposes. The area attracted industrial development due to its

that the application site is located within a regeneration and growth area

strategic location and the good water supply. This was further stimulated

which will encourage regeneration and development opportunities.

in the mid nineteenth century when rail stations were added to the town centre, providing faster and more reliable connections. The area evolved through the remaining nineteenth century and the early

town centre, supported by a suite of policies, guidance and a delivery

twentieth century. Residential areas on the periphery of the town centre

plan. The LTCLP identifies the application site within the Central Area

were established for the upper middle class with adjoining small areas

(Policy LTC8), with specific emphasis on improving east-west connections,

of more affordable housing. Several of Lewisham’s civic buildings were

creating a more coherent and pleasant environment, activating

constructed during this period, including the clock tower (1906) to celebrate

Molesworth Street, securing investment in the Waterlink Way, and working

Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee and St Saviour’s Catholic Church (1909),

in partnership with market traders and other stakeholders, achieve

and Tower House (1933).

environmental improvements to Lewisham High Street and street market

Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment,

significant and required large areas of post-war reconstruction. Following

2013).

largescale rebuild of the town centre in the 1950s, the ‘Riverdale Shopping

CONTROL DOCUMENTS

Centre’ opened in 1977. In 1994 the High Street was pedestrianised

outline component and relevant control documents has been prepared by Studio Egret West (SEW). Due consideration is also given to the design information for the detailed plots N1 and N2, designed by Mae Architects

The 2014 Lewisham Town Centre Local Plan forms part of the extant development plan. It provides a vision and a number of objectives for the

area was targeted by German bombers. The extent of damage was

as the Development Specification and Framework and Design Code. The

housing.’

that had been established in the Middle Ages began to be used for more

for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition (Landscape

parameters of the outline component, plus other control documents such

New Cross/Lewisham/Catford Opportunity Area (OAs). OAs are defined development to provide substantial numbers of new employment and

The strategic location of Lewisham meant that during World War II the

components. The assessment is based upon the impact of the maximum

The London Plan also identifies Lewisham town centre as within the as ‘London’s principal opportunities for accommodating large scale

visual assessment has been carried out in accordance with the Guidelines

The proposals comprise a hybrid application, including outline and detailed

enabling a traffic-free street market and more open space in the public realm. The Dockland Light Railway arrived in 1999, connecting Lewisham via Canary Wharf with Bank in the City of London.

area.

PRINCIPLE OF TALL BUILDINGS Lewisham’s Core Strategy identifies the town centre as a location suitable for tall buildings and stipulates specific criteria which will need to be met for tall buildings to be deemed acceptable in these locations. The Lewisham Town Centre Local Plan states that proposed tall buildings should add positively to the existing and emerging overall Lewisham town centre skyline.

In more recent years, the urban landscape of Lewisham has undergone further change in accordance with the vision set out in the development plan. Lewisham Gateway and the station area has been the catalyst for this change, including tall and high-density development.

Lewisham’s emerging Local Plan, currently at Regulation 22 Stage, reinforces the principle of the application site’s suitability for tall buildings. The emerging Local Plan identifies a maximum building height of 25 storeys for the Lewisham Shopping Centre Site. Furthermore, the guidance set

and Archio Architects respectively.

PLANNING POLICY

Design development and the final assessment has been informed by

The extant development plan identifies Lewisham as a ‘Major’ town centre,

visualisation tools, including a zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) and 39

although seeks to promote it to ‘Metropolitan’ level by 2026. The 2021

accurate visual representations (‘AVRs’) prepared by Miller Hare, plus non-

London Plan states that ‘International, Metropolitan and Major town centres

verified massing studies prepared using VuCity software.

should be the focus for the majority of higher order comparison goods

out in the 2023 Tall Building Review states ‘the site has to form a transition between the northern cluster of tall buildings focused around the station to the existing low rise context of the high street. Could support a cluster of towers up to max.25 storeys focused towards Molesworth Street and to the north of the site.’

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

NON-TECHNICAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This intensification of the site is reinforced by the emerging allocation policies. As part of Lewisham’s emerging Local Plan the application site is allocated under area 2 of Lewisham’s Central Area, as well as being located within a ‘regeneration node’ area, for which development is encouraged.

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT The design has evolved in consultation with stakeholders, including preapplication meetings with officers at the London Borough of Lewisham since 2021, with the last meeting taking place in September 2024.

HERITAGE The application site does not comprise any statutorily listed buildings, nor is it situated within a conservation area. There are a number of nondesignated heritage assets located within the application site boundary,

proposed scale, form, massing and layout has been subject to detailed

part of an area of local special character. The application site also lies

discussions with stakeholders, including offices at the London of Lewisham

within proximity to several statutorily listed assets, including the Grade II

and members of the design review panel. As a consequence, whilst there

Lewisham Clock Tower.

are contrasts in scale, the overall form and composition of the town

contribution of setting to that significance. It provides an assessment of the

presentations, and sought feedback from, the Lewisham Design Review

impact of the proposals upon significance by virtue of a change to setting.

also sought their advice in January 2024.

A separate Heritage Statement has been prepared by Montagu Evans and is submitted as part of the planning application. It describes the significance of any heritage assets affected by the proposed development, including any contribution made by their setting. The

The process of engagement highlighted areas where the proposed

assessment satisfies the requirements set out under paragraph 200 of

development may be perceived to conflict with the planning policy

the 2023 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The findings of this

framework and relevant guidance that required further justification and/

BHTVIA and the Heritage Statement are consistent.

or revision. A number of significant revisions were made to the proposed development as part of the iterative design process and it is considered that these positively respond to comments raised by stakeholders when considering the development plan as a whole.

From the outset the design team has sought to retain much of the historic fabric along the High Street frontage. The number of buildings to be retained has grown during design development, in consultation with officers at the London Borough of Lewisham. No heritage assets formally

The design evolution process is set out in full detail in the Design and

identified by the London Borough of Lewisham would be demolished as

Access Statement prepared by the masterplan architects, Studio Egret

part of the final proposed development, with the exception of Nos.156-160

West. In summary, the original height distribution concept with taller

Lewisham High Street, a Building of Townscape Merit.

buildings to the west, medium height buildings in the central part and lower buildings along Lewisham High Street has been maintained throughout the entire process. The tallest buildings are concentrated to the north of the application site closest to the railway station and the Lewisham Gateway development. The overall heights were discussed and refined in close consultation with stakeholders. From the outset the design team has sought to retain much of the historic fabric along the High Street frontage; however, a key change to the brief was the decision to include the existing Lewisham House into the design and to remove the service desk which was originally to be partially retained. As a result of these moves, the proposed public park at the heart of the application site has become a cohesive and generous piece of green landscape.

set out in the development plan. The proposed development will further intensity the land use. The

Greater London Authority. The design team has also provided several

necessitate statutory consultation with Historic England, the design team

density development, including tall buildings, in accordance with the vision

Lewisham High Street and 180-190 Lewisham High Street, as well as

The heritage assessment outlines the significance of heritage assets and the

development is not likely to impact any heritage assets that would

Riverdale Centre. In more recent years the wider area has seen high

including the locally designated 65-85 Lewisham High Street, 90-100

Throughout this period the design team has consulted with officers at the

Panel (DRP) between October 2022 and August 2024. Whilst the proposed

the realisation of the Lewisham Shopping Centre in 1977 – originally named

The general massing principles seek to integrate lower-rise development within the High Street frontage and increase scale westward towards Molesworth Street. The changes brought about by the proposed development will be substantial and transformative for the town centre. Their physical manifestation will bring an intensification to the town centre function and appearance, which would be readily perceptible over short to medium distance views. The town centre itself has a history of continual evolution. The main High Street epitomises this, evidenced by a range of architectural periods and styles. The town centre was devastated by bomb damage during World War II which necessitated more wholesale interventions. The post-war property boom and a change in both social and economic outlook, saw

centre following implementation of the proposed development would be balanced, and congruent to the historic evolution of the town centre. The assessment has considered all heritage assets within a 1.5km radius of the application site. The ZTV was used to scope out where there would be no visibility of the proposed development in locations where the heritage assets may be experienced, or where the visibility is so limited and over such a distance as to not affect the setting or significance of the asset. Those assets within the study area that were both physically and functionally separated from the application site have not been assessed as the heritage significance of these assets is unlikely to be affected. Of the 61 heritage assets, 59 would not experience change to their setting that would impact significance i.e. their special interest would be preserved. For non-designated heritage assets, 122-126 and 142-148 Lewisham High Street, direct works undertaken during the operational phase of the Proposed Development will involve beneficial refurbishment and upgrading works to their principal facades, better revealing their historic and architectural significance. The assessment identifies that the proposed development would give rise to effects ranging from None to one finding of Moderate Adverse. The Moderate Adverse effect arises from the impact to one non-designated heritage asset, 156-60 Lewisham High Street, which is to undergo wholesale demolition during the demolition and construction stage of development. In accordance with Paragraph 209 of the NPPF the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. This will need to be considered by the decision maker in the wider planning balance.

NON-TECHNICAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposed development would provide a heritage benefit, comprising

includes large and tall development. The upgrades to public realm and

control documents such as the Development Specification and Framework

the improvement of the immediate setting of a number of locally listed

landscape strategy would revitalise the current deteriorating and poorly

and Design Code. As a consequence, the direction of effect is considered

buildings along Lewisham High Street, as well as the Grade II listed

functioning part of the High Street and would thus provide considerable

neutral.

Clock Tower. The proposals would replace the existing shopping centre

townscape benefits to this part of Lewisham and meet the policy

building with a number of buildings of a high architectural quality, as

aspirations of the development plan.

well as substantial public realm and landscaping enhancements. The

VISUAL RECEPTORS (PEOPLE)

improvements would be secured through the submitted Design Code.

TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL TOWNSCAPE The townscape assessment considers the proposals within their urban context, including the buildings, the relationships between them, the different types of open spaces and the relationship between buildings and open spaces. The townscape within a 1.5km radius of the application site has been categorised into five distinct areas. These include the Town Centre (TCA1), Residential (TCA2), Deptford (TCA3), Greenwich Park (a) and Blackheath (b) (TCA4) and wider parks and open green space (TCA5). The assessment identifies that the proposed development would give rise to effects ranging from None to Moderate Beneficial. The proposed development sits at the heart of the town centre between the emerging Lewisham Gateway scheme to the north and existing residential neighbourhoods of Lewisham to the south and southeast, Brockley and Ladywell to the west, Blackheath to the northeast and St John to the northwest. The application site lies approximately 250 m to the south of the Lewisham railway and DLR stations; numerous bus routes run along the site boundary. The shopping centre site has a PTAL rating of 6b (the highest). The assessment has identified a Moderate Beneficial effect to TCA1: Lewisham Town Centre, in which the application site is located. The proposed development would comprise the redevelopment of the application site and deliver a mixed-use, housing led scheme of highquality architecture. The range of uses would be complementary to the existing and emerging character of the area, the town centre, as set out in the development plan. The quantum and intensity of use, in conjunction of the scale of development, would be consistent with the use and type of development in the immediate and wider study area, which already

The assessment concludes that the proposed development forms a positive contribution to the overall visual amenity and enjoyment of Lewisham town centre and wider environs, introducing high-quality,

The visual assessment considers the impact of the proposed development upon visual receptors. The assessment relates to how people will be affected by changes in views and visual amenity at different places, including publicly accessible locations. Visual receptors are always people (although usually visual receptors are defined according to use e.g. residential, business, road, footpath etc.), rather than landscape features. The potential visibility of the proposed development has been understood through the preparation of a ZTV, using a topographically referenced three-dimensional model. The ZTV is a tool for a high-level understanding of the extent of visibility and has been further interrogated through review of individual viewpoints using field surveys and digital software. The ZTV demonstrates that there would be visibility of the proposed development from the town centre itself, as well as the residential areas to the north and west. Across longer distances, the proposed development would primarily be visible from large areas of open space, including Hilly Fields, Blackheath and Greenwich WHS.

responsive architecture which is well-considered in response its surrounding context. The proposed development will not give rise to any adverse visual and amenity impacts.

STATIC DESIGNATED VIEWS The assessment has also considered static views designated in the development plan due to their strategic importance. The application site is not located within any strategic viewing corridors as determined by the 2012 London View Management Framework. A non-verified massing view from Blackheath Point (LVMF 6A.1) is provided at Appendix 3.0, which demonstrates there is no intervisibility between receptors and the site. The site is located 2.6km from Island Gardens, located in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Island Gardens is identified as Townscape View 24 in the LVMF, looking towards the Royal Naval College. The view has been assessed as part of this report (View 14 which is considered in detail under the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site assessment).

The assessment identifies the proposed development would give rise to effects ranging from None to Moderate/Major Beneficial across all visual receptors. The Moderate/Major effect is identified to users of the town centre, who will experience the greatest change to visual amenity. A beneficial nature of effect is identified given the considerable uplift in terms of landscaping, public realm and amenity, architecture and built form that is brought by the replacement of the existing shopping centre. Particular and due consideration has been given to the effect arising from the impact of residential receptors on the periphery of the town centre. The scale of the proposed development would be readily perceptible from these areas, seen within the context of existing visual amenity that is often poor and subject to existing contrasts in scale relative to the town centre. The scale, form and massing of the proposed development has been considered in detail, and high quality design would be delivered

The site is located within proximity to the local landmark of the grade II listed Lewisham Clock Tower, as well as the spire of the Grade II Church of St Saviour. As such, due regard has been given to Core Strategy Policy 17 which states ‘local views, landmarks and panoramas identified on the Proposals Map will be managed to ensure that new development does not impede or detract from local views or obscure local landmarks.’ Two further static views have been identified and assessed in consultation with the Royal Borough of Greenwich, comprising Greenwich Local Plan View 5: Eltham Park (North) (View 37) to Central London and Greenwich Local Plan View 10: King John’s Walk/Eltham Palace (View 32). The assessment demonstrates that the proposed development would satisfy the management guidance for all strategic views. It would not impact any identified Strategically Important Landmarks.

through the maximum parameters of the outline component, plus other

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

NON-TECHNICAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SUMMARY The proposals have evolved through a detailed understanding of the application site, its surrounding context and the aspirations of the development plan. Design development has benefited from discussions with officers at the London Borough of Lewisham, plus several design reviews. The final design has been refined through this process and the result demonstrates a collaborative approach of highly skilled architects and a supporting consultant team. The assessment concludes that the proposed development would not harm the significance of any identified designated heritage assets. The demolition of Nos.156-60 Lewisham High Street, a Building of Townscape Merit, would need to be considered in accordance with Paragraph 209 of the NPPF; this requires a proportionate assessment based on the significance of the non-designated heritage asset and the overall planning benefits of the scheme. The planning designations for the site confirm it is an area identified by various development plan policies for significant and transformative growth. The opportunity afforded to redevelopment of this site is significant and strategic in importance. In accordance with that vision, the proposed development would give rise to significant beneficial urban design and townscape improvements to the study area, including its character and function. It would help deliver transformative change to the application site and the wider town centre, in accordance with the aspirations of the development plan.

1.0 Introduction

Lewisham Shopping Centre, Lewisham

STRE ET

7 to

322

6 to 1

CH OA PR AP

ARD JERR

MP 6.25

River Mill One

Hotel

Brick Kiln Two

Subway Brick Kiln One

Beaver House

62 60

16 43

ge Vicara

71 75

St Stephen's Church

EPHE ST ST

N'S

E GROV

Bdy

98 to 103

Glass Mill Leisure Centre

8.2m

45 41

Con st

Venice Corte

Bo ro

1 to 152

SL Shelter

Roma Corte

3 to 7

RO AD

Sienna Alto

Ra ve nsb ou rne

Riv er

56 58 60

62 64 66 70

80 82

41 42

106 108 110

LEWI S GR OVE

to 148 142 to 154 150

156 to 160

El Sub

TCBs

Sta

Sh elters

162

164

to 170 166 172

20 22

20 6

20a 20b

LB 41

21 2

16.1m

176

174

190 180 to 192

6 19

19 4

32 8 to

1 to

12a 26

128 130 132

Merci a Ho us e

114 116 118 122 to 126

35 33

29 28

100 to 104

Lew 40 isha mC entre

37 36 to

6.25

120

AV EN U E BA NK SID E

Def

15 17

Lewi sham

IR A

Hous e

She lter

6 26

25a

AV EN UE

20 8

29 to

BONFIELD ROAD

25b

2 14

18 5

21 0

17 7 to

TCB

Leemore Centre

25c

MOLE SWOR TH

a 21

1 to 12

1 to

Lew isha mC entre

39 26

ST RE ET

STRE ET

10 14

64 5

41 43

tio n)

68 64 60

30a 30

E N RIS ENDO CLAR

Robert Square

St Saviour's RC Primary School

173

ele Mas co mm t un ica

18 20

7 9

W AT ER W

6 8 to

16 14

157 to 159

St Saviour's RC Church 175

31 33

LAN E

Shelter

Court 19 7

3 9 30

MAR SA LA

0 to 23 226 6 to 23

elt Sh

WAY CLIPP ER

WIS HA MH IGH

ST RE ET

232

236a

252

10.4m 14 4 2

to 30

47 51

RLEY

El Sub Sta

to 274 262

Hall

9 to 20

29 27

276

No implied licence exists. This drawing should not be used to calculate areas for the purposes of valuation. Do not scale this drawing unless printed correctly. All dimensions to be checked on the site by the contractor and such dimensions to be their responsibility. All work must comply with relevant British Standards and Building Regulations requirements. Drawing errors and omissions to be reported to the architect. To be read in conjunction with Architect's specification and other consultant information.

Egret West Architects. Separate Design and Access Statements are

provided for detailed Plot N1 by Mae Architects and for Plot N2 by Archio

2. 3. 4.

Key Application boundary lines are based on a combination of OS, ZMap, topography survey, existing Lewisham Shopping Centre survey, ownership boundary lines and transport consultant's proposal. OS 'OI1395747.dwg' was received on 11.05.20. ZMap 'Lewisham_020620_Mesh XY@NE.dwg' was received on 02.06.20. Topography survey 'LSC-PCL-TO-ZZ-M3G-000001-S3-P01.rvt' was received from Plowman Craven on 17.06.22 Existing Lewisham Shopping Centre survey information (Ruxton Survey) was received from Landsec on 17.02.20. Ownership boundary lines (outside of application boundary) are based on '5865-Title 2018.dwg' received from Landsec on 04.06.20.

CLOSE COLLEGE PARK

Notes

Allotment Gardens CW

Boro Const & Ward Bdy

WEA RSI

Gla ssh ous e

9 to

1 to

11.0m

Th e

ROAD

1 to

A full description of the Proposed Development is provided within the General Notes

LEWISHAM CP

1 to Reflec 8 tion House s

MP 6.5

to 241

WHITBU RN

try

Axis House

G an

LINGARDS ROAD

1 to 40

Surgery

Bentley Court

El Sub

submitted Design and Access Statement (the ‘DAS’) prepared by Studio

SLAITHWAITE ROAD

Sta

TCB

EE T

10.7m

38 to 42

to Sa 12 rk Ho use

elt

244

246

159

ST R

38a

ST TE GA EN

32 6.5 MP

CR y

23 8 240

145

War d Bd

54 68

Car Park

ES S

233

AD RO

UR N

221

El Sub Sta

20 9

TCB

219

ver ne Ri bour vens

Slaithwaite Court

El Su b Sta 54

20.6m

20.8m

El Sub Sta

Site Plan- grey hatching denotes existing buildings excluded from the Application Boundary. Source: SEW Architects. C

213

Aberglaslyn

RISE CLARENDON

Vicarage

Brookland

Figure 1.1

13.8m

207

Works

St Mark's Hall

GROVE

10.4m

TCBs

Borough Council Depot

LIM ES

203

Sorting Office

133

199

201

32 to 34

Architects.

125

PLE

Tedman FB

▪ Other associated works.” 1.5

117 119 121

STA

155a

161

BARN

10.7m

WA Y

Lewisha m Meth odist Church

TCBs

1 to

Water 10 mil Court l

E LM

113 115

13 7

IO N

redevelopment of land at Lewisham Shopping Centre and

Sta

18 7

▪ Meanwhile and interim uses and

Sal va Hal tion l A

9.9m

▪ Associated interim works;

“Hybrid planning application for the comprehensive, phased

rk e Pa Colleg Ch Baptist

Car Park

El Sub

Bank

Shelter

r Rive

El Sub Sta

10.4m

155

10.3m

▪ Supporting infrastructure works;

follows:

10 OVE

ALB

151

urne nsbo Rave

The description of development (the ‘Proposed Development’) is as

MERCI A GR

to 14 9

Market

Shelter

Goldcrest House

143

▪ Site preparation works;

Bank

13 5

171

9.7m

Pond

TCB

1 to 39

13 1 13 3

Shelter

Riverdale

River

The Cottage

13 9 14 1

14 to

Riverdale House

circulation within the site;

form the basis of assessment.

NAC PL RO

111

Shelter

London Sivan Temple

129

TCB

e Hal

8.7m

TCBs

9.6m

Market Area

TCB

RO AD

Shelter PC

Bou tiqu

EET H STR

Quaggy

S Br

LEE HI

13 15

8.6m

9 10 to

ORT MOLESW

Illustrative Scheme is submitted for information purposes only and does not

101 to 105

Purelake Mews

Bank

1 71 to

TCB

deck, servicing arrangements and means of access and

8.6m

Formation of new pedestrian and vehicular accesses,

with the Control Documents and this will be secured by condition. The

Bank

FW 35

Lee Bridge

63 &

ELL OD ALK W

PCs

▪ Car and cycle parking;

permanent and temporary vehicular access ramps, service

Def

PH 1

8.7m

n Junctio Bridge

10.3m

landscaping works;

proposals may come forward in the reserved matters stage in accordance

Clock Tower

60 to

er Bellflow Court

AD RO

▪ Public open space, public realm, amenity space and

Documents’). An Illustrative Scheme is provided to demonstrate how

▪ Community and Cultural uses (Class F1; F2; and Sui Generis);

▪ Highway works;

TCB

Park's

▪ Town Centre Uses (Class E (a, b, c, d, e, f, g (i, ii) and Sui

and Framework and a Design Code (collectively referred to as the ‘Control

93 95

C LO SE

ILL TH

Shelter

ON LM BE

Clinic

TR EE

to 29

to 71

W AL K

Car Park

accommodation (Sui Generis);

TCB

AY W

YE W

14.8m

49 to 52

D EA

Tank

▪ Living Uses, comprising residential (Class C3) and student

E LD ER

R VE S IL

10.4m

Shelter

try S Gan

T REE

9.7m

EE WA

provide a mixed-use development including:

by an Indicative Scheme, Parameter Plans, a Development Specification

17 13

H ST

E TR

The outline part of the planning application is supported and informed

Police Headquarters

HIG

YARD

comprehensive, phased redevelopment, comprising demolition

the scheme (Phases 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b).

Mill House

Generis);

AD D RO MEA CK

8.5m

of existing buildings, structures and associated works to

AM ISH LEW

SALIS

Riverdale Hall

S Br

The following uses:

LL E ANVI

Bdy Ward

Play Area

39 43 47

access works; Outline Planning Permission is sought for the remainder of

STRE ELL RENN

Outline planning application (all matters reserved) for a

surrounding spaces) as well as the shopping centre interface and highway

7.8m

Cornmill Gardens

7.6m

infrastructure works and other associated works.

Detailed planning permission is sought for Phase 1a (Plots N1 and N2 and

Shelter

Prendergast Vale College

servicing arrangements, site preparation works, supporting

The hybrid planning application would be implemented in phases.

Shelter

AM SINGH CRES

y River Quagg

1 to 27

Torre Vista

CORN MILL 7.6m LANE

(the ‘Phase 1a Finish Works’), service deck modifications,

Council’). The Site boundary is illustrated at Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2.

7.8m

ct Viadu

93 to 97

Tuscany Corte

VIAN STREET

vehicle accesses, existing shopping centre interface works

(the ‘Site’). The Site is located in the London Borough of Lewisham (‘the

15 storeys in height (Plot N2), associated residential ancillary

DLR

AD RO

ION

Shelter 1 to 103

Play Area

1 to 38

Paris Corte

highway works and the formation of new pedestrian and

of Lewisham Shopping Centre and adjacent land, Lewisham, London

in height (Plot N1), and a residential building (Class C3) up to

LOAMPIT VALE

6.6m

El Sub Sta

erection of a Co-Living building (Sui Generis) up to 23 storeys

Drovers Court

Shelter

TCB

6.8m

realm, amenity space and landscaping, car and cycle parking,

are subject to an hybrid planning application for the redevelopment

works to provide a mixed-use development including the

1 to 11

MEWS

LL HA GS

River Mill Two

m isha Lew tation S

ii); and Sui Generis) together with public open space, public

Visual Impact Assessment (the ‘BHTVIA’) in support of proposals which

demolition of existing buildings, structures and associated

1 12

310

312 to 314 316

ay bw

Plough Bridge (Viaduct)

Da Vinci Torre

consultancy services and produce this Built Heritage, Townscape and

Full planning application for (within Phase 1a) comprising the

87 89

TIO

spaces as well as town centre uses (Class E (a, b, c, d, e, f, g (i,

Montagu Evans has been instructed by Landsec Lewisham Limited

adjacent land, comprising:

NC JU

Signal Gantry Shelters Ps

(“Landsec”) (hereafter referred to as the ‘Applicant’) to provide

1.4

21.9m

10.3m

ESS

Warehouse

RK PA 77

INTRODUCTION

LO AM PIT

20.8m

100

KIN

1.3

Cheste rfield Court

ILLE NV GRA

Granville Park Adult Learning Centre

102

El Sub Sta

ESS

1.2

1 to 8

78 to

1 to 28

6.3m

1 to 57

1.1

17.6m Isabella Apartments

Lindsay Court

1.0

Posts

E OS

PA TH

Introduction

1 to 136 Swanton Court

TCBs

Lewisham Station

LIA

SIL

Su b

Sta

9.8m

RO AD

UR ST ON

16 5

6.0m

1 to 56 Orwell Court

Drawing Title

For Information Application boundary Excluded from the Application boundary

50m

@ 1:1250

Applicant

P l a n n i ng

F or Inf ormation

Scale @A1

Project No.

0 3 86

L andsec L ew isham L imited

1 : 1 2 50

Date

September 2024

Project Name

Drawn by

L ew isham Shopping Centr e and A dja c ent L a nd

Checked by

3 Brewhouse Yard London, EC1V 4JQ

DRAFT 26.09.24

P roposed A pplic ation Bou ndary P lan 1

hello@egretwest.com +44 (0) 20 7549 1730

Drawing Number Rev

Date

Reason

Chk

03 8 6 -S E W -Z Z -Z Z -S K -A -S K05 9 3

Rev

KIN

7.8m

CRE

G SSIN

18 16

Quag

ST ST

98 to 103

Glass Mill Leisure Centre

The Site is described at ES Volume 1 and also within the Design and

N'S EPHE

GRO

Bd y

ard

St Stephen's Church

8.2m

Co ns t&

Venice Corte

VIAN STREET

Bo ro

1 to 152

3 to 7

ra Vica

ct SL Shelter

Roma Corte

Viadu

1 to 27

Torre Vista

gy Rive

Shelter 93 to 97

Sienna Alto

Shelter

ROAD HAM 24

D OA

Introduction

R ION AT

Drovers Court

LOAMPIT VALE

6.6m

1.7

1 to 11

Beaver House

Shelter

TCB

THE SITE

S M EW

River Mill Two

R DL am ish Lew tation S

Warehouse

HA GS

Brick Kiln One

rn eR

ive r

Access Statement (DAS) prepared by Studio Egret West. Figure 1.1 shows

Ra ve ns bo u

the boundary of the Site, and an aerial view provided at Figure 1.2. Prendergast Vale College

Shelter

ILLE AN V GR

7.8m

AD RO AD ME CK LO

CORN MILL 7.6m LANE

OVE GR

58 60

Cornmill Gardens

62 64

Play Area

RTH

Shelt er

MOL ESW O

18-storey vacant former office building – Lewisham House – the vacant 13

to 71

9 7

106 108

110

6.2 5

OVE

3 1 to

LEW IS GR

12 a

ouse Mer cia H

114

EN UE

SID BA NK

100 to 104

41 43

13 1 13 3

Sa Ha lvatio ll nA

13 5

rm y

13 9 14 1

Car Park

El Su

TCBs

b Sta

164 to 17 0 166 172

LA NE

176 17 4

2 155a

161

9.7m

157 to 159

171

Pond

S4 +81.685m AOD

Riverdale

Shelter

St Saviour's RC Church

Robert Square

20 6 8 to

17 7

to 185

River

rne

TCB

St Saviour's RC Primary School

173

175

ou ensb Rav

The Proposed Development is described in detail within the submitted

BARN ST AP LE

Shelter

• Phase 3b (Outline Application) – The middle section of the Site, fronting

Lewis ham Me thodist Churc h

El Sub Sta

Bank

155

Riverdale House

BONFIE LD

9.9m

ROAD

DAS and planning statement. It includes the demolition and partial

TCBs

demolition as well as repurposing of some of the buildings on Site.

10.7m

BIO NW AY

162

143 151

• Phase 3a (Outline Application) – The middle section of the Site, fronting

to 14 9

S1 + 9 4. 5 8 5 m A O D

13 7

20a 20b

10.4m

Tedman

25a

RISE

rk ge Pa Colle st Ch Bapti

TCBs

9.6m PC

S Br

(T e M lec ast om mu nic atio n)

31 33

N ENDO CLAR

129

MERC IA GR OVE

25b

125

L EL OD ALK W

Bank

25c

AV EN AY RW

116 118

18 3a

117 119 12 1

The Cottage

1 to

AT E

16 14

River 3

113 115

ow er Bellfl t Cour

AD RO

Shelter

London Sivan Temple

S2 + 1 0 7 . 0 8 5m A O D

• Phase 2b (Outline Application) – Located to the southeast of the Site.

Court FB

19 7

3 9

TCB

(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (as amended) (‘the

199

201

to 23 0

10.4m

226

EN GA TE

LIMES

GROV

St Mark's

13.8m

TCBs

207

20 9

236

246

CLIP PER WAY

Car Park

She lte

PW 9

252

Key

All Parameter Plans to be read in conjunction with the Design Code and Development Specification. All heights are in meters AOD (above ordinance datum) and are subject to a +/1.00m construction tolerance.

ST RE ET

Slaithwaite Court

She lte

to Sa rk H 12 ous e

HIG HS

TR EE T

232 to

LE WIS HA M

24 4a

244

24 2

23 8 24 0

236a

Notes

El Sub Sta

General Notes

CU RN ES S

221

219

TCB

21 7

Aberglaslyn

213

Brookland

20.8m

Works

Borough Council Depot

Drawing Title

For Information

For Approval

Application boundary

Maximum horizontal extents of Development Plot

Detailed planning application component

50m

@ 1:1000

XX L00 Excluded from the Application boundary

Development Plot References

Sorting Office

STR EE T

Parameter Plan for level 00, with the pink hatching showing the Detailed Planning Application, the blue dotted line showing the outline of the Illustrative Scheme with the grey showing the maximum horizontal extents of the Proposed Development plot and the red showing the zone for Building Maintenance Units (BMUs) and specified AOD Source: SEW Architects, drawing number: 0386-SEW-ZZ-00-DR-APL6006. 203

Figure 1.3

EIA Regulations’).

is undertaken in accordance with the Town and Country Planning

8.7m

Shelter

• Phase 2a (Outline Application) – Located to the southwest of the Site.

Statement (ES) which is submitted with the application. The assessment

C3 + 9 4. 1 8 5 m A O D

Assessment (EIA). The BHTVIA forms Volume 2 of the Environmental

HR OA

Quaggy

+ 1 4 0.7 8 5 m AO D

Car Park

Lewisham High Street to the east.

HIG

8.6m

• Phase 1b (Outline Application) – Located to the northwest of the Site.

1.11

1 7

111

CL O SE

• Phase 1a (Detail Application) – Located to the northeast of the Site.

The Proposed Development is subject to Environmental Impact

phases.

1.6

The Proposed Development has been broken down into six main spatial

Lewisham High Street to the west.

LEE

101 to 105

YE W

Bank

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Aerial View. Source: Google (base map).

Bank

Tank

Figure 1.2

FW 35

SIL

terraced style plots on the High Street frontage.

PH 1

8.7m

Lee Bridge 93 95

AY W

The existing Lewisham Shopping Centre building was constructed in 31

Clock Tower

+ 1 0 3 .8 6 0 m AO D

D EA

TCB

1977, originally as the Riverdale Centre and retained a number of historic

1.10

W AL K

8 to

1.9

EL DE R

30a 30

TCB

north by Rennell Street (A20).

Shelter

Molesworth Street (A21), to the east by Lewisham High Street and to the 1

L ILShelter TH ON LM BE

Clinic

WAY

to 29

Mill House

leisure box and Riverdale Hall. It is bound to the west and south by TREE

PINE

ST RE

EL M

of properties on Lewisham High Street. The Site also encapsulates the

STRE ET

IR A

E LAC PN RO MY

8.5m

N3 + 1 27 .7 5 5 AO D

a number of retail units, the leisure box, Lewisham House and a number

Police Headquarters

Lewisham Shopping Centre, including a Sainsbury’s, multi-storey carpark,

7.6m

The Site is approximately 6.93 ha in size and currently comprises

T EE TR HS HIG AM ISH LEW

1.8

P l a n n i ng

F or Appr ova l

Project No.

0 3 86

3 Brewhouse Yard London, EC1V 4JQ

P roposed P ara meter P lan 11 - Ma ximum V ertic al Extents of B uildin g Maintena nc e Unit s P la n L andsec L ew isham Applicant L imited

Scale @A1

hello@egretwest.com +44 (0) 20 7549 1730

1 : 1 000

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024 Development Plot

Outline of Illustrative scheme for information only

Level

Zone for Building Maintenance Unit (BMU)

+ 10m AOD

Maximum vertical extents for zone for Building Maintenance Unit, when not in use

Date

September 2024

Project Name

Drawn by

L ew isham Shopping Centr e and A dja c ent L a nd

Checked by

Drawing Number

Rev

Date

Reason

Chk

03 8 6 -S E W - Z Z -Z Z -D R -A -P L 6 01 1

Rev

KIN

S M EW

1 to 11

Beaver House

River Mill Two

R DL

Shelter

7.8m

CRE

SSIN

AD M RO GHA 18

TCB

D OA

Introduction

R ION AT

Drovers Court

am ish Lew tation S

Warehouse

HA GS

Brick Kiln One

LOAMPIT VALE

Quag

LB 2

gy Rive

Shelter

Viadu

ra Vica

Bd y

Glass Mill Leisure Centre

'S HEN STEP

1.12

GRO

na Alto

Owing to the phased delivery of the Proposed Development, the planning

Shelter 2

ive r rn eR Ra ve ns bo u

ILLE AN V GR

7.8m

AD RO AD ME CK LO

Shelter

OVE GR

TRE

ET 2

LS NEL

62 64

58 60

T EE TR HS HIG AM ISH LEW

Police Headquarters

1.13

REN

Cornmill Gardens

ay Area

Shelt er

MOL ESW O

to 29

to 71

Shelter ILL TH ON LM BE

Clinic 73

Proposed Development Specification and Framework and Design Code. 1.19

within its urban context, including the buildings, the relationships between

code. This illustrative scheme is submitted for information only and does

them, the different types of urban open spaces, including green spaces

not form the basis for any assessment.

and the relationship between buildings and open spaces.

OVE

12 a

ouse Mer cia H

4 6

MERC IA GR OVE

1.15

rk ge Pa Colle st Ch Bapti

116 118

41 43

S2.1

RISE

P2.3

The Site does not comprise any statutorily listed buildings, nor

10.4m

is it situated within a conservation area. There are a number of

Shelter

S2.1

TCBs

PC 13 1 13 3

9.6m PC

Sa Ha lvatio ll nA

13 5

P2.2

13 7

LB TCB

Car Park

LA NE

1.16

20 20 6

y te Boundar E Cla ss ay io n por at Tem Cir cul i dent ty Res eni Am i dent Res Pl

studies and 39 accurate visual representations (‘AVRs’). The tools inform

including the locally designated 65-85 Lewisham High Street, 90-100

the assessment of the impact of the Proposed Development on heritage, townscape and visual receptors e.g. they allow an understanding of the geographical extent and magnitude of visibility from representative

ans - Pl

ss a

e shown

e Phas

t condi

io n

to 185

BONFIE LD

9.9m

ROAD

Lewisham High Street and 180-190 Lewisham High Street, as well as part

18 7

TCBs

strategic views designated in the development plan, such as, in London, the 2012 London View Management Framework. 1.22

Scheme is also provided that demonstrates how the reserved matters

25a

Court 19 7

1.17

3 9

TCB 30

199

to 23 0

226

EN GA TE

GROV

St Mark's

13.8m

TCBs

36 10

207

20 9

236

CLIP PER WAY

r She lte

Plans provide the upper (maximum) building limited and establish a

PW 9

3-dimensional building envelope.

252

Key

Drawing Title

Detailed Application Boundary

Estate Management

1B1P

Detailed Application Zone

C1 & E(a,b,c,d,g) (Non-Resi Refuse Store)

1B2P

Application Boundary

Suis Generis (Carpark)

2B3P

Residential Lobby/ Circulation

C1 Student Accommodation

2B4P

C3 Residential Amenity Concierge & Parcel Depot

E (a, b, c) Retail/ Restaurant/ Cafe

3B5P

C3 (Cycle Storage)

E (a, b, c) Retail/ Restaurant/ Cafe Circulation

C3 (Cycle lift)

E (a, b, c) Non-residential Shared Core

C3 (Refuse Store)

F2 (b) Community Halls

C3 (Plant/BOH)

Public Vertical Access

3 Brewhouse Yard London, EC1V 4JQ

P roposed I llustra tive P lan - L evel 04 1

hello@egretwest.com +44 (0) 20 7549 1730

50m

@ 1:1000

Applicant

P l a n n i ng

F or Inf ormation

Project No.

0 3 86

Scale @A1

L andsec L ew isham L imited

1 : 1 000

outline component, and the detailed design information for plots N1 and N2. In relation to the outline component, the Maximum Parameter

Car Park

ST RE ET

Slaithwaite Court

She lte

246

LE WIS HA M

to Sa rk H 12 ous e

HIG HS

TR EE T

232 to 23 8 24 0

24 2

244 24 4a

236a

El Sub Sta

CU RN ES S

221

219

21 7

only. nformation provided n drawings are for ly. For information on , refer to relevant wings. PL6070 onwards for ve landscape plans.

213

Aberglaslyn

TCB

Date

O ctober 2024

Project Name

Drawn by

L ew isham Shopping Centr e and A dja c ent L a nd

Checked by

could come forward in accordance with the other Control Documents. This

Drawing Number Rev

Date

Reason

Chk

03 8 6 -S E W -Z Z -04 -D R -A -P L 6 05 5

Rev

Illustrative Scheme is submitted for information only and does not form

made by their setting. The heritage assessment considers the impact of the Proposed Development set out in the Control Documents for the

20.8m

Works

LIMES 20

10.4m

STR EE T

Plot Plan. Source: SEW Architects. 203

Sorting Office

201

Figure 1.4

The (built) heritage assessment describes the significance of any heritage assets affected by the Proposed Development, including any contribution

All AVRs of the Proposed Development show the Maximum Parameter Plans of the outline component. In some selected AVRs an illustrative

of an area of local special character.

25b

Tedman

locations. The tools are not receptors themselves, unless comprising

of non-designated heritage assets located within the Site boundary, including the locally designated 65-85 Lewisham High Street, 90-100

nt a

es Not

25c

8 to

Key

17 7

River

St Saviour's RC Primary School

173

rne

TCB

20a 20b

Robert Square

175

ou ensb Rav

St Saviour's RC Church

The assessment as a whole is informed by visual tools, including a zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) prepared by Miller Hare, non-verified massing

assets, including the Grade II Lewisham Clock Tower. There are a number

Riverdale Shelter

1.21

The Site also lies within close proximity to several statutorily listed

157 to 159

171

Pond

townscape (when in cities).

El Su

TCBs

b Sta

lters She

164 to 17 0 166 172

155a

161

9.7m

features. Impact on landscape components is treated under the heading

of an area of local special character.

Sta

155

BARN ST AP LE

Shelter

176 17 4

Bank

e.g. residential, business, road, footpath etc.), rather than landscape

Lewisham High Street and 180-190 Lewisham High Street, as well as part

Lewis ham Me thodist Churc h

151

ET STRE ORTH

Riverdale House

10.7m

BIO NW AY

149

162

143 to

SW MOLE S01

El Sub

people (although usually visual receptors are defined according to use

non-designated heritage assets located within the Site boundary,

rm y

13 9 14 1

change (beneficial, adverse or neutral). Visual receptors are always

townscape and visual receptors. Separate assessments are provided

31 33 35

Bank

S2.1 S2.1

to how the amenity of people in the area affected by development will

Montagu Evans is included at Appendix 5.0.

N ENDO CLAR

129

P2.2

The visual assessment will consider the impact of the Proposed Development upon visual receptors e.g. people. The assessment relates

methodologies. A separate standalone Heritage Statement prepared by

The Cottage 1

P2.2

110

114

125

S2.2

1.20

P2.3 S2.2

The townscape assessment will consider the Proposed Development

the reserved matters could come forward in accordance with the design

for each discipline (heritage, and townscape and visual) using separate

1 to

120

LEW IS GR

London Sivan Temple

Car Park

River 3

117 119 12 1

P2.1

P2.3

113 115

S2.2

S2.1

Quaggy

6.2 5

(prepared by Studio Egret West).

the Proposed Development on heritage (the historic environment), Shelter

would need to confirm the wider suite of control documents, including the

8.7m

8.6m

111

S2.1

S2.2

of the maximum parameters outline, pus the submitted Design Code

The BHTVIA provides an assessment of likely significant effects of

HR OA

101 to 105

P2.2

views); however the detailed design at future reserved matters application

1.14 21

HIG

16 14

P2.2 S2.1

S2.1

as outline. Where submitted in outline, this BHTVIA considers the impact

EN UE E SID

1 to

1 7

P2.4

CL O SE

LEE

30a 30

100 to 104

Bank

106 108

Bank

93 95

P2.4

reasonable worst-case scenario (shown with a wireline in the verified

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

FW 35

BA NK

PH 1

8.7m

Lee Bridge

S2.1 P2.2

Clock Tower

8 to

TCB

W AL K

TCB

Plots N1 and N2) submitted as Detail and the remaining phases submitted

Shelter

YE W

Proposed Development and are therefore considered to be the

Mill House

EL DE R

The parameters will represent the tallest and broadest mass of the

application is submitted as hybrid, with parts of Phase 1a, comprising

In some images, an illustrative scheme is provided that demonstrates how

RTH

STRE ET

E LAC PN RO MY

1.18

ard

St Stephen's Church

8.2m

Shelter

Co ns t&

Bo ro

the basis of any assessment. 1.23

A further non verified view, prepared using VUCITY software, is provided at Appendix 4.0 of the BHTVIA.

Introduction

STRUCTURE OF THE BHTVIA 1.24

The BHTVIA is structured as follows: • The methodology for undertaking the BHTVIA for the ES assessment is provided at Section 2.0; • Legislation, planning policy and guidance relevant to the assessment of likely effects on heritage, townscape and visual receptors is set out at Section 3.0; • A description of the historical development of the Site and surrounding area is provided at Section 4.0; • An assessment of the significance of heritage assets which have been identified for assessment is provided at Section 5.0; • A description of the existing townscape character and visual amenity is provided at Section 6.0; • A description of the existing visual amenity is provided at Section 7.0. • Section 8.0 describes the pre-application consultation that has been undertaken and embedded mitigation that has occurred as a result of this process and design development; • Section 9.0 provides an assessment of the impact of the Proposed Development on the significance of heritage assets; • The impact of the Proposed Development on townscape receptors is assessed at Section 10.0; • An assessment of the impact of the Proposed Development on visual receptors is provided at Section 11.0.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

©Montagu Evans LLP 2024

2.0 Methodology

Lewisham Shopping Centre, Lewisham

2.0

2.1

Methodology

METHODOLOGY SCOPING AND BASELINE ASSIMILATION

This section describes the framework for heritage assessment, and townscape and visual assessment. The method for each discipline is the product of legislation, policy and best practice guidance set out in Section

2.3

SITE VISITS 2.4

STUDY AREA

neutral). There is no direct correlation between magnitude of impact and 2.5

from the Site;

readers as peculiar or perverse. For example, however, it is possible for

• Townscape character areas up to 1.5km from the Site;

a major change to be so similar to others that have occurred and are to the value of the receiving receptor (and hence is neutral).

The study area for the BHTVIA comprises: • All heritage receptors (designated and non-designated) up to 1.5km

magnitude of impact which is neutral in effect, which may strike some

anticipated that practically speaking it is neither beneficial or detrimental

Feld surveys of the baseline situation were undertaken by Montagu Evans during 2022 and 2023.

The overall effect is also given a nature of effect (beneficial, adverse or

or beneficial. Similarly, and dependent on context, one can have a high

• Visual receptors represented by views up to 4.3km from the Site. 2.6

The plans at the respective baseline sections identify all of the receptors identified in the study area.

2.7

Site observations, a manual desk-based review of OS maps, characterisation studies and relevant heritage receptors were used to determine the study area. It has been informed by building locations and heights, topography and townscape features, and an understanding of the scale of the Proposed Development.

2.8

interrogated through review of individual viewpoints using field surveys and digital software.

extent that the scope has changed, reasoned justification is provided.

Throughout this analysis, and across all disciplines, the reader will be

nature of effect, since change is by definition not necessarily adverse

high-level understanding of the extent of visibility, which was further

the design has evolved or material changes to the baseline occur to an

identified and the consequent effects appraised.

action being taken, and ‘effect’ is the change resulting from the action.

three-dimensional models from VUCITY software. It is a tool for a

townscape and visual receptors which would be assessed in the ES. Where

Development. All impacts deemed relevant or material to planning are

presented with the words impact and effect. ‘Impact’ is defined as the

2.1). The ZTV has been produced using topographically referenced

June 2024 (ref. DC/24/134490). The Scoping process identified the heritage,

assess properly the potential likely significant effects of the Proposed

A ZTV was also used to outline the potential areas where the Proposed Development may be visible, up to a 2km distance from the Site (Figure

This assessment is based on the Scoping Report submitted to the Council in January 2024 (ref. 46730) and agreed in the Scoping Opinion dated 14

4.0. The assessment is proportionate and no longer than is necessary to

2.2

2.9

2.10

The ZTV was used to identify at the baseline stage if there were any heritage receptors which could be scoped out from further assessment because there would be no intervisibility with the Proposed Development, or where there would be no change to their setting or heritage value by any other means, including historical associations. These are listed in Section 5.0. of this report. This approach was agreed in the Council’s Scoping Opinion dated 14th June 2024.

Methodology

ACCURATE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND VISUAL AIDS 2.11

The assessment of each discipline is informed by 39 AVRs prepared by Miller Hare and contained in Appendix 1.0 of this BHTVIA. The location of the viewpoints has been agreed with the Council during the pre-application and EIA Scoping process (14th June 2024).

2.12

The AVRs are provided in the following scenarios: • Existing = baseline photography. • Proposed = Existing plus a wire line of both the outline maximum parameters outline and detailed components of the Proposed Development. • Cumulative = Proposed plus schemes in the surrounding area that are subject to an extant consent. • Illustrative Proposed = to assist the reader a further scenario is provided for selected views, comprising a render of the detailed components alongside the Illustrative Scheme. This scenario is provided for information only, mindful that the Illustrative Scheme may come forward in a different form at reserved matters stage. It is intended to assist the reader in understanding how a scheme compliant with the submitted Design Code would appear.

2.13

The AVRs are independently prepared by Miller Hare according to an industry standard method provided at Appendix 2.0. The variables include angle of lens, framing of shot and orientation. TGN 06/19 Visual Representation of Development Proposals Technical Guidance Note (2019) prepared by Landscape Institute recommend one set of considerations, but these are not universally applied and are not suited often to certain urban environments because the angle of lens, 50 degrees, often eliminates context in close and medium-distance shots.

2.14

AVRs are merely tools of assessment, to be applied on site, and to act as aide memoires afterwards. They do not represent visual perception. The objective of an AVR is to simulate the likely visual changes that would result from a proposed development. AVRs are two-dimensional and cannot capture the complexity of the visual experience. It is an approximation of the three-dimensional visual experience the observer would receive on site. Neither do they capture transient significant effects arising from noise or traffic on perception, or that wider range of expectations and associations that anyone in an urban scene may have.

Figure 2.1

ZTV of the Proposed Development prepared by Miller Hare.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

Methodology

2.15

Following discussions with the Council in April 2022, a further non-verified view from Blackheath Point (LVMF 6A.1), prepared in VuCity, is provided at Appendix 3.0 to demonstrate there is no intervisibility between

HERITAGE 2.19

townscape and visual receptors. 2.16

relative special architectural and historic interest”: Grade I buildings are of exceptional special interest; Grade II* buildings are particularly important buildings of more

remains is affected by perceptions of its setting. 2.21

particular characteristics of development. This is because the AVR

than special interest;

In accordance with paragraph 200 of the NPPF the relevant historic

Grade II buildings are of special interest, warranting every effort

environment record has been consulted as part of this assessment (HER

to preserve them.

search reference: 18391).

methodology is generally less helpful for assessing up close effects or,

2.26

The value of heritage receptors may be expressed with reference to

The HER search results have not identified any further relevant heritage

their historical or architectural value identified in the Planning (Listed

Illustrative views are not used to inform the assessment of applications

receptors beyond what is set out in Section 5.0.

Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the '1990 PLBCA Act’), or the

for outline permission but may be provided as a useful reference of what

HERITAGE VALUE

other values set out in the NPPF: archaeological, architectural, artistic or

for example, in capturing the interaction of new landscape with buildings.

could be achieved through implementation of a design code. The qualitative text accompanying the visual assessment seeks to

2.22

2.23

contribution made by their setting. ‘Significance’ (for heritage policy) is

judgement is involved in this specialist area on the basis of the above and

defined in the NPPF Annex 2 as:

the importance of design quality in the operation of policy. A visit to the

the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations

location from which the photographs were taken is required to appreciate

because of its heritage interest. That interest may be

and understand the visual impact.

archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance

Changes to visual amenity should not be judged in relation to static

derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but

views (which are abstractions and not real) but in relation to the overall

also from its setting.

experience of an area and dependent upon the particular experiences and expectations of different receptors. The modelled viewpoints are often selected to show schemes at their maximum impact and not capture their typical impact in a receiving area or location. The impact assessment considers both the particular impact illustrated and the overall impact to come to a net assessment which more accurately reflects the overall experience than a single view.

2.24

The term ‘heritage value’ is interchangeable in this assessment with ‘heritage significance’ and has been adopted to avoid conflation between ‘EIA significance’. Heritage value is assessed against the criteria contained in Table 2.1; the categories allow some flexibility in their practical application to the facts of any case. The typical examples for each category are indicative, mindful that the buildings/sites/areas cover a wide spectrum of character, history, features, and group relationships. The reader is referred to the qualitative assessment which outlines the particular nature of the value.

historic. For World Heritage Sites, the cultural value described within each

Planning policy requires an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage receptors affected by a proposed development, including any

contextualise the views. Inevitably one must accept that professional

2.18

of Listed Buildings which states “listed buildings are graded to reflect their

where the understanding of an archaeological feature with no upstanding

sometimes be used. Whilst not independently verified, these can be

2.17

appropriate. This is reinforced by the 2018 DCMS Principles for Selection

The assessment does not consider below-ground archaeological feature has been scoped into the assessment. This occurs in some cases

(models) or characteristics of computer-generated images (CGIs) may

its immediate environment (to take one example only) and/or convey

of all designated heritage receptors, although a gradation of value is

receptors, including scheduled monuments, unless the archaeological

Artists’ impressions based on geometrically accurate information

very helpful in establishing and assessing the way a proposal will affect

assets’ importance”. Great weight has been given to the conservation

Planning Policy Framework (2023) (the NPPF). 2.20

Paragraph 200 of the NPPF states that the “level of detail [to describe the significance of heritage assets] should be proportionate to the

The term ‘heritage receptor’ is used within this assessment to describe a designated or non-designated heritage asset, as defined by the National

receptors and the Site. The non-verified view further informs the assessment of the impact of the Proposed Development on heritage,

2.25

site’s Statement of Outstanding Universal Value forms part of its value. 2.27

Where a proposal may affect the surroundings in which the heritage receptor is experienced, a qualitative assessment is made of whether, how and to what degree setting contributes to the value of heritage receptors. The assessment is informed by the check-list approach contained in Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (2017) (hereafter ‘GPA3’). Setting is defined in the NPPF as: The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.

Methodology

2.28

HERITAGE SENSITIVITY

The heritage baseline articulates the contribution made by relevant aspects of setting towards value. Again, the level of detail is proportionate to the receptors’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal to their value; however, each heritage receptor’s susceptibility to change derives from the particular nature of its heritage value, the existing character of its setting and the type of development proposed. The baseline assessment therefore describes what is sensitive about each heritage receptor and its setting without providing a sensitivity rating, which follows later in the assessment stage.

Value

Typical Criteria

Typical Examples

Very High

Building/site/area of international heritage value

World Heritage Sites, grade I statutorily listed buildings and registered parks and gardens, and some scheduled monuments, grade II* statutorily listed buildings and registered parks and gardens.

Medium

according to the facts of the case. The qualitative text should clearly

upon the heritage value of a receptor is to identify its sensitivity to change.

articulate where any deviation is made from this judgement.

Sensitivity is identified by calibrating the baseline value of the receptor with its susceptibility to change, defined as the ability of the heritage

HERITAGE SUSCEPTIBILITY TO CHANGE CRITERIA

receptor to accommodate the type and/or nature of development without change to its value (see Table 2.2). In relation to heritage setting, paragraph 17 of GPA3 provides guidance on the relationship between heritage value and the potential impact of development upon that value All heritage assets have significance, some of which have

High

The setting of the receptor or receptor itself has a low ability to accommodate the type of change without change to its value.

Medium

The setting of the receptor or receptor itself has a moderate ability to accommodate the type of change without change to its value.

Low

The setting of the receptor or receptor itself has a high ability to accommodate the type of change without change to its value.

particular significance and are designated. The contribution made by their setting to their significance also varies. Although many settings may be enhanced by development, not all settings have the same capacity to accommodate change without harm to the significance of the heritage asset or the ability to appreciate it. This capacity may vary between designated assets of the same grade or of the same type or

Building/site/area of lower Some grade II registered parks national or particular local and gardens, grade II statutorily heritage value listed buildings and conservation areas.

extensive tract of flat land may increase the sensitivity of the

Low

Building/site/area of local heritage value

Locally listed buildings (or equivalent non-designated heritage assets).

Very Low

Building/site/area of low local heritage value

Receptors not formally identified, but which may have a degree of value meriting consideration in planning decisions

Table 2.1

likely to be susceptible to change, although this may be moderated

The first stage in assessing the impact of the Proposed Development

Some scheduled monuments, Grade II* and II registered parks and gardens, grade II* and II statutorily listed buildings and conservation areas.

Building/site/area of national heritage value

Cases of direct changes to the fabric of heritage receptors may be more

by virtue of changes to its setting:

HERITAGE VALUE

High

2.29

2.30

according to the nature of the change. It can also depend on the location of the asset: an elevated or overlooked location; a riverbank, coastal or island location; or a location within an

Table 2.2

2.31

Susceptibility of Heritage Receptor to Change Criteria

The value of the receptor and its susceptibility are calibrated using the matrix at Table 2.3. Sensitivity is recorded in a verbal scale (high, medium or low), supported by a clear narrative linked to evidence from the baseline study and an assessment of susceptibility.

HERITAGE SENSITIVITY Receptor Value

Susceptibility of Receptor to Change Low

Medium

High

Very Low

Low

Low/Medium

of the asset. This requires the implications of development

Low

Low/Medium

Medium

affecting the setting of heritage assets to be considered on a

Medium

Low/Medium

Medium

Medium/High

case-by-case basis.

High

Medium

Medium/High

High

Very High

Medium/High

High

setting (ie the capacity of the setting to accommodate change without harm to the heritage asset’s significance) or of views

Table 2.3

Heritage Sensitivity (Nature of Receptor Likely to be Affected)

Heritage Value Criteria

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

Methodology

HERITAGE MAGNITUDE 2.32

The magnitude of change to the receptors’ heritage value is then

2.35

Likely effects are determined by combining the judgements of sensitivity

Magnitude

and the magnitude of impact (Table 2.5). It is generally considered that

from the Proposed Development may be large in physical scale or

moderate to major effects are ‘significant’ in the context of the EIA

geographical extent, there may nonetheless be little or no impact on

Regulations. Criteria defining the scale of effect is provided at Table 2.6.

Development have been considered in relation to the degree of change

2.36

to its heritage value.

Medium

High

Nil

None

Very Low

Negligible

Negligible / Minor

Low

Minor

Minor / Moderate

Moderate

assessment is not a strict quantitative process and some of these

Medium

Minor / Moderate

Moderate

Moderate / Major

considerations will depend on expert judgements. Accordingly, there is

High

Moderate

Moderate / Major

Major

The scale of effect requires a qualitative discussion to describe and

The judgement of magnitude considers the size or scale, geographical

an emphasis on qualitative text throughout the assessment to describe

extent or duration and reversibility of the impact and whether the

the receptors and the judgements in regard to the significance of the

Proposed Development:

identified effects.

• Conforms with the pattern, scale, mass, grain and historic features of the receptor;

2.37

Professional judgement is also required to determine the nature of the likely effects. For example, there will be cases where a high magnitude of

• Creates a loss or restoration of key features of the receptor;

is prominent or noticeable, but notwithstanding that the quality of effect

• Accords with national, regional and local planning policy and guidelines.

approach arises most often as a consequence of major developments

narrative text within the assessment. The professional judgement is

in areas positively identified for transformational change. Often, such

quantified using criteria at Table 2.4.

impacts will have varied effects such that a hard and fast categorisation is finely balanced as between beneficial or harmful. In many instances,

HERITAGE MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT

Medium

Low

Very Low

Nil Table 2.4

Major change to the value of the receptor. Loss of or major alteration to key elements/features/characteristics that contribute to value. The duration of this impact may be permanent and non-reversible. Moderate change to the value of the receptor. Alteration to one or more key elements/features/characteristics that contribute to value. The duration of this impact may be semipermanent and partially reversible. Minor change to the value of the receptor. Minor alteration to one or more elements/features/characteristics that contribute to value. The duration of this impact may be temporary and reversible. Negligible change to the value of the receptor. Very minor alteration to one or more key elements/features/ characteristics of the baseline. The duration of this impact may be temporary and reversible. No change to the value of the receptor. Magnitude of Impact to Heritage Receptor Criteria

Major

The change resulting from the impact of the Proposed Development upon the heritage value of the receptor would give rise to a very significant effect.

Moderate

The change resulting from the impact of the Proposed Development upon the heritage value of the receptor would give rise to a significant effect.

Minor

The change resulting from the impact of the Proposed Development upon the heritage value of the receptor would give rise to an effect, but this would not be significant.

Negligible

The change resulting from the impact of the Proposed Development upon the heritage value of the receptor would give rise to a barely discernible effect. This would not be significant.

None

The change resulting from the impact of the Proposed Development upon the heritage value of the receptor would have no effect.

therefore, the final identification of impact and effect will turn on discursive analysis. Criteria defining the nature of effect is provided at Table 2.7. 2.38

In the context of heritage, when we are thinking about a major change and its directional affect and concluding neutral, that is consistent with Historic England’s The Setting of Heritage Assets (HE GPA 3) (2015). A neutral impact in an ES context in NPPF terms mean it has no impact on our appreciation of significance.

Likely Effect on Heritage Receptor Matrix

HERITAGE SCALE OF AN EFFECT

is beneficial as a consequence of design quality or other benefits. This

The magnitude of impact is a qualitative judgement supported by the

High

Table 2.5

impact produces a major scale of effect, on the basis that the component

• Contributes to the identified receptor character; and

Sensitivity Low

elucidate this judgement to the reader. This is necessary because heritage

caused to those parts of the receptor and/or its setting which contribute

2.34

HERITAGE LIKELY EFFECT ON RECEPTOR

considered. In relation to setting impacts, although the change arising

heritage value, and vice versa. The heritage impacts of the Proposed

2.33

HERITAGE LIKELY EFFECTS

Table 2.6

Scale of an Effect

HERITAGE NATURE OF AN EFFECT Beneficial

An enhancement to a receptor

Neutral

An effect that on balance, is neither beneficial nor adverse to a receptor, and therefore preserves the receptor.

Adverse

A harmful impact to a receptor

Table 2.7

Nature of an Effect

Methodology

2.39

TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL

TOWNSCAPE RECEPTOR VALUE

The framework for assessment of townscape and visual impact has

Value

Importance

Typical Criteria

Typical Features / Characteristics

Very High

International / National

Unique or outstanding townscape with clearly distinctive characteristics, features and elements;

International or national designation, and/ or designated heritage receptors of significant importance

been prepared using the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition (Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2013) (‘GLVIA3’). The two

Widespread use of quality materials;

components of townscape and visual assessment are:

Very strong urban structure, characteristic patterns and balanced combination of built form and open space;

1. The assessment of townscape effects: assessing effects on the

Appropriate management for land use;

townscape as a resource in its own right; and 2. The assessment of visual effects: assessing effects on the general visual amenity experienced by people. Specific views are also assessed

No, or very limited, detracting features. High

where they form strategic views designated in the development plan, or

National / Regional Distinctive or unusual townscape with notable features and elements; / Local Evident use of quality materials;

TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL VALUE 2.40

The townscape baseline assessment describes character areas/types

Appropriate management for land use with limited scope to improve; Limited detracting features. Medium

Regional / Local

and their characteristics. It defines the distinct and recognisable patterns of elements, or characteristics that make one area different from

Scope to improve management for land use;

another, rather than better or worse. Areas are defined and mapped with

Some detracting features. Low

Local

another; however, on site, changes can be more subtle and practically, this often represents a zone of transition. Criteria to assess townscape

Assessment is informed by an understanding of how an area has evolved,

Some positive townscape features but largely Distinguishable urban structure, characteristic patterns and combinations of degraded and may benefit from regeneration, restoration or enhancement. built form and open space, although often fragmented; Commonplace or ordinary townscape with limited variety or distinctiveness;

Potentially some dominant detracting features and areas of very low value.

research as appropriate and to a level commensurate with the sensitivity

Heavily degraded townscape and/or identified for Weak or degraded urban structure, characteristic patterns and combination change. of built form and open space;

of the receptor and its susceptibility to change. Important published

Lack of management has resulted in degradation;

sources will normally comprise formal character assessments prepared,

Frequent dominant detracting features;

Very Low

the use of aerial photography and field survey, along with desk-based

The objective of identifying the existing context is to provide an

Local

Very common townscape, often in decline;

Disturbed or derelict land requires treatment.

for example, as part of local plan making or agencies or county authorities. 2.42

Regional or local recognition, including local plan designations, with value possibly expressed through literature and cultural associations.

Scope to improve management or land use;

character areas and apportion value is contained in Table 2.8. 2.41

Attractive townscape with occasional distinctive features; Recognisable urban structure, characteristic patterns and combinations of built form and open space;

boundaries that suggest a sharp change from one townscape area to

National or regional designation, and/or designated heritage receptors

Strong urban structure, characteristic patterns and balanced combination of built form and open space;

where agreed with the competent authority.

TOWNSCAPE VALUE

Table 2.8

Townscape Receptor Value Criteria

understanding of the townscape in the area that may be affected – its constituent elements, its character and the way this varies spatially, its geographic extent, its history, its condition, the way the townscape is experienced and the value attached to it. This assessment cannot practically and objectively capture what local people in an area feel about their area (unless of course this has been subject to a specific study which is produced in an objective or reflective manner). Thus, this value analysis reflects professional judgment.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

Methodology

VISUAL AMENITY VALUE 2.43

2.47

contained in Table 2.9. Amenity is a broad concept in planning, and the

The visual baseline assessment established the area in which the

Planning Portal [online] defines it as “A positive element or elements that

development may be visible, the different groups of people who may

• Residents and other frequent users of the area; • People, whether residents or visitors, who are engaged in outdoor recreation, including use of public rights of way, attractions or those whose attention or interest is likely to be focused on the landscape and on particular views; and • Communities where views contribute to the landscape setting enjoyed by residents in the area. 2.45

Representative viewpoints are identified based on a comprehensive review of the surrounding area, including the following criteria:

2.48

will always be a publicly accessible place, in line with best practice.

susceptibility at Table 2.11.

The visual assessment is therefore separate to a ‘residential amenity

TOWNSCAPE SUSCEPTIBILITY

assessment’, which considers private viewpoints from residential properties (refer to GLVIA3, paragraph 6.17). In some instances, the visual

methodology agreed. Such private land amenity assessments often rely on other concepts in town planning/measures such as privacy and

• Where the development may be prominent;

Very High

Areas of national or international importance and/or identified strategic views of national or international importance. Very enjoyable area with multiple positive elements and/or Very High townscape value.

High

• The viewing direction, distance and elevation; • Townscape and transport nodes.

Areas of national or regional importance, or particular local importance and/or static view identified in the development plan. Enjoyable area with several positive elements and/or High townscape value.

Medium

Areas of regional or local importance and/or static view identified in planning guidance, including conservation area appraisals. Pleasant area with some positive elements and/or Medium townscape value.

Low

Commonplace areas with limited positive elements and/or Low townscape value, often with detracting elements.

Very Low

Area of Very Low townscape value (e.g. industrial areas/busy main roads) that has very few positive characteristics, usually with significant detracting elements.

viewpoints identified by the local planning authorities or other relevant bodies.

Table 2.9

applied based on the understanding of landscape susceptibility to reach judgements on townscape susceptibility. 2.51

Visual Amenity Value Criteria

GLVIA3 describes susceptibility to change of landscape receptors as “the ability of the landscape receptor (whether it be the overall character or

enclosure or overbearing.

Criteria / Examples

GLVIA3 explains landscape susceptibility at pages 88-89. There is no specific definition of townscape susceptibility. Professional judgement is

where this topic has been scoped with the decision maker and a specific

Value

The identification of viewpoints also considers any strategic or local

2.50

impact assessment will address impacts from private land, but that is only

• Open spaces (parkland, publicly accessible space);

2.46

or the achievement of planning policies and strategies. The criteria for determining townscape susceptibility is described at Table 2.10 and visual

• Townscape character;

• Accessibility to the public;

undue consequences for the maintenance of the baseline situation and/

The places at which or in which these individuals will experience a change

• Heritage receptors;

• Potentially sensitive receptors (e.g. schools);

accommodate the particular type and/or nature of development without

the shorthand for this are ‘views’ and ‘visual impact’.

VISUAL AMENITY VALUE

• Be visible from concentrations of residential areas;

value of the receptor with its susceptibility, defined as the ability to

typically assessed through changes to what people see and perceive, and

within the area who will be affected by changes in the views, ‘visual being likely to be the most susceptible to change:

Development. Sensitivity is identified by calibrating the baseline

them, or less tangible factors such as tranquillity.” Changes in amenity are

The baseline study identifies individuals and/or defined groups of people

The first stage in the assessment of the Proposed Development on a townscape or visual receptor is to identify its sensitivity to the Proposed

open land, trees, historic buildings and the inter-relationship between

affected and the nature of the views and visual amenity at those points.

receptors’. The following visual receptors are identified by GLVIA3 as

2.49

contribute to the overall character or enjoyment of an area. For example,

experience views of the development, the places where they will be

2.44

TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL SUSCEPTIBILITY

The visual amenity value of locations is assessed using the criteria

quality/condition of a particular landscape type or area, or an individual element and/or feature, or a particular aesthetic and perceptual aspect) to accommodate the proposed development without undue consequences for the maintenance of the baseline situation and/or the achievement of landscape planning policies and strategies.” 2.52

Susceptibility is relative to the general type of development proposed e.g. a receptor may be more or less susceptible to a proposal for an industrial facility as opposed to a residential building depending on the receiving environment. Equally, a receptor may be more or less susceptible to a tall building than a low-rise development depending on the receiving environment.

Methodology

2.53

Effects are particular to the specific landscape / townscape in question,

TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL SENSITIVITY

Visual receptors who are more likely to have a high susceptibility to

which includes reference to aspects such as the quality, nature

change include residents at home, people who are engaged in activities

and condition of the receptor, or, existing scale and grain e.g. if the

that involve an appreciation of the surrounding landscape or townscape,

existing townscape is of a similar scale and / or grain as the proposed

and visitors to heritage assets or other attractions. This is the advice of

development, it may have a greater ability to accommodate the proposed

GLVIA3; however, the guidance also makes it clear that this will not be true

development and thus a lower susceptibility to change, subject to those

in all cases since susceptibility to change is to some extent, as noted, a

existing characteristics not undermining or undue consequence arising

function of context.

TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL SENSITIVITY

Again, and subject to that qualification, visual receptors who are more

Receptor Value

Susceptibility of Receptor to Change Low

Medium

High

Very Low

Low

Low/Medium

Low

Low/Medium

Medium

Low/Medium

Medium

Medium/High

High

Medium

Medium/High

High

Exceptional

Medium/High

High

from that baseline condition or anticipated achievement of relevant townscape / landscape planning policies, which includes site allocations or anticipated development identified in the statutory development plan.

TOWNSCAPE SUSCEPTIBILITY TO CHANGE CRITERIA High

The receptor has a low ability to accommodate the specific proposed change e.g. the existing townscape / landscape comprises very limited or no similar types of development to that proposed and/or the townscape / landscape policies do not anticipate this type of development.

Medium

The receptor has a moderate ability to accommodate the specific proposed change e.g. the existing townscape / landscape comprises some similar types of development to that proposed and/or the townscape / landscape policies anticipate some of this type of development.

Low

The receptor has a high ability to accommodate the specific proposed change e.g. the existing townscape / landscape comprises several similar types of development to that proposed and/or the townscape / landscape policies anticipate this type of development.

Table 2.10 Susceptibility of Townscape Receptor to Change Criteria

VISUAL SUSCEPTIBILITY 2.54

2.55

GLVIA3 explains visual susceptibility at pages 113-114. Page 113 sets out that susceptibility of different visual receptors to changes in views and visual amenity is mainly a function of: • The occupation or activity of people experiencing the view at particular

2.56

likely to have a low susceptibility to change include users of amenity space that does not depend on or involve an appreciation of the surrounding landscape / townscape such as people engaged in sports activities. GLVIA3 states that “each project needs to consider the nature of the groups of people who will be affected and the extent to which their attention is likely to be focused on views and visual amenity.”

VISUAL SUSCEPTIBILITY TO CHANGE CRITERIA High

The receptor has a low ability to accommodate the specific proposed change e.g. the visual receptor is likely to be heavily engaged on the view/visual amenity and/or the type of development is incongruent to the baseline condition or would undermine the enjoyment of the visual receptor.

Medium

The receptor has a moderate ability to accommodate the specific proposed change e.g. the visual receptor is likely to be partially engaged on the view / visual amenity and/or the type of development is congruent to aspects of the baseline condition or would undermine some aspects of the enjoyment of the visual receptor.

Low

The receptor has a high ability to accommodate the specific proposed change e.g. the visual receptor is likely to be not engaged on the view / visual amenity and/or the type of development is congruent to the baseline condition or would not undermine the enjoyment of the visual receptor.

2.57

The baseline value of the receptor and its susceptibility are calibrated using the matrix at Table 2.12. Sensitivity is recorded in a verbal scale (high, medium or low), supported by the clear narrative linked to evidence from the baseline study and an assessment of susceptibility.

Table 2.12 Townscape and Visual Sensitivity (Nature of Receptor Likely to be Affected)

Table 2.11 Susceptibility of Visual Receptor to Change Criteria

locations; • The extent to which their attention or interest may therefore be focused on the views and the visual amenity they experience at particular locations.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

Methodology

TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL MAGNITUDE 2.58

The magnitude of impact is a qualitative judgement supported by the

2.59

TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL LIKELY EFFECTS

TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL SCALE OF AN EFFECT

Likely effects are determined by combining the judgements of sensitivity

Major

The change resulting from the impact of the Proposed Development upon the receptor would give rise to a very significant effect.

Moderate

The change resulting from the impact of the Proposed Development upon the receptor would give rise to a significant effect.

Minor

The change resulting from the impact of the Proposed Development upon the receptor would give rise to an effect, but this would not be significant.

Negligible

The change resulting from the impact of the Proposed Development upon the receptor would give rise to a barely discernible effect. This would not be significant

None

The change resulting from the impact of the Proposed Development upon the receptor would have no effect.

narrative text within the assessment. The professional judgement is

and the magnitude of impact using a common matrix shared across all

quantified using criteria at Table 2.13. The judgement of magnitude

topic areas (Table 2.14). It is generally considered that moderate to major

considers the size or scale, geographical extent or duration and

effects are considered ‘significant’ in the context of the EIA Regulations.

reversibility of the impact.

Criteria defining the scale of effect is provided at Table 2.15.

TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT

TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL LIKELY EFFECT ON RECEPTOR

High

Magnitude

Medium

Low

Very Low

Nil

Major change to the value of the townscape receptor or visual amenity. The proposals would be very noticeable, comprising a notable change over an extensive area or an intensive change over a more limited area. May comprise major alteration to key elements/features/characteristics of the receptor. The duration of this impact may be permanent and non-reversible. Moderate change to the value of the townscape receptor or visual amenity. The proposals would be noticeable, comprising a recognisable change over a large area or a moderate change over a more limited area. May comprise alteration to one or more key elements/features/characteristics of the receptor. The duration of this impact may be semi-permanent and partially reversible. Minor change to the value of the townscape receptor or visual amenity. The proposals would be noticeable, although comprising a small change over a limited area or similar to a main component of the receptor. May comprise minor alteration to one or more key elements/features/ characteristics of the receptor. The duration of this impact may be temporary and reversible. Barely discernible change to the value of the townscape receptor or visual amenity. The proposals would not be noticeable, although comprising a very small change over a very limited area or very similar to the main components of the receptor. May comprise very minor alteration to one or more key elements/features/characteristics of the receptor. The duration of this impact may be temporary and reversible. No change to the value of the townscape receptor or visual amenity.

Table 2.13 Magnitude of Impact Criteria

Sensitivity Low

Medium

High

Nil

None

Very Low

Negligible

Negligible / Minor

Low

Minor

Minor / Moderate

Moderate

Medium

Minor / Moderate

Moderate

Moderate / Major

High

Moderate

Moderate / Major

Major

Table 2.14 Likely Effect on Receptor Matrix

2.60

Professional judgement is required to determine the nature of the likely effects. Criteria defining the nature of effect is provided at Table 2.16. For example, there will be cases where a high magnitude of impact produces a major scale of effect, on the basis that the component is prominent or noticeable, but notwithstanding that the quality of effect is beneficial

Table 2.15 Scale of an Effect

2.61

The assessment of nature of effect also requires a qualitative discussion to describe and elucidate this judgement to the reader. This is necessary because townscape and visual assessment is not a strict quantitative process and some of these considerations will depend on expert judgements. Accordingly, there is an emphasis on qualitative text throughout the assessment to describe the receptors and the judgements in regard to the significance of the identified effects.

as a consequence of design quality or other benefits. This approach

TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL NATURE OF AN EFFECT

arises most often as a consequence of major developments in areas

Beneficial

An advantageous effect to a receptor

positively identified for transformational change. Often, such impacts

Neutral

An effect that on balance is neither beneficial nor adverse to a receptor.

Adverse

A detrimental effect to a receptor

will have varied effects such that a hard and fast categorisation of an effects quality is finely balanced as between beneficial or harmful. In many instances, therefore, the final identification of impact and effect will turn on discursive analysis. This makes a necessary professional adjustment to the tabular analysis format which can produce inaccurate reporting.

Table 2.16 Nature of an Effect

Methodology

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 2.62

harmful impact in specific cases, judged on a qualitative basis. Instances of incremental harm have as matters of practice normally come about when

The cumulative schemes for inclusion in this Volume were agreed with the

previous development is recognised to have created a harmful condition, to

Council during the scoping process. They comprise:

which a specific proposal adds, so potentially augmenting the pre-existing

1. Carpetright, Loampit Vale, SE13 7SN, Lewisham Exchange & Tide

harm. In all cases, however, a freestanding assessment is required.

Construction Ltd (planning ref: DC/20/118766) 2. 1 Silver Road, London, SE13 7BQ, London Square Development Ltd

2.68

compromised in the past by unsympathetic development

3. Lewisham Retail Park, Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd

affecting its setting, to accord with NPPF policies consideration

(planning ref: DC/16/097629)

still needs to be given to whether additional change will further

Following a site visit in September 2024, it was noted that the Lewisham

detract from, or can enhance, the significance of the asset.

Gateway scheme (planning ref: DC/18/105218 and DC/23/130564) on the

Negative change could include severing the last link between

adjoining site to the north is nearing completion and is considered to form

an asset and its original setting; positive change could include

part of the baseline condition. The 34-storey building at the former car

the restoration of a building’s original designed landscape or

park of the Tesco store at Connington Road has recently been completed

the removal of structures impairing key views of it.

(planning ref: DC/21/121768) and also forms part of the baseline. 2.64

It was also noted that the Carpetright and 1 Silver Road schemes were

2.69

cause some harm to significance and cannot be adjusted,

There is only one scheme, Lewisham Retail Park to consider in the

screening may have a part to play in reducing harm. As

cumulative assessment which is located approximately 280m away from

screening can only mitigate negative impacts, rather than

the northwestern boundary of the Site and comprises a tall building of 24

removing impacts or providing enhancement, it ought never to

storeys.

2.66

be regarded as a substitute for well-designed developments

A diagram of the cumulative schemes is provided at Figure 2.1.

HERITAGE Paragraph 36 of GPA3 states:

Paragraph 40 of GPA3 states: Where attributes of a development affecting setting may

also nearing completion and therefore now form part of the baseline.

2.65

GPA3 states: Where the significance of a heritage asset has been

(planning ref: DC/18/109972)

2.63

within the setting of heritage assets. 2.70

The heritage assessment will consider the additional effect of the Proposed Development in conjunction with the consented schemes.

Cumulative assessment is required under the EU Directive on

This form of assessment is fact specific and often relies on published

EIA. Its purpose is to identify impacts that are the result of

documents confirming there has been past harm and why.

introducing the development into the view in combination with other existing and proposed developments. The combined impact may not simply be the sum of the impacts of individual developments; it may be more, or less. 2.67

The word ‘cumulative’ in this context should be taken to mean incremental and the practical effect of this would generally be to increase the degree of

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

Appendices (continued) Details of schemes

index

24 1

scheme name

address

reference

status

source of model data

positioning method

MH reference

colour

Lewisham Shopping Centre - N1

Lewisham Shopping Centre

n/a

Lewisham

Proposed

Paper planning application drawings from local authority

Best fit to Ordnance Survey

lews0078.detail240919-mae-proposed

Blue Blue

Methodology

Lewisham Shopping Centre - N2

Lewisham Shopping Centre

n/a

Lewisham

Proposed

Paper planning application drawings from local authority

Best fit to Ordnance Survey

lews0078.detail241008-archio-proposed-n2

Lewisham Shopping Centre Maximum Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

n/a

Lewisham

Proposed

Paper planning application drawings from local authority

Best fit to Ordnance Survey

lews0078.mass240731-sew-proposed- Purple parameter lews0091.surface211126-dp-proposed

Lewisham Retail Park

Lewisham Retail Park, Loampit Vale, London, SE13 7SN

DC/16/097629

Lewisham

Legal Consent granted

Paper planning application drawings from local authority

Best fit to Ordnance Survey

Lewisham Covered Market

DC/24/136236

Lewisham

Legal Consent granted

Paper planning application drawings from local authority

Best fit to Ordnance Survey

Orange Orange

TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL 2.71

GLVIA3 sets out two main approaches to inter-project effects between any given proposed development and cumulative schemes (See GLVIA, paragraph 7.18). The first approach is to focus: primarily on the additional effects of the main project under

consideration… on top of the cumulative baseline 2.72

The second approach is to focus: on the combined effects of all the past, present and future

proposals together with the new project 2.73

This assessment takes the first approach, which is to focus on the additional effects of the Proposed Development on top of the cumulative baseline. It is considered that this approach is best suited to an urban

environment, in which the cumulative effects between the Proposed Development and other cumulative schemes may be complex (including situations in which the effect of the Proposed Development could be lessened or removed entirely by cumulative schemes) and because, as also acknowledged in the GLVIA3, it may not be considered reasonable to assess the effect of many complex schemes other than the Proposed Development in the manner required by the ‘combined effects’ approach.

Aerial diagram showing location of schemes

Dimetric of Cumulative 175 Figure Lewisham 2.2 Shopping Centre Visual View Impact Study October 2024 Schemes

Methodology

MITIGATION 2.74

Mitigation measures proposed to prevent, reduce or offset any significant

2.75

FUTURE EVOLUTION OF THE BASELINE 2.80

The EIA Regulations require that the likely evolution of the baseline

likely adverse effects have been identified and developed as part of the

is considered. This is an assessment in the event that the Proposed

pre-application design process. The primary mitigation measures have

Development were not to come forward. In other words, the likely effect

become embedded into the project design, commonly referred to as

on the receptors if the cumulative developments and any relevant policy

embedded mitigation. The mitigation arising from design development

designations were to come forward without the Proposed Development.

and consultation responses is identified at Section 7.0.

2.81

Given that so much of the likely evolution of the baseline for receptors

The likely effects of the Proposed Development include embedded

will depend upon the particulars of the design for development

mitigation. As a result, there is no requirement for additional mitigation

coming forward to meet the policy aspirations for the area, a separate

and thus likely residual effects remain the same as the likely effects, unless

assessment of the evolution of the baseline for the receptors identified in

otherwise stated.

this assessment is not provided.

CLIMATE CHANGE 2.76

The likely effects of the Proposed Development are defined under the current climate conditions, which may alter under a future climate scenario. The EIA Regulations require that the change in impact magnitude and a receptor’s ‘vulnerability’ (i.e. susceptibility or resilience to change) are considered in respect of a future climate condition.

2.77

The vulnerability of the receptors according to the definitions provided in the guidance, and it has been judged that all of the heritage, townscape and visual receptors have low vulnerability.

2.78

The likely projected future conditions for each of temperature, precipitation, wind speed and cloud cover have been considered. It is considered that the magnitude of impact and resultant nature and scale of the effects of the Proposed Development during the operational phase will not be changed under the future climate conditions.

2.79

Overall, the likely effects of the Proposed Development are unlikely to change as a result of climate change.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

©Montagu Evans LLP 2024

3.0 LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY Lewisham Shopping Centre, Lewisham

LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY

3.0

LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY

3.1

The following section sets out the planning policy context for the Site and for the context of the assessment process.

LEGISLATION PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED) 3.2

The Site does not comprise any statutorily listed buildings and nor is it located in a conservation area.

3.3

3.5

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

KEY PROVISIONS

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

London Plan (2021)

Chapter 1 (Planning London’s Future - Good Growth): GG2

stipulates that where in making any determination under the planning

Policy D1 (London’s form character and capacity for growth)

legislation, regard is to be had to the development plan, and the determination must be made in accordance with that plan unless material

3.6

considerations indicate otherwise.

Policy D3 (Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach)

The statutory development plan and the policies relevant to the

Policy D4 (Delivering good design) Policy D5 (Inclusive design)

assessment of heritage, townscape and visual considerations are set out

Policy D8 (Public realm)

at Table 4.1 below.

Policy D9 (Tall Buildings) Policy HC1 (Heritage Conservation and Growth) Policy HC3 (Strategic and Local Views) Policy SD1: (Opportunity Areas) Lewisham Core Strategy (2011)

There are statutorily listed buildings which have been identified in the

Core Strategy Policy 16: Conservation areas, heritage assets and the historic environment

result of the Proposed Development changing their setting. The relevant statutory provisions comprise Section 66(1) of the 1990 Act, which states:

Core Strategy Policy 17: The protected vistas, the London panorama and local views, landmarks and panoramas

In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the

Core Strategy Policy 18: The location and design of tall buildings

local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of the building or its setting or any features of special architectural and historical interest which it possesses. 3.4

Spatial Policy 2: Regeneration and Growth Areas Core Strategy Policy 15: High quality design for Lewisham

study area which may experience a change to their heritage value as a

State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving

Spatial Policy 1: Lewisham Spatial Strategy

Development Management Local Plan (2014)

Section 72 of the 1990 PLBCA Act requires decision makers to give special

DM Policy 1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) DM Policy 30 (Urban Design and Local Character) DM Policy 32 (Housing design, layout and space standards)

attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation areas which may be affected by the

DM Policy 33 (Development on infill sites, backland sites, back gardens and amenity areas)

proposed development. The Proposed Development does not comprise any buildings or other land in a conservation area and, therefore, section

DM Policy 35 (Public Realm)

72 of the 1990 PLBCA Act is not engaged. There is no statutory duty

DM Policy 36 (Designated Heritage Assets)

relating to the setting of conservation areas within the 1990 PLBCA Act.

DM Policy 37 (Non-Designated Heritage Assets) Lewisham Town Centre Local Plan (2014)

Policy LTC8: Lewisham Central Policy Area Policy LCT18: Public Realm Policy LTC19: Tall Buildings Policy LTC23: Heritage Assets

Table 3.1

Development Plan Policy Relevant to BHTVIA

LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY 3.7

The development plan is supported by the planning policies set out in the NPPF. The relevant provisions are set out at Table 3.2.

• Policy GR5: Urban greening and trees

• Belmont Conservation Area Appraisal (2020);

• Policy S2: Sustainable design and retrofitting

• Mercia Grove Conservation Area Appraisal (2019);

• Policy LCA1: Lewisham Central Area

• Blackheath Conservation Area Appraisal (2022);

• Site Allocation 2 (Lewisham Shopping Centre)

• St Mary’s Conservation Area Appraisal (2019);

POLICY DISCUSSION BUILT HERITAGE

NATIONAL POLICY

KEY PROVISIONS

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2023

Chapter 12 (Achieving well0designed and beautiful places) • Paragraph 131 • Paragraph 135 • Paragraph 137 • Paragraph 139 • Paragraph 140

• Lewisham Park Conservation Area Appraisal (2020);

Chapter 16 (Conserving and enhancing the Historic Environment) • Paragraph 200 • Paragraph 203 • Paragraph 205-208 • Paragraph 209 • Paragraph 212 Table 3.2

National Planning Policy Relevant to BHTVIA

• Somerset Gardens Conservation Area Appraisal (2019); • Brockley Conservation Area Appraisal (2019);

considerations, including: • National Planning Practice Guidance (online); • Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Third Edition (GLVIA) (2013); • An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment (2014); • TGN 06/19 Visual Representation of Development Proposals Technical Guidance Note (2019) prepared by Landscape Institute • Greater London Authority, Planning Practice Note: Heritage Impact Assessments and the Setting of Heritage Assets (2023); • Historic England, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment (2015) • Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (2017); • Tall Buildings: Historic England Advice Note 4 (2022); • IEMA, CIfA and IHBC (2021) Principles for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment

Shopping Centre which is located within close proximity to a number of

• LB Lewisham Characterisation Study (2019);

heritage assets. As such, the Proposed Development has the potential to

• Draft Lewisham Tall Buildings Study (2021):

affect the contribution that setting makes to the significance of heritage

• LB Lewisham Tall Building Study Addendum (2022);

assets nearby the Site. 3.12

borough’s heritage assets and their settings, which include the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site, conservation areas, listed buildings, archaeological remains, registered historic

The new Local Plan will set out a long-term strategy for Lewisham for

parks and gardens and other non-designated assets such as

the next 20 years, from 2020 to 2040. The Regulation 19 Draft Lewisham

locally listed buildings, will continue to be monitored, reviewed,

Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State in November 2023 for

enhanced and conserved according to the requirements of

independent examination. The examination took June-July 2024. 3.10

government planning policy guidance, the London Plan policies, local policy and English Heritage best practice.:

The draft policies pertinent to the Proposed Development and the BHTVIA ES chapter are outlined below: •

Policy OL1: Delivering an Open Lewisham (spatial strategy)

3.13

Part A of Policy 36 of the Development Management Plan states that: “For development proposals affecting heritage assets the

• Policy QD1: Delivering high quality design in Lewisham

Council will require a statement that describes the significance

• Policy QD2: Inclusive and safe design

of the asset and its setting, and an assessment of the impact on

• Policy QD3: Public realm and connecting places

that significance.

• Policy QD4: Building Heights

Where the significance of an asset may be harmed or lost

• Policy QD5: Views management

through physical alteration or destruction, or development

• Policy QD8: High quality housing design

within its setting, the Council will require clear and convincing

• Policy QD10: Infill and backland sites, garden land and amenity areas

justification. The Council will consider the wider public benefits

• Policy HE1: Lewisham’s historic environment

which may flow from the development where these are fully

• Policy HE2: Designated heritage assets

justified in the impact assessment.”

• Policy HE3: Non-designated heritage assets • Policy EC11: Town centres at the heart of our communities • Policy EC12 Town centre network and hierarchy • Policy EC13: Optimising the use of town centre land and floorspace • Policy EC4: Major and District Centres

LBL Core Strategy Policy 16 states that: ‘The Council will ensure that the value and significance of the

EMERGING POLICY LEWISHAM LOCAL PLAN 2040 3.9

The Proposed Development comprises the redevelopment of Lewisham

• Brookmill Road Conservation Area Appraisal (2019);

• Tall Building Review (2023)

In addition to legislation and policy, the assessment will take into consideration relevant planning guidance and any material

3.11

• Heritage Assessment Background Paper (2022);

MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 3.8

• St Stephen’s Conservation Area Appraisal (2022);

3.14

Policy 37 of the Development Management Plan, in reference to non-designated heritage assets, states that: “The Council will protect the local distinctiveness of the borough by sustaining and enhancing the significance of non-designated heritage assets.”

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY

3.15

The extant development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF.

3.16

public appreciation of a designated heritage asset, or some aspect

Planning policy requires an applicant to ‘describe the significance of any heritage assets affected by a proposed development, including ay contribution made by their setting.’ Setting is defined in the NPPF as: ’the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve.

3.17

3.20

improvement can arise if the experience of moving toward or from an

the demonstration of less damaging alternatives. To the extent that there

asset is enhanced.

is a test, it is to be found in paragraphs 205 to 208.

If, having carried out stages one to four, a proposed development is the NPPF stipulates it be categorised as either ‘less than substantial’

significance or may be neutral.’

or ‘substantial’.4 The NPPF does not define ‘substantial’, and national

3.24

3.25

in relation to designated assets since the publication of the NPPF.

TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL

than substantial harm" in a particular case will always depend on the

TOWN CENTRE AND REGENERATION AREA

circumstances’, based on ‘matters of fact and planning judgment.’6 3.21

Setting is not, however, an asset in its own right. ‘Its importance lies in what it contributes to the significance of the heritage asset or to the ability to appreciate that significance.’2 The guidance provided by Historic England in its

A separate Court of Appeal judgement confirmed that where a

3.26

Heritage Assets (“GPA3”) provides information on assessing the significance of heritage assets and on how one assesses the effects of development in the

best use of land by following a design-led approach that optimises the

some positive and some negative, the decision maker may conclude that

capacity of sites, including site allocations”. Policy D3 sets out a number

although each of the effects has an impact, taken together there is no

of provisions which relate to the design and integration of a development

overall adverse effect on the listed building. This approach was upheld by

into the area: form and layout; experiences; and quality and character. We

Lord Justice Lindblom who stated that the NPPF policies ‘do not preclude

have had regard to the policy in the BHTVIA assessment, which considers

a balancing exercise as part of the decision-making process.’8 Where

the impact of the proposals on the townscape and visual amenity context.

public benefits - including heritage benefits - outweigh the identified harm,

setting of an asset on its significance or cultural value. GPA3 is clear that visual

then permission may be granted subject to a proportionate assessment

perception matters a great deal. It is, after all, an objective measure. Historical

3.27

The Site is located within the town centre of Lewisham. The extant development plan identifies the town centre as ‘Major’ status, although

being undertaken.

and functional associations may be important on the facts of any case. It is

London Plan Policy D3 states that “All development must make the

development would affect a listed building or its setting in different ways,

Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of

We understand that if the decision maker follows the above approach, then this approach is consistent with the extensive case law which has emerged

Court of Appeal, stated: ‘what amounts to "substantial harm" or "less

law has made clear that ‘an impact is not to be equated with harm: there

As a matter of policy, heritage benefits also attract great weight in the planning decision making (and assessment process).

guidance simply states it is a ‘high test.’5 Lord Justice Lindblom, in the

beneficial or harmful depending on the particular facts of any case. Case

seeks to promote it to a Metropolitan town centre by 2026. Policy

GPA3 also highlights the requirement for cumulative assessment to

SD8 of the London Plan states that ‘International, Metropolitan and

impact on setting itself is not the consideration. Setting is important only to

identify impacts of a development ‘in combination with other existing and

Major town centres should be the focus for the majority of higher order

the extent it enables an appreciation of significance or contributes directly to

proposed developments. The combined impact may not simply be the

comparison goods retailing, whilst securing opportunities for higher

it. Equally, visibility of a proposal does not in itself equate to a harmful impact,

sum of the impacts of individual developments; it may be more, or less.’ In

density employment, leisure and residential development in a high quality

and it is the contribution setting makes to the importance (significance) of

relation to a visual impact, the decision maker may need to consider the

environment.’

a heritage asset which is the appropriate consideration, including how that

degree to which a proposal adds to pre-existing harm. Ultimately, ‘if the

aspect of setting (that which contributes to significance) is affected by a

combination of existing and proposed harm would reach a tipping point

proposed development.3

then this would be particularly relevant in judging the overall effects.’10

clear from policy and guidance, however, and confirmed by the Courts, that

3.19

and convincing justification does not create a freestanding test requiring

the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that

be neutral. A change to setting, even a major one, may also be neutral,

3.18

which can attract great weight in the planning balance. Equally, a setting

held to cause harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset,

The drafting of the NPPF makes clear that some aspects of setting may

Any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should require ‘clear and convincing justification’, as per NPPF paragraph 206. A clear

Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to

can be an impact which is neutral (or indeed positive).’1

3.23

of its significance is recognised to be desirable and an enhancement

1 Pagham Parish Council v Arun District Council [2019] EWHC 1721 (Admin) (04 July 2019), as per Andrews, J DBE 2 Historic England, The Setting of Heritage Assets, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3, 2nd edn (Swindon: Historic England, 2017) p4 3 Edith Summerskill House Decision: 20/01283/FUL (Planning Application ref.) & APP/H.5390/V/21/3277137 (Appeal / Planning Inspector’s Report ref.)

3.22

4 MHCLG, National Planning Policy Framework, rev. edn (London: HMSO, 2021) 5 DLUHC and MHCLG, National Planning Policy Guidance: Historic Environment <https://www. gov.uk/guidance/conserving-and-enhancing-the-historic-environment> [3 May 2023] 6 Bramshill v SSHCLG [2021] EWCA Civ 320 7 Palmer v Herefordshire Council & ANOR [2016] EWCA Civ 1061 8 Bramshill v SSHCLG [2021] EWCA Civ 320 9 Historic England, The Setting of Heritage Assets, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3, 2nd edn (Swindon: Historic England, 2017) p12 10 MHCLG, (2020) <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/916458/20-09-10_DL_+IR_Citroen_Site_Brentford.pdf> [20 May 2023]

3.28

The London Plan (2021) identifies Lewisham town centre as within the New Cross/Lewisham/Catford Opportunity Area (OAs). OAs are defined as: London’s principal opportunities for accommodating large scale development to provide substantial numbers of new employment and housing, each typically more than 5,000 jobs and/or 2,500 homes, with a mixed intensive use of land and assisted by good public transport accessibility.

LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY

3.29

Lewisham’s Local plan encourages and delivers the growth potential of

3.31

3.38

This is reinforced by Policy LTC19 of Lewisham Local Town Centre Plan

OAs through the Lewisham Core Strategy (2011) policies Spatial Policy

“Development within Lewisham town centre and its surrounds

which states that proposed tall buildings within the borough should comply

1: Lewisham Spatial Strategy and Spatial Policy 2: Regeneration and

will be proactively managed in order to secure its future

with Core Strategy Policy 18 and should add positively to the existing

Growth Areas. Spatial policy 2 stipulates that the Site is located within

reclassification as a Metropolitan centre in the London Plan.”

and emerging overall Lewisham town centre skyline. As per Figure 6.3 of

a regeneration and growth area which will encourage regeneration and development opportunities. It states:

3.32

assessment of the Proposed Development.

1. be designated as a Major town centre, and will be further developed so that by 2026 it achieves Metropolitan status on the London-wide retail hierarchy and continues to contribute to

3.33

3.39

The application site is not located within any strategic viewing corridors

floorspace by 2026;

as determined by the 2012 London View Management Framework. A

3. accommodate up to 1,500 additional new homes by 2016 and

non-verified massing view from Blackheath Point (LVMF 6A.1) is provided

a further 1,100 additional new homes by 2026;

at Appendix 3.0, which demonstrates there is no intervisibility between

4. contain a Local Employment Location (LEL) at Molesworth

receptors and the site.

5. be one of the borough’s preferred locations for new office

3.35

3.40

Table 21.12 showing Tall Building Suitability Zones and Heights as part of Schedule 12 of Lewisham’s emerging Local Plan identifies a maximum building height of 25 storeys for the Lewisham Shopping Centre Site.

The site is located 2.6km from Island Gardens, located in the London

has been assessed as part of this report, which demonstrates that the

which will act as a catalyst for regeneration of the town centre.”

proposed development sits below the tree line on the south side of the

This is supplemented by Lewisham Town Centre Local Plan (2014) which

Thames. 3.36

The Site is located within close proximity to the local landmark of the grade II listed Lewisham Clock Tower, as well as the spire of the Grade

the Central Area (Policy LTC8):

II Church of St Saviour. As such, the Proposed Development must have

(a) as the Lewisham Shopping Centre is managed, refurbished

regard to Core Strategy Policy 17 which states:

and redeveloped over time, ensure every opportunity is

“b. local views, landmarks and panoramas identified on

taken to improve the number and nature of the east – west

the Proposals Map will be managed to ensure that new

connections across the Lewisham Shopping Centre area,

development does not impede or detract from local views or

(b) create a more coherent and pleasant environment which

obscure local landmarks.

meets the needs of both pedestrians and vehicles,

TALL BUILDINGS

(including any rooftop equipment), or greater.”

View 24 in the LVMF, looking towards the Royal Naval College. The view

6. contain a strategic development site, the Lewisham Gateway,

and delivered. The Town Centre Local Plan also identifies the Site within

32.8 metres measured from the ground level to the top of the building

Borough of Tower Hamlets. Island Gardens is identified as Townscape

development;

was prepared by the Council to ensure the forecast of growth is managed

of Lewisham’s Local Plan has identified tall buildings as “10 storeys or

Verified views have taken into consideration the built and natural existing townscape.

3.34

LB Lewisham’s emerging local plan, currently at Regulation 22 Stage, reinforces the Site’s tall building redevelopment narrative. Policy QD4

environment, the settings of heritage assets and the relationship to the

2. accommodate up to 40,000 square metres of additional

Street;

buildings.

DESIGNATED VIEWS

the local night-time economy; retail floorspace and 4,300 square metres of additional leisure

the document, it identifies the Site as being an appropriate area for tall

As such, it is evident that the Site is located within an area of evolving change and major regeneration. This context is important in our overall

“Lewisham Town Centre will:

3.30

The emerging local plan Policy EC12 part g states that:

3.37

Policy 18 of Lewisham’s Core Strategy identifies Lewisham centre as a

(d) create an active frontage to Molesworth Street,

location suitable for tall buildings and stipulates specific criteria which

(e) working in partnership with market traders and other

will need to be met in order for tall buildings to be deemed acceptable in

stakeholders, achieve environmental improvements to

these locations.

Lewisham High Street and street market area.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY

Schedule 11: Regeneration nodes growth nodes and growth corridors Table 21.11: Table showing Regeneration nodes growth nodes and growth corridors AREA TYPE

AREA NAME

COVERAGE

Regeneration node

Lewisham Major Centre

800m buffer around town centre boundary

Regeneration node

Catford Major Centre

800m buffer around town centre boundary

Regeneration node

Deptford District Centre

800m buffer around town centre boundary

Regeneration node

Bell Green Local Centre

400m buffer around the following site allocation boundaries: Former Bell Green Gas Holders, Bell Green Retail Park and Sainsbury’s Bell Green

Growth node

Forest Hill District Centre

800m buffer around town centre boundary

Growth node

New Cross District Centre

800m buffer around town centre boundary

Growth node

Lee Green District Centre

800m buffer around town centre boundary

Growth node

Bellingham Local Centre

400m buffer around town centre boundary

Growth node

Grove Park Local Centre

400m buffer around town centre boundary

Growth node

Surrey Canal Triangle

Surrey Canal Mixed-use Employment Location Site Allocation Boundaries

Growth node

Evelyn Local Centre

400m buffer around town centre boundary and nearby site allocation boundaries

Growth Corridor

Frontages along New Cross Rd

Growth Corridor

A20

Frontages along Lee High Rd

Growth Corridor

A21

Frontages along Lewisham High St, Rushey Green and Bromley Road

Growth Corridor

A205

Frontages London Rd, Devonshire Rd, Waldram Park Rd, Stanstead Rd, Catford Rd, Brownhill Rd and Westhorne Avenue

Growth Corridor

A212

Frontages along Sydenham Rd, Stanton Way and Southend Lane

Figure 3.2

Table 21.12 showing Tall Building suitable zones and heights, include the Site. Source: LB Lewisham’s Emerging Local Plan (2023)

Figure 3.3

Lewisham Character Study, showing the Site (LT16) as being suitable for tall buildings. Source: LB Lewisham Tall Building Review (2023). 14

830

3.41 Figure 3.1

Figure 6.3 from Lewisham’s Local Town Centre Plan (2014) identifying the Site

86 Area-wide policiesas being suitable for tall building development. Source: LB Lewisham Local Town

Centre Plan (2014)

Tall Building Review (2023) Identifies the Site as an area suitable for tall

This redevelopment narrative is simultaneously reinforced by the Site’s

buildings with the following guidance “the site has to form a transition

emerging allocation policies. As part of Lewisham’s emerging Local Plan

between the northern cluster of tall buildings focused around the station

the Site is allocated under area 2 of Lewisham’s Central Area, as well as

to the existing low rise context of the high street. Could support a cluster

being located within a ‘regeneration node’ area, for which development is

of towers up to max.25 storeys focused towards Molesworth Street and to

encouraged.

the north of the site.”

3.42

4.0 Baseline: Historical Development Lewisham Shopping Centre, Lewisham

4.0

4.1

Baseline: Historical Development

BASELINE: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT This section provides a description of the historical development of the Site and that of the surrounding area. This section and the heritage

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF LEWISHAM: AN OVERVIEW 4.2

of the healthy air away from the busy capital. St Mary’s Church was rebuilt

Greenwich. Lewisham was first mentioned in a charter that dates from

from 1774-1777 to accommodate the growing congregation. Roque’s map

862 AD as Liofshema and goes back to a Saxon settlement. In 1086, it

of 1746 (Figure 4.1) shows Lewisham as a small linear village with a number

was recorded in The Domesday Book. It developed into an important

of mills along the river. The surrounding landscape is principally rural and

place near the confluence of the River Quaggy and Ravensbourne. The

characterised by farmland.

settlement was located to the south of today’s town centre around the parish church of St Mary. 4.3

From the Middle Ages, water mills have been recorded at Lewisham. Tanning leather and silk weaving were concentrated along the River Ravensbourne.

including: • Historic OS Maps, Promap. [accessed 12 March 2024]; • British Library, Rocque’s Map of London, Bomb Damage Maps. [accessed 12 September 2022]; • A Biography; Pevsner, N. and Bridget, C. (1998). The Buildings of England: London 2: South; • Daniel Lysons, 'Lewisham', in The Environs of London: Volume 4, Counties of Herts, Essex and Kent (London, 1796), pp. 514-536. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/london-environs/vol4/ pp514-536 [accessed 12 March 2024]; • London Borough of Lewisham (2008) Info Byte Sheet No.19: History of Lewisham; • Hidden London, Lewisham • Mills, A.D., A Dictionary of British Place Names (2011) • http://www.lewishamcard.co.uk/latest/2016/4/6/a-brief-history-oflewisham-borough • London Borough of Lewisham: Local History and Archives Centre: Info Byte Sheet No.19 History of Lewisham • London Borough of Lewisham, St Mary’s Conservation Area Character Appraisal (2006) Figure 4.1

Rocque’s Map of 1746. Source: British Library

Lewisham began to experience further growth in the mid eighteenth century as wealthy City merchants settled in the area to take advantage

Lewisham is located on the River Ravensbourne to the south of

baseline at Section 5.0 have been informed by secondary sources,

4.4

4.5

Towards the end of the eighteenth century the Industrial Revolution began to change the landscape of Lewisham as the mills began to be used for more industrial purposes such as glass cutting instead of griding corn.

Baseline: Historical Development

4.6

Lewisham attracted industrial development due to the strategic location and the good water supply. In 1847, a station opened at Lewisham, connecting Lewisham and London Bridge with the South Eastern Railway’s North Kent network. The Mid Kent line was added in 1857 and a new station building built. The 1870-72 OS map shows Lewisham's emerging town centre within its wider rural setting (Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.2

Lewisham Clock Tower, 1870.

Figure 4.3

1870-1872 OS map. Source: Promap

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

Baseline: Historical Development

4.7

Lewisham continued to evolve. Many of the residential areas were built for the upper middle class with adjoining small areas of more affordable housing. The 1896 OS map demonstrates how Lewisham changed over the course of the late nineteenth century as terraced housing and detached housing with large gardens and wider streets became the prevalent feature across the town (Figure 4.4). Many of the residential areas were being demolished and rebuilt for the upper middle class with small pockets of more affordable housing available.

Figure 4.4

1896 OS map. Source: Promap.

Baseline: Historical Development

4.8

As a result of the improved transportation links and increased residential capacity, Lewisham experienced further growth in the twentieth century. Much of Lewisham’s architectural value was constructed in the early twentieth century including the key civic buildings, the clock tower built in 1906 to celebrate Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee and St Saviour’s Catholic Church in 1909, and Tower House in 1933.

4.9

The strategic location of Lewisham during World War II meant that the area was targeted by German bombers with a total of 1,128 high explosive bombs dropped there between 1940 and 1941 alone. The 1945 Bomb Damage Map (Figure 4.6) shows the extent of damage in Lewisham throughout WWII as well as highlighted areas of clearance following the destructions. Homes has been built to replace prefab housing that stood on stretches of land that had been left as bombsites since the 1940s. The 1951 OS map (Figure 4.7) shows the early evolution of the urban form that exists in Lewisham today.

Figure 4.5

Lewisham High Street, 1915.

Figure 4.6

1945 bomb damage map. Source: British Library

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

Baseline: Historical Development

4.10

The town centre was rebuilt in the 1950s. The shopping centre opened in 1977 and in 1994 the High Street was pedestrianised enabling a traffic-free street market and more open space in the public realm. The Dockland Light Railway arrived in 1999, connecting Lewisham via Canary Wharf with Bank in the City of London.

Figure 4.7

1951 OS map. Source: Promap.

Figure 4.8

Landmark Historical Map

Lewisham High Street, 1966. County:

Published Date(s): 1951 Originally plotted at: 1:2,500

Baseline: Historical Development

4.11

The OS map from 1967-1971 (Figure 4.9) shows further growth in Lewisham, more vacant plots have been filled with new residential developments. The residential terraces on Molesworth Street were cleared and redeveloped in 1977 to create the ‘Riverdale Shopping Centre’, latterly recognised as ‘Lewisham Shopping Centre.’ This shows a shift in demand from new residential developments to new commercial developments. Much of the surrounding urban setting is residential with the exception of the town centre which envelops the Site.

4.12

Following the construction of Lewisham Shopping Centre in the 1970s, the town centre has increased in density and has undergone extensive redevelopment.

Figure 4.9

1967-1971 OS map. Source: Promap.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

Baseline: Historical Development

Figure 4.10

1981 OS Map. Source: Promap.

Landmark Historical Map County: Published Date(s): 1981 Originally plotted at: 1:10,000

Baseline: Historical Development

RECENT YEARS 4.13

Over recent years, the urban landscape of Lewisham has undergone further change with the emergence of tall buildings as part of the redevelopment of Lewisham Gateway and the station area.

HISTORY OF THE SITE 4.14

The OS map of 1870-72 (Figure 4.2) illustrates that Molewsworth Street, to the immediate west of the Site, standing between it and the railway line; had been constructed by this time. On the opposing, eastern side, Lewisham Road (later becoming Lewisham High Street) had also been established.

4.15

The land comprising the Site, was made up of a series of larger, detached houses, the majority of which fronted Lewisham Road and had deep, narrow rear gardens with formal landscaping and orchards. To the north, the land featured burgage style plots along the high street, their compact and narrower character indicating shops or commercial premises.

4.16

The streetscape and urban grain of the Site remained largely the same by the time of the 1896 OS map. Further development had taken place with the construction of terraced housing on the north and south sides of Rennell Street. The area within the middle of the Site, which had formerly comprised the orchards and gardens of the larger detached houses remained undeveloped at this time. Further south, beyond Avenue Road, which had also formerly comprised larger properties, had seen the emergence of the industrialisation of the Ravensbourne River and surrounding ponds with a number of mills including that of Riverdale Mill.

4.17

The bomb damage map illustrates that by the early to mid-20th century, the Site comprised a cinema on its northern boundary, with the same 19th century terraces and shop frontages to the immediate south. Further south commercial and retail premises including a garage and a pub are labelled on the map. The area was badly affected by World War Two bombing, with a V1 flying bomb dropped at the junction of Lewisham and Avenue Road. The middle part of the Site was the worst affected, particularly those buildings that fronted the High Street. The area to the north of the Site was the least affected, predominantly suffering blast

Landmark Historical Map County: Published Date(s): 1995 Originally plotted at: 1:10,000

damage which was minor in nature. Figure 4.11

1995 OS Map. Source: Promap.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

Baseline: Historical Development

4.18

The 1951 OS map shows much the same street scape and urban form, although many of the buildings in the middle part of the Site are still labelled as ‘ruins’. Comprehensive demolition followed as part of the slum clearance in the wider area. The 1967-1971 OS map illustrates the large urban footprints of infill development that replaced the historic, narrow plots and buildings along Lewisham High Street.

4.19

Lewisham Shopping Centre (formerly the Riverdale Centre) was built in 1977 and is shown on the OS map of 1995. It was built around a number of historic buildings on the High Street, including the locally designated 65-85 Lewisham High Street, 90-100 Lewisham High Street and 180-190 Lewisham High Street. In 1994 the High Street was pedestrianised, becoming a traffic-free street market and an open space.

Figure 4.12

Lewisham Shopping Centre, during construction. Source: Studio Egret West/LB Lewisham.

Figure 4.13

Lewisham Shopping Centre, during construction. Source: Studio Egret West/LB Lewisham.

Figure 4.15

Lewisham Shopping Centre, during construction. Source: Studio Egret West/LB Lewisham.

Figure 4.14

Lewisham Shopping Centre, during construction. Source: Studio Egret West/LB Lewisham.

Figure 4.16

Lewisham Shopping Centre, during construction. Source: Studio Egret West/LB Lewisham.

5.0 BASELINE: built heritage Lewisham Shopping Centre, Lewisham

BASELINE: built heritage

5.0

BASELINE: BUILT HERITAGE

5.1

This section identifies the value of heritage receptors in the baseline that may be affected by the Proposed Development.

5.2

The location of the built heritage receptors identified in this assessment are shown at Figure 5.1. The ZTV with an overlay of the heritage receptors identified in the 1km study area is provided at Figure 5.2.

5.3

The built heritage baseline is summarised at Table 5.1, including receptors scoped in and out of the full assessment. The ZTV was used to identify at the baseline stage if there were any heritage receptors which could be scoped out from further assessment because there would be no or limited intervisibility with the Proposed Development, or where there would be no change to their setting or heritage value by any other means, including historical associations. In some cases, where receptors fall into a conservation area, these individual receptors will be listed as part of the conservation area, unless they have a specific setting relationship or the Proposed Development has the potential to impact their significance in a specific way. On this basis, the following receptors have been scoped out at this stage of the assessment: • St Johns Conservation Area (Map Ref: L) • West Greenwich Conservation Area (Map Ref: N) • Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area (Map Ref: O) • Deptford High Street and St Paul’s Church Conservation Area (Map Ref: P) • Lee Manor Conservation Area (Map Ref: S) • Stone House (Map Ref: 13) • Lee Public Library (Map Ref: 14) • Manna Mead (Map Ref: 15) • Point House (Map Ref: 16) • Former Church of Transfiguration (Map Ref: 31) • Telephone Exchange (Map Ref: 33) • 14 Monuments in Lee Old Churchyard (Map Ref: 41) • Manor House Gardens RPG (Map Ref: 54)

5.4

A qualitative assessment of the heritage value of the remaining receptors is provided below, including the contribution made by setting.

HERITAGE ASSET PLAN

MARITIME GREENWICH WORLD HERITAGE SITE

ii 52

Application Site

World Heritage Site A. Greenwich WHS Registered Park and Gardens i) Greenwich Park (Grade I) ii) Island Gardens (Grade II) Listed Buildings Grade I Grade II*

Q 51

Grade II

Conservation Areas C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K.

M L

B. Greenwich WHS Buffer

St. Stephen’s CA Belmont CA Mercia Grove CA Ladywell Blackheath CA (Lewisham) St Mary’s CA Lewisham Park CA Somerset Gardens CA Brockley CA

L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. S.

St Johns CA Brookmill Road CA West Greenwich CA Ashburnham Triangle CA Deptford High Street & St Paul's Church CA Greenwich Park CA Blackheath CA (Greenwich) Lee Manor CA

The Ranger's House

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

22 Dartmouth Row Stone House Lee Public Library Manna Mead Point House The Manor House Roman Catholic Church of Our Ladye Star of The Sea including its Forecourt Wall and Gate Piers The Presbytery

Listed Buildings Grade I

Grade II*

C 46 48

3. 4. 5.

SCALE: 25,000 @ A3

45 47

7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

E 50

Boone's Chapel (with short abutting Wall to East)

St Mary's Vicarage Church of St Mary The Virgin The Fludyer Tomb, Lee Old Churchyard Monument of Sir John Call Bart, Lee Old Churchyard Church of St Margaret The Pagoda Church of The Ascension Hillyfields Sixth Form Centre Perceval House and Spencer House

19.

Grade II 20. 21.

22.

23. 24.

25. 26. 27. 28.

29.

750 m

30. 31.

Clock Tower Church of St Saviour and Sts John Baptist and Evangelist (Roman Catholic) Presbytery Adjoining Church of St Saviour and Sts John Baptist and Evangelists Former Prudential Building Church of Stephen and St Stephen's Church War Memorial, Lewisham 10-18, Belmont Hill SE13 Lewisham Bridge Primary School The Priory Rileys (Former Temperance Billiard Hall) United Reformed Church Sunday School 91 and 91a, Belmont Hill SE13 Former Church of Transfiguration

32.

42. 43. 44.

Garden Walls to South and West of St Mary's Vicarage, Police Station, and Coroner's Court Telephone Exchange and K6 Telephone Kiosk Outside Telephone Exchange 340, Lewisham High Street Old Swimming Baths The Sacred Heart Convent Walls Surrounding Churchyard of St Mary's Church Ladywell Station Old Tower of Former Church of St Margaret School Treatment Centre 14 Monuments In Lee Old Churchyard Lewisham Public Library 1-6, Aberdeen Terrace SE3 11, 14-18, Somerset Gardens SE13

48. 49. 50.

90-100 Lewisham High Street 143-149 Lewisham High Street 180-190 Lewisham High Street

52.

Anglo-Saxon cemetery in Greenwich Park

54.

Manor House Gardens (Grade II)

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

Locally Listed Buildings 45. 46. 47.

65-85 Lewisham High Street 66 Lewisham High Street 85-95 Lewisham High Street

Scheduled Monuments 51.

West Grove, Conduit House, Blackheath

Registered Park and Gardens 53. 1.5 km

Greenwich Park (Grade I)

Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2024

MONTAGU EVANS

LOCATION:

Lewisham Shopping Centre

DATE:

October 2024

SCALE:

1:15,000 @ A3

Figure FIGURE:5.1 Heritage Asset Plan

▲ NORTH

CHARTERED SURVEYORS 70 ST MARY AXE, LONDON, EC3A 8BE T: +44 (0)20 7493 4002 WWW.MONTAGU-EVANS.CO.UK

HERITAGE ASSET PLAN OVERLAY WITH ZTV

MARITIME GREENWICH WORLD HERITAGE SITE

ii 52

Application Site

World Heritage Site A. Greenwich WHS Registered Park and Gardens i) Greenwich Park (Grade I) ii) Island Gardens (Grade II) Listed Buildings Grade I Grade II*

Q 51

Grade II

Conservation Areas C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K.

M L

B. Greenwich WHS Buffer

St. Stephen’s CA Belmont CA Mercia Grove CA Ladywell Blackheath CA (Lewisham) St Mary’s CA Lewisham Park CA Somerset Gardens CA Brockley CA

L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. S.

St Johns CA Brookmill Road CA West Greenwich CA Ashburnham Triangle CA Deptford High Street & St Paul's Church CA Greenwich Park CA Blackheath CA (Greenwich) Lee Manor CA

The Ranger's House

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

22 Dartmouth Row Stone House Lee Public Library Manna Mead Point House The Manor House Roman Catholic Church of Our Ladye Star of The Sea including its Forecourt Wall and Gate Piers The Presbytery

Listed Buildings Grade I

Grade II*

C 46 48

3. 4. 5.

SCALE: 25,000 @ A3

45 47

7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

E 50

Boone's Chapel (with short abutting Wall to East)

19.

Grade II 20. 21.

22.

23. 24.

25. 26. 27. 28.

29.

750 m

30. 31.

32.

42. 43. 44.

48. 49. 50.

90-100 Lewisham High Street 143-149 Lewisham High Street 180-190 Lewisham High Street

52.

Anglo-Saxon cemetery in Greenwich Park

54.

Manor House Gardens (Grade II)

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

Locally Listed Buildings 45. 46. 47.

65-85 Lewisham High Street 66 Lewisham High Street 85-95 Lewisham High Street

Scheduled Monuments 51.

West Grove, Conduit House, Blackheath

Registered Park and Gardens 53. 1.5 km

Greenwich Park (Grade I)

Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2024

MONTAGU EVANS

LOCATION:

Lewisham Shopping Centre

DATE:

October 2024

SCALE:

1:15,000 @ A3

Figure FIGURE:5.2 Heritage Asset Plan with overlay of the ZTV. Source: Montagu Evans.

▲ NORTH

CHARTERED SURVEYORS 70 ST MARY AXE, LONDON, EC3A 8BE T: +44 (0)20 7493 4002 WWW.MONTAGU-EVANS.CO.UK

BASELINE: built heritage

DESIGNATED HERITAGE RECEPTORS WORLD HERITAGE SITES MARITIME GREENWICH WHS (MAP REF. A) WHS BUFFER ZONE (MAP REF: B), GREENWICH PARK CA (MAP REF: Q), GREENWICH PARK RPG (MAP REF: 53) 5.5

Placentia into the Palace of Greenwich. Greenwich remained the main site

5.11

central ensemble of buildings within the WHS is located approximately 1.7

influenced by designs by André Le Nôtre, the court gardener of King Louis

the entirety of the green open space at Blackheath is included, preserving

5.12

5.13

It is important to note that the Buffer Zone is a component of setting to 5.14

By 1770, the Observatory had been influential in progress in the

5.21

The architectural ensemble, including the Queen’s House, the Royal

‘longitudinal problem’ and the Hospital had set up a school and large

Observatory, the Royal Hospital and The Royal Park;

naval orphanage. From 1851 the modern Greenwich Meridian was fixed

• The masterplan of buildings and designed landscape;

here and later became home of world time.

• The Grand Axis;

5.15

• Silhouettes. 5.22

5.16

• Anglo-Saxon Cemetery in Greenwich Park – scheduled monument 5.17

Heritage Value: Very High

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE The setting of the MGWHS covers an expansive area including Greenwich

nearby.

to the topography of the land, the setting of also includes the north side of the River Thames and panoramic views are provided across the city to the

The Royal Naval College was established in the buildings in 1873 after buildings were opened to the public; they are now occupied by various

north, including the Isle of Dogs, Canary Wharf and Blackwall and beyond. 5.24

The MGWHS is also enjoyed from views looking across the Thames towards

organisations such as the University of Greenwich.

Greenwich. Island Gardens is located in the Isle of Dogs on the north side

SIGNIFICANCE (OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE)

of the Thames. The principal setting relationship of Island Gardens is the

The Statement of OUV identifies the MGWHS as the most outstanding

These receptors are discussed as part of the MGWHS. The Ranger House,

group of Baroque buildings in England, symmetrically arranged

listed at grade I (Map Ref:2), is discussed separately below.

overlooking the River Thames. The WHS encompasses the following highly

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

graded buildings: Old Royal Naval College (Grade I), The Queen’s House

the 15th century, when Henry VII and Henry VIII remodelled the Palace of

• Relationship with the River Thames; and

to the west, Blackheath to the south and Vanbrugh Park to the east. Due

• West Grove, Conduit House, Blackheath – scheduled monument (Map

royal palaces at Greenwich and maritime institutions which emerged since

• Royal Patronage;

Hawksmoor also designed the Church of St Alfege in the town centre

the hospital had closed in 1869. The college departed in 1998 when the

The MGWHS designation recognises the historical development of the

• Greenwich Town Centre and St Alfege Church;

5.23

• The Presbytery II* (Map Ref: 19)

(Map Ref: 52)

• The Royal Observatory;

The Palace of Greenwich was remodelled by Wren from the mid-1690s as

devastating fire.

Ref: 51)

5.10

The OUV attributes are:

in the current form in the late 18th century, following rebuilding after a

• The Manor House II* (Map ref: 17)

5.9

5.20

Vanbrugh drew up the designs for the buildings, which were completed

There are a number of listed buildings within the WHS that fall within the

• Roman Catholic Church of Our Ladye Star of The Sea II* (Map Ref: 18)

the first part of the facilities.

the Queen’s House to the river. Wren, Nicholas Hawksmoor and John

assessment.

the Proposed Development and the below assets:

associated with Wren, Hawksmoor and Vanbrugh.

four main buildings (the "Courts"), arranged along the central axis from

line within the study area and therefore are considered together in this

study area. The ZTV at Figure 2.1 indicates limited intervisibility between

Greenwich Hospital/Royal Naval College and the Royal Observatory,

Greenwich Hospital eventually comprised a series of quadrants with

The MG WHS is also a Conservation Area and a Grade I Registered Park and Garden. These three heritage designations share a similar boundary

5.8

the Queen’s House, associated with Palladianism and Inigo Jones,

In 1675, Charles II commissioned the Royal Observatory to investigate

the hospital for sea men, a national charitable home for injured seamen.

its own right nor an extension of the WHS boundary.

The MGWHS is of exceptional architectural interest as a result of the notable buildings and their composition and exquisite interiors, including

ways to determine longitude when at sea. Sir Christopher Wren designed

located approximately 600m northeast of the Application Site at Eliot Hill.

5.7

5.19

astronomy with the intention of improving navigation and establishing

the landscape setting to the south. At the nearest point, the Buffer Zone is

protect the Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS and is not an asset in

institution.

XIV of France.

The MGWHS Buffer Zone broadly comprises an area within a 750m radius around the WHS. The boundary of the Buffer Zone varies, however, and

historical interest for the scientists and discoveries associated with the

new classical style that had emerged on the continent. The Royal Park was

km northeast of the Site. 5.6

The construction of the Royal Observatory at Greenwich is also of high

At the beginning of the 17th century, Inigo Jones was commissioned to design Queen's House. It was the first building in Britain to introduce the

World Heritage List in 1997. The World Heritage Site (WHS) is located

The historical interest of the WHS relates to the long history of this site, from the royal palace to the naval hospital and later naval college.

of the royal court until the English Civil War in the 1640s.

The Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site was inscribed on the approximately 1.2 km northeast of the Site at the nearest point. The

5.18

(Grade I) and Observatory (Grade I) as well as the Royal Park (Grade I Registered) and other designated structures.

view south from the park towards the Royal Naval College, which was once painted by Canaletto in the 18th century. The wider setting is marked by large-scale modern development, particularly the tall buildings of the Isle of Dogs, Canary Wharf, Blackwall and Greenwich Peninsula on the opposite side of the river. This part of the capital has been identified as a major growth area since the 1980s when the regeneration of the docks and industrial land along the River Thames began.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

BASELINE: built heritage

CONSERVATION AREAS

5.34

ST STEPHEN’S CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: C) 5.25

The St Stephen’s Conservation Area was designated in 1972. It is located approximately 30m to the immediate east of the Site.

5.26

5.27

It is largely made up of late Victorian residential terraced properties which

5.35

5.36

are centred on Cressingham Road. It is, therefore, largely inward looking. The west part of the street contains St Stephen’s Church, listed at grade II and discussed below, which is the centre of a group with the vicarage. The predominant materials in the area are London stock brick, slate roofs and

5.37

street to the west. From here, the tall buildings centred around Lewisham

5.29

Heritage Value: High

5.39

reinforce the residential character of the wider area. On the southeastern

5.32

To the immediate west, the setting of the conservation area becomes

5.33

The surrounding built form, much of which has been redeveloped in recent years as part of Lewisham’s emerging skyline, illustrates that the historic setting of the conservation area is no longer intact and does not contribute to an understanding of its significance.

5.46

5.41

contributes to an understanding of its significance.

1907 to 1909. Architect Reginald C. Fry designed the houses in the area.

MERCIA GROVE CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: E) 5.47

separated from it by Lewisham High Street and Lewis Grove. 5.48

5.43

The conservation area covers a small area which is comprised of two short terraces dating from the late 19th century. The significance of the conservation area is derived from the age, historic character and appearance of the two terraces, which are distinctive within a wider area

10-18 Belmont Hill (map ref.: 25) is located within the Belmont Conservation

The Priory (map ref.: 27) is located at 24 Belmont Hill and was listed in 1973

The Mercia Grove Conservation Areas was designated in 1975. It is located approximately 65m to the immediate east of the Site, at the nearest point;

Development is aligned along three east to west orientated streets. The

that is predominantly comprised of 20th century development. 5.49

Heritage value: Medium

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE VALUE 5.50

The significance of the conservation area is derived from its homogenous

detracting feature within the immediate setting of the conservation area.

and consistent architectural character which comprises high-quality

The existing Lewisham Shopping Centre buildings are visible from within

Edwardian houses; many of which were designed by local architect

the conservation area.

Reginald Fry. 5.42

The Site is not located within a part of the conservation area’s setting that

This area is an example of an Edwardian housing development, built from

nineteenth century. Constructed from polychromatic stock brick.

High Street and the busy A20. Within this, include the tall buildings residential character of the conservation area.

the immediate southwest.

at Grade II. The site comprises a two storey Gothic villa from the early-mid

distinctively more urban with a network of major roads including Lewisham centred around Lewisham station, which form a contrast to the low-scale,

up Lewisham High Street characterise the conservation area’s setting to

predominantly constructed from polychromatic stock brick. 5.40

The various buildings, including poor-quality infill development that make

• 10-18 Belmont Hill II (Map Ref: 25)

detached villas dating from the early-mid nineteenth century. The row is

boundary of the conservation area, is the Bemont Conservation Area which comprise an enclosed, high-quality area of Edwardian housing.

5.45

Area and are considered within this assessment:

Area and was designated in 1973 at Grade II. The site comprises a row of

The north, east and south of the conservation area comprises low-scale residential development dating from the 19th and 20th centuries, which

The following listed buildings are located within the Belmont Conservation

cluster emerging around Lewisham station.

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE 5.31

the station.

conservation area to the east allows for views towards the tall building

and appearance of the residential terraces, and the architectural interest

5.30

High Street, as well as the emergence of a tall building cluster around

the Site.

enclosure in views north to south. Yet the undulating topography of the

The significance of the Conservation Area lies with the historic character of the Church.

approximately 160m to the immediate east of the eastern boundary of

consistency in the Proposed Development establishes a sense of visual

station are visible.

To the west, the character of built form becomes distinctively more urban with the presence of the major road network around Lewisham

Neo-Georgian and Queen Anne style. 5.38

5.44

The Belmont Conservation Area was designated in 2001. It is located

There are a variety of typologies including Old English, Arts and Crafts,

The Conservation Area has largely enclosed views with the exception of the view from Cressingham Road where there is an open view from the

receptor’s placement in the wider historical development of the area.

• The Priory II (Map Ref: 27)

stuccoed door and window cases. 5.28

both conservation areas positively contribute to an understanding of the

comprising Lewisham centre, with a mix of commercial and retail uses.

BELMONT CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: D)

St Stephen’s CA covers the area between Cressingham Road, St Stephen’s Grove and Glanville Grove.

The Site forms part of the conservation area’s setting to the southwest,

5.51

Further north, around Lewisham station, the emergence of residential tall

Heritage value: High

buildings of considerable height, contrasts with the low scale character of

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE VALUE

the conservation area. To the southeast of the conservation area is a mix

The Belmont Conservation Area is bordered by the Ste Stephen’s CA to the immediate north, which comprises an attractive enclave of Victorian residential architecture. To the immediate east is the Blackheath Conservation Area, with its high quality building stock. The presence of

of Victorian and 20th century low-rise residential developments.

BASELINE: built heritage

LADYWELL CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: F) 5.52

Designated in 2010, the Ladywell Conservation Area comprises late Victorian suburban housing. It is located between Hilly Fields Park and the railway line from Lewisham to Croydon, approximately 350 m to the west of the Site (shortest distance). The name Ladywell goes back to a

5.60

5.65

comprises some earlier features, dates from 1856 and has three storeys. 5.66

Road runs west. From the end of Algernon Road at the junction with

completed by the early 20th century.

SIGNIFICANCE 5.67

(map ref.: K) and to the east the St Mary Conservation Area (map ref. H).

included in the conservation area to recognise the redevelopment of

Appraisal, present a “rich and varied mixture of buildings of different periods”. The buildings come together to create an attractive and distinctive townscape. The heath also makes a primary contribution to the significance of the conservation area for it historical value as an area of largely untouched heathland. 5.68

building. Otherwise, this part of the conservation area has relatively

5.69

the pleasant approach to the heath from the west, and the survival of

other facilities is tangible across the study area.

Brandon House. 5.62

5.70

The opening of the railway station at Blackheath in 1849 led to the

5.71

Conservation Area Appraisal identifies such views as falling within three

buildings such as:

in London. It was extended in 2001. At its nearest point, the Conservation

categories: local, strategic and London wide. The views also highlight

1-6 Aberdeen Terrace, listed in 1973 at Grade II, comprises a set

the importance of the built form which surrounds the heath. Fine grain

Area falls within the MGWHS Buffer Zone, although the Conservation Area

of six grand Italianate three-storey semi-detached houses from

development and trees line the perimeter of the heath, marking its

designation and the WHS are not themselves contiguous.

the mid-nineteenth century with basements and paired entrances.

extent. Beyond, tall buildings are discernible at Canary Wharf and

Constructed from grey-yellow stock brick, they have stucco decorations

Lewisham centre.

Area is approximately 400m to the east of the Site. Much of this Conservation

5.63

The topography of the conservation area affords 360-degree views from within the conservation area towards the surrounding area. The

number of heritage assets including listed buildings and locally listed

asset plan at Figure 5.1. It was the first Conservation Area to be designated

The setting of the conservation area is characterised by residential development to the south, and Greenwich Park to the north.

development of high-quality Victorian houses in the area. There are a

Greenwich in 1968 and is subsequently split into two parts on the heritage

Heritage Value: Very High

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE

less architectural merit. The primary contribution of this sub-area is

town centre, whose presence and focal point for activities, shops and

Much of this Conservation Area falls within the Buffer Zone of the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site.

the St John’s Hospital Site, where Brandon House is the only surviving

The conservation area is embedded into the late Victorian, suburban

The significance of the conservation area is derived from the architectural quality of its buildings which, according to the Conservation Area

nearest to Character Area 2: Lewisham Hill, Blackheath Rise, Princes Rise and Morden Hill at the west edge of the conservation area. This area is

The Blackheath Conservation Area was jointly designated by Lewisham and

listed and go back to 1690, and later Arts and Crafts houses.

The conservation area is divided into sub-areas, and the Site is located

To the west, the conservation area abuts the Brockley Conservation Area

BLACKHEATH CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REFS: G AND R)

Spencer House and the Church of the Ascension which are all grade II8

The area is characterised by the informal open land of the heath which

late 17th century, and accelerating during the 19th century was largely

The listed buildings on Dartmouth Row fall into Character Area 5 which comprises fine 17th to 18th century buildings, including Perceval House and

with clusters of listed buildings. Residential development began in the

5.61

Built as a palatial Italianate house, the Sacred Heart Convent on Belmont Hill (map ref.: 36) was designated in 1985 at Grade II. The building, which

also contains pockets of suburban development to the south and north

landscape of Lewisham. The main thoroughfares lead towards Lewisham

5.59

remarkably well.

From the station, Vicars Hill and Algernon Road run northwards, Algiers

town centre are possible.

5.58

• Church of St Margaret II* (Map Ref: 7)

juxtaposes with the neighbouring formality of Greenwich Park. The area

Heritage Value: High

Ellerdale Street, outside of the conservation area, views across Lewisham

5.57

tall, stuccoed chimney stacks. It is understood that the interiors survive

• 1-6 Aberdeen Terrace II (Map Ref: 43)

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE VALUE

5.56

• Monument of Sir John Call Bart, Lee Old Churchyard II* (Map Ref: 6)

• Old Tower of Former Church of St Margaret II (Map Ref: 39)

Area. The conservation area comprises the centre of Ladywell, located at

5.55

an Italianate style. Details include stucco with rusticated quoins and four

• 91 and 91a Belmont Hill II (Map Ref: 30)

Jerrard, whose other houses survive nearby in the Brockley Conservation

5.54

• The Fludyer Tomb, Lee Old Churchyard II* (Map ref: 5)

• 22 Dartmouth Row II* (Map Ref: 12)

architectural detailing. They were built by a local developer, Samual J.

from the Edwardian era.

storeys with basement and attic. It dates from c.1840 and is designed in

• Perceval House and Spencer House II* (Map Ref: 11)

The buildings in the conservation area are large and display rich

the grade II listed station (Map Ref: 38), which comprises shops and pubs

Conservation Area and was listed in 1991 at Grade II. The building has two

within the conservation area:

• Church of The Ascension II* (Map Ref: 9)

name that lies only 250 m further east 5.53

between the proposals and some of the below assets (Map Refs: 8,9,11,13)

• The Pagoda II* (Map Ref: 8)

medieval well, named after the Virgin Mary and the church of the same

There are a number of listed buildings within the conservation area. As

and a parapet with cutwork panels.

demonstrated by the ZTV at Figure 2.1, there is no or limited visibility 5.64

5.72

91 and 91a Belmont Hill is a detached villa, located within Blackheath

The Site is not located within a part of the conservation area’s setting that contributes to its significance.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

BASELINE: built heritage

ST MARY’S CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: H) 5.73

5.81

St Mary’s Conservation Area was designated in 1976 and extended in 2006. It is located approximately 265m to the south of the Site.

5.74

There are a number of listed buildings within the conservation area which are considered as part of the conservation area assessment: • Garden Walls to South and West II (Map Ref: 32) • 340 Lewisham High Street II (Map Ref: 34)

5.82

5.83

H. Brumwell Thomas in 1914 in Edwardian Baroque. Notable features

5.84

5.85

5.86

5.80

5.87

creates a picturesque atmosphere. 5.91

the park to Lewisham High Street. 5.92

Heritage value: High

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE VALUE 5.93

Since the laying out of the grounds and construction of the houses, the setting of the conservation area has been subject to continuous change due to redevelopment and regeneration along the High Street and its connecting routes. To Lewisham High Street and Bromley Road, and to large residential, commercial and institutional development, including

of development that Lewisham has undergone. Overall, the townscape is

the expansion of the University Hospital Lewisham nearby. There is no

fragmented and includes detracting features.

consistency to much of this development, and a coarse, loose grain which contrasts with the fine, tight grain of the built form within the

The Site makes no contribution to the character and appearance, or the

Lewisham Park Conservation Area was designated in 2014. The

Edwardian houses on the southern and eastern periphery of the park. 5.88

There is a Memorial Garden to the west end of the park which connects

contribution to its overall significance, whilst it reflects the various phases

conservation area mainly comprises a park and several Victorian and

The large houses laid out around a park were developed in the mid nineteenth century by Viscount Lewisham, Lord Dartmouth, who owned the land, to encourage wealthy merchants to move to Lewisham. In 1965 the park became a designated public amenity space. The trees and planting contribute positively to its character and appearance

the southern boundary of the park have generous front gardens which

the north of the conservation area, this has primarily taken the form of

has archaeological, architectural, historic, and artistic interest. Heritage value: High

The conservation area has a calm character, the buildings surrounding

The setting of the conservation area therefore makes a limited

conservation area is located 620m to the north of the Site. The

contribute to the understanding of the area’s significance.

5.90

To the east of the conservation area are various late 20th century

the evolution of the area and its evidential value. The conservation area

The area comprises a number of listed and locally listed buildings which

not present on the Victorian houses.

To the north, the setting of the conservation area comprises the modern

LEWISHAM PARK CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: I)

Lewisham town was originally located. The conservation area also

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE VALUE

feature warmer brickwork and a variety of architectural detailing which is

conservation area.

appreciation of the conservation area.

orientation around St Mary’s Church which is considered to be where

5.79

larger and more imposing buildings than the Edwardian houses which

To the west the CA is bound by Ladywell Conservation Area, comprising

onwards residential buildings.

window on the half-landing.

contains several buildings of special interest that collectively demonstrate

of the conservation area are the earlier Victorian properties. They are

setting.

pilasters. The staircase has a stone balustrade and there is a Venetian

The special interest of St Mary’s Conservation Area is derived from its

feature of the River Ravensbourne.

of tall buildings at the town centre forms part of the conservation area’s

include four pairs of tall ionic columns, a pulvinated frieze and ornamental

5.78

open green space. The houses along the southern and eastern boundary

inter-war terraces with shop units at ground floor. The emerging skyline

located on Lewisham High Street.

located on Lewisham Way. The one storey building was designed by

Ladywell Fields to the south of the conservation area and the natural

buildings within the conservation area’s setting, including poor quality

Station and Coroner’s Court, were designated in 1954 at Grade II and are

Lewisham Public Library which was designated in 1973 at Grade II. It is

have architectural heritage value and create a degree of enclosure to the

architectural quality. There are several deteriorating and detracting

The garden walls to the south and west of St Mary’s Vicarage, Police

There are a number of Edwardian civic buildings in the area, including

the conservation area’s immediate setting. This is further reinforced by

Victorian era to 21st century buildings, this part of the setting is of mixed

Mary’s Church was first listed in 1954 at Grade II, also discussed above.

5.77

houses remain to the east and south of the park. The surviving houses

townscape of Lewisham town centre. With development from the

St Mary’s Church, discussed in further detail below, is believed to be the oldest building in the borough. The walls surrounding the Churchyard of St

5.76

space of Lewisham Park, providing an attractive recreational space within

townscape features.

• School Treatment Centre II (Map Ref: 40)

Bomb damage during World War II devastated much of the original development in the area. However, some of the Victorian and Edwardian

linear streets of Victorian speculative housing which form attractive

• Walls Surrounding Churchyard II (Map Ref: 37)

5.75

5.89

Park Conservation Area, which is orientated around the green open

a secondary high street serving the residents of Ladywell, and also the

• Old Swimming Baths II (Map Ref: 35)

• Lewisham Public Library II (Map Ref: 42)

To the southeast, the conservation area is bordered by the Lewisham

5.94

The most prominent addition to the conservation area’s setting is the Lewisham Park Towers, constructed in the 1960s, and now forming the western boundary of the park to Lewisham High Street. The three towers provide a distinct contrast to the fine architectural detailing of the late Victorian and early Edwardian building stock that demarcates the conservation area’s eastern and southern edges. Notwithstanding their contrasting scale and architecture, they do not negatively impinge upon an appreciation of the open quality of the green space, being themselves set within generous landscaped grounds, and have a local landmark quality.

BASELINE: built heritage

5.95

To the south and east, the streets formed of semi-detached houses and therefore provide historical context which reflects the continued

over the park.

5.97

II* listed building (Map Ref:10) within Hilly Fields. The outstanding element of

conservation area designation by much of the land. Due to the sloping

appreciation of the conservation area.

the building, and the reason for its listing, is a series of mural paintings in the

nature of the land, most streets afford good views over the town centre.

SOMERSET GARDENS CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: J)

assembly hall. The school’s setting does not relate to this internal feature. For this reason, the building has not been assessed further.

Somerset Gardens Conservation Area was designated in 1972. It is located 5.106

Ref:44). The houses which front onto an oval-shaped green.

relationship to Hilly Fields.

The significance of Somerset Gardens is derived from the architectural

Heritage Value: High

The setting of the Somerset Gardens Conservation Area is defined by St south. To the north, the setting is defined and limited by railway lines. The conservation area is embedded in the high quality residential townscape

The Site is not located within part of the conservation area’s setting that

5.109

contributes to an understanding of its significance

BROCKLEY CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: K) 5.102

The Brockley Conservation Area was designated in 1973 and extended

The conservation area includes a large area of suburban development

developed as part of the later southern development of Deptford New

development of a similar age and scale, although with later infill. The

Town in the mid C19. Alongside the residential development, there is

setting is broadly defined and enclosed by the railway lines to the west

Brookmill Park to the west of the conservation area. The Park was

and east, and the roads to the north and south. These physical boundaries

formerly part of Kent Water Works and there was a small public recreation

separate the conservation area from different types of development

ground here from c.1880. During the 20th century, the Park was enlarged

further afield. The setting makes neither a positive or negative contribution

and re-landscaped for public use.

5.111

and a large open space called Hilly Fields. The special character of the Conservation Area is attributed to the layout and architecture of this

contributes to the significance of the conservation area, as a historic area

appreciation of the conservation area.

of open public space. 5.119

Heritage Value: High

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE

The St John’s Conservation Area is a relatively small conservation 5.120

The setting of the conservation area is defined by primarily residential urban development, some of which also dates from the 19th century, but

The conservation area was designated in 1976 and shows many similarities

there is later infill. On the other side of the Ravensbourne River to the

with the Brookmill Road Conservation Area, discussed below. The area is

west of the conservation area there is tall 20th century residential and

centred around St John’s Church, a grade II listed mid-19th century church

commercial development, marking the Lewisham centre. 5.121

There are views to the south-east from Brookmill Park and Road from

The Stone House is a grade II* listed villa (Map ref.: 13) on Lewisham Way.

the northern part of the Conservation Area. Otherwise, the conservation

dates from c. 1900. The residential development is characterised by

George Gibson, the architect of St Mary Church in Lewisham, built the

area has largely enclosed views within the conservation area between the

distinctive detailing which include stucco capitals and window surrounds,

Stone House as his own dwelling from 1771 to 1773 with three full height

Victorian terraces.

tile paths, terracotta details and spacious front gardens. Many of the

projecting curved bays and a grand portico on the north elevation.

the majority of the houses were built in the latter C19. The southern part

houses are set in wide, tree-lined avenues with large front and rear gardens which creates a spacious, green environment.

5.112

The special interest lies in the cohesive character of the groups of

The Site makes no contribution to the character and appearance, or the

suburban development. Building began in the area in the 1830s although

5.118

buildings most of which date from the 1850-70s. Brookmill Park also

Brockley Conservation Area and the Brockmill Road Conservation Area.

600m to the west of the Site.

Brookmill Road Conservation Area is focussed on Brookmill which was

The immediate setting of the conservation area comprises residential

area, located approximately 800 m to the north of the Site between the

in 1991, 1993, and 2005. The conservation area is located approximately

5.103

5.117

ST JOHN’S CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF.: L) 5.110

Brookmill Road Conservation Area was designated in 1972. It is located conservation area contains no other designated heritage receptors.

with the architecture and layout within it.

and the emerging tall building cluster next to the Lewisham station.

5.116

approximately 760m to the northwest of the Site at the nearest point. The

to the significance of the conservation area, which is primarily concerned

of this part of Lewisham, close to the town centre with its modern facilities

BROOKMILL ROAD CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: M)

Heritage Value: High

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE 5.108

Lewisham House is visible, but the Site makes no contribution to the character and appearance, or the appreciation of the conservation area.

architectural interest of the residential development, and the planned

5.107

5.115

The primary significance of the conservation area lies in the historic and

of two storey mid-19th century houses which are all listed at grade II (Map

John’s Conservation Area to the north, residential development to the

5.101

townscape that was developed on the land to the northwest of

The Site makes no contribution to the character and appearance, or the

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE 5.100

The conservation area is embedded in the high-quality residential Lewisham town centre. The quality of the architecture is reflected by the

quality of the houses, and the street layout. 5.99

5.114

Hillyfields Sixth Form Centre, the former Brockley County School, is a grade

approximately 750m to the northwest of the Site and comprises two rows

5.98

5.105

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE

Hilly Fields was laid out as parkland in 1896 with areas of land around the periphery reserved for particular development which would have views

intensification of this part of the Borough in the 20th century. 5.96

5.104

represent contemporary or slightly later residential development,

5.113

Heritage Value: High

5.122

Lewisham House is visible, but the Site makes no contribution to the character and appearance, or the appreciation of the conservation area.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

BASELINE: built heritage

LISTED BUILDINGS

visible.

RANGER’S HOUSE I (MAP REF: 2) 5.123

Ranger’s House was added to the heritage list in 1973. It was built at

5.131

the end of the 17th century to designs by Andrew Snape for a captain, later vice-admiral, of the Royal Navy. Located just outside the enclosure

5.132

central portion of the west elevation, where the entrance is positioned,

5.133

central window with moulded architrave, flanked by small windows with

5.125

5.135

buildings within. 5.129

Heritage Value: Very High

5.137

elevation and drive overlook the expanse of open grassland, framed by the buildings within the Blackheath Conservation Area and the West Greenwich Conservation Area. The horizon is formed by the trees around

Surrounding the vicarage on its southern and western boundaries are

5.138

The building is now used as office space.

5.139

The Vicarage derives architectural and historic interest as a mid-17th century example of a Vicarage in the Neo-Classical style. The receptor derives local historic interesting owing to its association with the Vicar of Lewisham, George Stanhope.

Ranger’s House abuts the enclosure wall of Greenwich Park and is embedded into the park and adjoining Blackheath Common. The west

5.145

5.140

The Grade II listed garden walls have group value with the Vicarage, as a 17th century vicarage and later 18th century landscaping structures.

5.141

Heritage Value: Very High

The Site is located at some distance (approximately 400 m) to the north of the heritage asset. The current buildings on Site share no historic or functional relationship with the asset and as such, the Site is not considered to contribute to the significance of the asset.

CHURCH OF ST MARY THE VIRGIN II* (MAP REF: 4) 5.146

Listed in 1954, located on Lewisham High Street. The church was constructed on the remains of a much older, medieval church. The tower which dates from 1498 to 1512 was retained and integrated into the Georgian church by George Gibson Junior which was built from 1774 to 1777.

5.147

The church is primarily constructed from coursed Kentish ragstone with freestone dressings.

5.148

brown brick walls dating to the 18th century.

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE 5.130

compromises the appreciation of the heritage asset.

and staircases; some original features remained including three original the brick cellar with the original brick flooring.

The asset’s location on Lewisham High Street (A21) which is the borough’s main north-south thoroughfare at the junction with Ladywell Road

building was altered with new cornices, room divisions, doors, windows,

of a late 17th century mansion, that is both exquisitely designed and

The property has group value with the adjacent Greenwich Park and the

5.144

The Vicarage was later renovated by the Legge family. While most of the

iron cross windows, original panelling in the entrance hall, six fireplaces and

several significant personalities.

visual relationship between the two.

added using bricks from Lewisham House from 1894 to 1895. 5.136

The Church of St Mary the Virgin is located in close proximity to the vicarage, but is separated by interposing development which limits any

Listed in 1954, the vicarage is located on Lewisham High Street. It

Ranger’s House has architectural and historic interest as a fine example well-preserved, and because of the connections to Stuart court life and

5.128

The Site is located at some distance (approximately 1.3 km) to the south

demolition of the neighbouring Lewisham House, a further extension was

original marble fireplaces survive. 5.127

5.143

Stanhope. The first extension was added from 1879 to 1881. Following the

Marshall Lord Wolseley lived her at the request of Queen Victoria. The

The interiors, including an early 18th century staircase, panelled hall and

Through its use as a film set for a successful TV series, the house and its

was constructed from 1692 to 1693 for the Vicar of Lewisham, George

Greenwich Park and was then known as Ranger’s House. Later, Field

5.126

centre of Lewisham reinforces the status of the building.

ST MARY’S VICARAGE II* (MAP REF: 3)

From 1816 onwards, the house became the residence of the Ranger of

building then housed various art collections.

which Lewisham evolved. The asset’s prominent location on the historical

Nevertheless, the setting relationship with the parkland makes a

considered to contribute to the significance of the asset.

house in 1748 and added the bow windowed wing to south which contained north front.

asset’s significance by virtue of its location on the main throughfare from

or functional relationship with the asset and as such, the Site is not

Lord Chesterfield, statesman, diplomat and man of letters, bought the a suite of ball rooms; shortly afterwards, a similar wing was added to the

and pollution notably impact on the experience of the heritage receptor.

of the heritage asset. The current buildings on Site share no historic

entablatures. 5.124

and Ladywell Road. This contributes positively to an understanding of the

adds to the contribution to significance. 5.134

The Vicarage is situated on the junction between Lewisham High Street

The A2 runs at a distance of only 150 m to the south, motor traffic, noise

surrounds were experienced by a broad international audience, which

is elaborately decorated with Ionic columns and pilasters on pedestals, a dentil cornice and pediment. The first floor has a round arched

5.142

significant contribution to significance of the house.

of Greenwich Park, the original house is a two storey mansion in red brick with Portland stone banding and a balustraded parapet. The

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE:

the edges of Blackheath, above which the taller buildings of Lewisham are

From 1881 to 1882, architect Arthur Blomfield remodelled the church, introducing a complex new roof structure resting on wooden posts that also carry the galleries. Blomfield created a new Romanesque style east end to the church and added the chancel. This part was renovated in 1995 when new steps to the altar were installed.

5.149

The principal façade of the church is the south facing elevation onto Lewisham High Street. It has a tetrastyle portico in the middle of the nave. The nave windows are on two levels and symmetrically arrange above the portico. There is a notable three-light Perpendicular window above the west doorway in the medieval tower.

BASELINE: built heritage

5.150

stages were created. 5.151

5.152

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE

The tower was altered in the eighteenth century to be taller, and two clock 5.158

of the church’s significance as one of the oldest buildings in Lewisham,

High Street. This part of the High Street is a busy commercial area, and

located on the historic arterial route from which the town subsequently

therefore contributes to the setting of the listed building to a certain

evolved around, is important, the intense motor traffic along this route

extent. The buildings in this area reflect the architectural styles of the last

compromises the viewer’s ability to appreciate the heritage asset.

150 years, including attractive Victorian buildings, the dramatic Art Deco

The church has a number of notable monuments including a wall

5.159

of its function. The retainment of the churchyard positively contributes

Van Pook’s monument. Banks depicted a reclining dying woman with

to an understanding of the church’s significance by virtue of the shared

a number of allegorical people surrounding her in Greek-style attire.

historic and functional relationship. Its enclosed nature separates the

The north wall has a monument to Mary Lushington by John Flaxman.

church from its wider, urban setting of Lewisham High Street. 5.160

The churchyard is surrounded by 18th century walls of London stock brick, which are intersected by a wrought iron gate at the north east and

5.161

or functional relationship with the asset and as such, the Site is not considered to contribute to the significance of the asset.

numerous 18th and 19th century monuments of interest including that of

5.162

5.163

clock tower. 5.168

Motor traffic, particularly buses and delivery vehicles for the market, market paraphernalia and street furniture further impact on the potential quality of the streetscape and detract from the heritage asset.

5.169

The historic and contemporary photographs at Figures 6.3. – 6.8 demonstrate the extent of change that has occurred to the setting of Lewisham Clock Tower, given its location its town centre location.

The Clock Tower was Grade II listed in 1973. It is located on Lewisham High

The Clock Tower was erected in 1897 to celebrate Queen Victoria’s stages and topped with a squat stone spire flanked by flying buttresses. A crown sits on top of the structure.

5.164

The Clock Tower has historical interest due to its commemorative function. It is also a fine example of its type and forms a key landmark in Lewisham’s

which mark the boundary of the church. Heritage Value: Very High

frontages of the late 20th century have compromised the setting of the

Diamond Jubilee. It is constructed in Portland stone and formed of three

The church also draws historic interest from its association with prominent

The church derives group value with the associated churchyard walls

as the large shopping centre blocks, Lewisham House and the bland retail

Street opposite the Application Site.

Margaret Petrie by Thomas Banks.

architects George Gibson Junior and Arthur Blomfield.

developments do not make a positive contribution to the townscape, such

CLOCK TOWER, GRADE II (MAP REF: 20)

The church derives architectural and historic interest by virtue of the

the nave and the addition of a portico in the mid 18th century. There are

The Site is located at some distance (approximately 400 m) to the north of the heritage asset. The current buildings on Site share no historic

openings.

notably the incorporation of a late medieval base tower, rebuilding of

style buildings of the post-World War II era. Some of the more recent

comprising development from the Victorian era onwards.

south east. Walls to the southwest and west are taller, with sloped brick

multi-phase work from the late 15th century to the late 20th century,

The wider setting of the church comprises the buildings located along Lewisham High Street, which is one of a fragmented townscape,

an angel.

commercial buildings of the inter-war years and the Festival of England

The presence of gravestones and tombs within the churchyard is reflective

Margaret Petrie south of the tower by Thomas Banks which complements

inscription next to a seated woman being revealed by a curtain drawn by

5.157

The setting of the clock tower is defined by the existing Lewisham

been the original heating system.

Lastly, there is a monument to John Thackeray by E. H. Baily showing an

5.156

5.167

Shopping Centre and the other commercial buildings along Lewisham

with children surrounding her. There is also a framed monument to

5.155

The church is located on the historic throughfare of Lewisham High Street, the borough’s main north-south corridor. While the understanding

Anne Petrie by Van Pook. It depicts an allegorical headed woman reclining

5.154

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE

On the south wall of the church there is a brick chimney, believed to have

monument on the west wall of the nave north of the tower dedicated to

5.153

town centre. 5.165

The structure was moved slightly from its original location to accommodate road layout changes in the 1990s.

5.166

Heritage Value: High

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

BASELINE: built heritage

Figure 5.3

Lewisham Clock Tower (1870).

Figure 5.5

Lewisham Clock Tower (1935). Source: Lewisham Borough Photos.

Figure 5.7

Lewisham Clock Tower (1984). Source: Lewisham Archives.

Figure 5.4

Lewisham Clock Tower (1920s).

Figure 5.6

Lewisham Clock Tower (1963). Source: Lewisham Archives.

Figure 5.8

Lewisham Clock Tower (2012). Source: Google Street View.

BASELINE: built heritage

5.176

5.177

The Site is located immediately opposite the receptor, and currently

5.185

early English style, built in random rubble with freestone dressings. To the

does no contribute to an understanding of the building’s significance.

interior is a three bay marble lined chancel, and stained glass windows by

FORMER PRUDENTIAL BUILDING, GRADE II (MAP REF: 23)

Clayton and Bell.

The Former Prudential Building was Grade II listed in 2001. It is located

5.186

interest due to its unaltered façade and notable historic presence in the

The receptor comprises former insurance offices, purpose built for the of Alfred who took over the family business after his death. The building

streetscape. 5.187

walls with terracotta dressings and a stone plinth, with an L shaped plan form over seven bays fronting to Lewisham High Street. There is a plaque

5.188

CHURCH OF ST SAVIOUR, ST JOHN BAPTIST AND EVANGELISTS (MAP REF. 21) AND PRESBYTERY (MAP REF. 22), BOTH GRADE II 5.170

listed in 1973. It is located on Lewisham High Street approximately 25m to the immediate east of the Site, at the nearest point. 5.171

5.172

The Church was built in 1909 by John Kelly. The south aisle and presbytery

5.181

well preserved, high quality interiors. The building also has social value

has been substantially diminished and makes no contribution to the

in connection with Prudential. Prudential is a rare example of a Victorian

significance of the listed Church.

Heritage Value: High

The church and presbytery are located on the eastern side of Lewisham High Street which comprises predominantly 20th century or later

setting of the church.

subsequent rebuilding efforts. The area is mixed in character, some of the later development is in poor condition and requires uplift. The historic location of the receptor on Lewisham’s principal historic thoroughfare contributes to an understanding of its historic function and significance as an early 20th century Roman Catholic church.

5.184

5.190

The Lewisham Bridge Primary School was Grade II listed in 2009. It is located approximately 200m to the immediate west of the Site.

5.191

The school was designed in 1912 and built in 1914 by the school division

The surrounding development comprises a range of architectural

of the LCC Architects Department which was at that time headed by J

styles and eras, predominantly from the 20th century or later, owing to

Rogers Stark. It has later minor alterations, and the other buildings on site

the extensive bomb damage this area of Lewisham underwent during

lack architectural interest.

development is in poor condition and requires uplift.

development, a result of the extensive World War II bomb damage and

LEWISHAM BRIDGE PRIMARY SCHOOL, GRADE II (MAP REF.: 26)

The receptor is located to the south of Lewisham High Street, just before

World War II. As a result, the area is mixed in character, some of the later

5.183

of building of varying styles and eras on its frontage, including some which

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE

understanding of its original function as an early 20th century office building. 5.182

The Site extends to immediately opposite the receptor. The amalgamation are in a deteriorating condition, forms a detracting element within the

on Lewisham’s historic thoroughfare, which positively contributes to an

The church is significant due to its strong Italian architectural style, and

5.189

Heritage Value: High

style. The interior is decorated in richly coloured marbles.

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE

5.175

of the St Stephen’s Conservation Area. The historic setting to the south

the intersection with Molesworth Street. It has a prominent corner plot

association of the front elevation with the First World War.

5.174

composition with good detailing, materials and craftsmanship, and the

were added later. It is a red brick building over two storeys in an Italianate

its early 20th century construction. It has historical value derived from the

5.173

listed building, which is recognised and managed through the designation

develop a distinctive house style for its offices throughout the UK. 5.180

to the north. The north setting contributes most to the significance of the

The significance of the building lies in its architectural quality as a formal

company with commercial prowess and national reach, enabling it to

The Church of St Saviour, St John Baptist and Evangelists was Grade II

The setting of the Church of St Stephen includes the later commercial development at Lewisham town centre, as well as a more historic area

reading ‘Prudential Buildings’ in Arts and Crafts style lettering.

Lewisham Clock Tower (2024). Source: Montagu Evans.

Heritage Value: High

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE

has a palatial design with notable interiors. The exterior has red brick

Figure 5.9

The significance of the church results from its construction by noted Victorian church architect Sir George Gilbert Scott. It has architectural

Prudential Assurance Company, built in 1909 by Paul Waterhouse, the son

5.179

St Stephen’s is a parish church of 1856 by Sir George Gilbert Scott in an

forms a detracting element. The amalgamation of poor quality buildings

opposite the southern tip of the Site. 5.178

5.192

The significance of the school is derived from its historic interest as one of the first LCC schools to incorporate cross-ventilation and light into

The Site extends to immediately opposite the receptor. The amalgamation

design, which was a key idea in education and healthcare reform in the

of buildings of varying styles and eras on its frontage, including some which

period. This also gives the school its architectural interest, including its

are in a deteriorating condition, forms a detracting element within the

plan form and well-lit and ventilated rooms. The front elevation is of high

setting of the church.

architectural quality, with a symmetrical central range and picturesque

CHURCH OF STEPHEN, GRADE II (MAP REF: 24)

massing at the end blocks.

St Stephen’s Church was Grade II listed in 1954. It is located approximately

5.193

Heritage Value: High

50m to the immediate northeast of the Site at the nearest point.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

BASELINE: built heritage

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE 5.194

5.195

The school is located within a residential area that is within close proximity

5.197

5.204

Road and Lewisham High Street. The building’s location on this historic

eroded owing to the area’s extensive bomb damage during World War Two.

thoroughfare positively contributes to an understanding of its historic

5.205

Victorian era.

The nearby presence of the Grade II listed Sunday School, locally listed 5.216

The building is located on Courthill Road, to the south of the Site. The

role at the heart of the local community, which further contributes to an

visual relationship between the asset and the Site is limited owing to

understanding of the building’s significance and placement.

the extent of interposing development and the railway. Where visible,

The Site is not located within a part of the receptor’s setting that

5.206

from the asset by the railway viaduct. The Site shares no historic or

RILEY’S (FORMER TEMPERANCE BILLIARD HALL) (MAP REF. 28)

functional relationship with the receptor and as such, the Site is not considered to contribute to the significance of the asset.

The building was listed in February 2008 and is located approximately

Built from 1909 to 1910 as Temperance Billiard Hall, the building originally

UNITED REFORMED CHURCH SUNDAY SCHOOL (MAP REF: 29) 5.207

uncommon building type.

attractive early 20th century commercial building with an innovative

5.210

The interior houses a double height gallery with apse and timber roof

The Sunday School derives historic interest as a reflection of the increase revivals in the mid-19th century.

The building is currently in a deteriorating condition which has eroded its

composition of the building. Heritage Value: High

Heritage Value: High

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE VALUE:

architectural and historic significance. It is partially boarded up at ground floor level which limits one’s ability to appreciate the full architectural

The asset draws architectural interest as a well-preserved example of late 19th century Non-Conformist Sunday school in the Neo-Gothic style.

5.212

5.213

Lewisham High Street (Woolworths) as a non-designated heritage receptor. It does not appear on the map at figure 5.3 as it has not been townscape merit within this assessment.

streetscape presence.

temperance movement; as providing an alternative to a public house.

Applying professional judgment, we have also identified No. 142-149

(formerly Lewisham Congregational Church) which is located directly

in popularity of non-conformist religions following a series of religious

5.211

5.218

identified as such by The Council, however we consider it as a building of

building plan, eclectic detailing, good compositional qualities and strong

Historic interest is also derived from the building’s association with the

listed buildings and buildings of townscape merit), as well as an area of

It was built as a Sunday School for the Lewisham United Reformed Church

galleries supported by square columns.

Architectural interest is also drawn from the building’s existence as an

There are a number of non-designated heritage receptors (both locally

Site. These are detailed in the plan at Figure 5.3.

adjacent. 5.209

5.217

special local character, located along Lewisham High Street and within the

the building there are three-sided apses.

example of an early 20th century, purpose-built billiards hall, an

NON DESIGNATED HERITAGE RECEPTORS

is located approximately 250m to the south of the Site. Built between 1880 roof in Gothic style. It has an ‘L’ shaped plan. At the west and south ends of

The building derives historic and architectural interest as a well-preserved

understanding of the asset’s significance.

The United Reformed Church Sunday School was listed in August 1995, it to 1881 by George Sherrin, comprising two-storeys in ragstone with a slate

5.208

the current buildings on Site are not considered to contribute to an

The Site is located further north along Lewisham High Street, separated

contributes to an understanding of its significance.

after being vacant for many years.

5.203

development along Lewisham High Street, which has evolved since the

setting makes no contribution to an understanding of its significance.

externally. It is currently being redeveloped and converted into a church

5.202

The wider setting of the receptor comprises the fragmented and varied

such, beyond the receptor’s historic location on this residential street, the

survive, such as the listed hall at Fulham High Street, which is more altered

5.201

5.215

church and contemporaneous housing are indicative of the building’s

listed due to its unique quality. Only very few examples of this building type

5.200

functional relationship with the buildings.

tall building cluster located around Lewisham Gateway and Station. As

comprised a café, lounge, and shops. It is an unusual type of building,

5.199

Surrounding the Sunday School to the east and the north is residential development dating to the inter-war period onwards, which bears no

function and status.

The surrounding development comprises a mix of low scale, late 20th

230m to the south of the Site. 5.198

5.214

The building has a prominent location on the corner plot between Courthill

to the urban centre of Lewisham. The historic setting has been completely

and early 21st century residential developments, as well as the emerging

5.196

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE VALUE:

The adjacent United Reform Church positively contributes to an understanding of the building’s historic function as an associated Sunday school and derives group value with the church.

MaP oF dEsignatEd and non-dEsignatEd HEritagE assEts aLong LEwisHaM HigH strEEt (witHin and outsidE tHE rEd LinE BoundarY)

Application Boundary Ownership Boundary Grade II Listed Locally Listed Buildings of Townscape Merit Area of Special Local Character

50-64 46

68-70

86-88

90-98 & 100-104 50

198-206

156-160

142-148

122-126

116-118

180-190

45 21

47 49

Figure 5.10

Map of designated and non-designated heritage receptors along Lewisham High Street (within and outside the red line boundary). Source: Montagu Evans.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

LsC HEritagE vaLuE MaP

HEritagE vaLuE tYPiCaL CritEria

tYPiCaL EXaMPLEs

Very High

Building/site/area of international heritage value

World Heritage Sites, grade I statutorily listed buildings and registered parks and gardens, and some scheduled monuments, grade II* statutorily listed buildings and registered parks and gardens.

High

Building/site/area of national heritage value

Some scheduled monuments, Grade II* and II registered parks and gardens, grade II* and II statutorily listed buildings and conservation areas.

Medium

Building/site/area of lower national or particular local heritage value Some grade II registered parks and gardens, grade II statutorily listed buildings and conservation areas.

Low

Building/site/area of local heritage value

Locally listed buildings (or equivalent non-designated heritage assets).

Very Low

Building/site/area of low local heritage value

Receptors not formally identified, but which may have a degree of value meriting consideration in planning decisions.

Application Boundary Ownership Boundary High (Grade II Listed) Low value (Locally Listed) Very Low Value No Value Not Assessed

Figure 5.11

Map of assigned heritage value (as per Section 2.0. methodology) for heritage receptors along Lewisham High Street. Source: Montagu Evans

*Other buildings map have some limited townscape value

BASELINE: built heritage

LOCALLY LISTED BUILDINGS 65-71 LEWISHAM HIGH STREET AND 73-85 LEWISHAM HIGH STREET (MAP REF: 45) AND 85-95 LEWISHAM HIGH STREET (MAP REF: 47) 5.219

5.224

65-85 Lewisham High Street is located approximately 75m to the immediate east of the Site. Numbers 65-71 comprise a four storey Art

5.225

High Street, facing onto the market and central clock tower. This historical

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE

location contributes to an understanding of their original retail and commercial functions.

The buildings have a prominent location at the northern end of Lewisham 5.232

The surrounding built form comprises an amalgamation of architectural

positions. This historical location contributes to an understanding of their

styles and eras, with many of the buildings located further south along the

dates 1868-1933 in the tower. It was built as a department store named

original retail and commercial functions.

High Street dating to the 20th century or later. Many of the buildings are

5.226

functional relationship with the receptors.

143-149 LEWISHAM HIGH STREET (MAP REF: 49) AND 180-190 LEWISHAM HIGH STREET (MAP REF: 50)

in a deteriorating condition and require repair and investment. The Site forms part of development along the High Street, but shares no historic or

brick with rising pilasters to roof level which features carved ornamental

functional relationship with the receptors.

brickwork and a decorated parapet, with an original mansard extension

66 LEWISHAM HIGH STREET (MAP REF: 46) AND 99-100 LEWISHAM HIGH STREET (MAP REF: 48)

behind. No. 79 has a date stamp of 1886, and features a characteristic surrounds. Nos 81-85 are c.1850 and are more modest and traditional in

forms part of development along the High Street, but shares no historic or

High Street dating to the 20th century or later. Many of the buildings are

73-85 Lewisham High Street 73-77 date to c.1890, constructed of red

Dutch gable roof typology with stone dressings and pedimented window

in a deteriorating condition and require repair and investment. The Site

The surrounding built form comprises an amalgamation of architectural styles and eras, with many of the buildings located further south along the

company Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society.

5.227

5.233

66 Lewisham High Street is located within the Site boundary and

building of this size and in this location where the surrounding vernacular is

comprises the Joiners Arms pub. There has been a pub on this site

style with a curved corner meeting Belmont Hill.

predominantly brick, gives this property positive townscape qualities.

since 1881. It is constructed of red brick with a Dutch gable and has a

85-87 Lewisham High Street Is located approximately 30m to the

traditional curved timber panelled pub frontage. It derives significance as

immediate east of the Site. Built in 1901, it comprises a generous corner

contributing to the historic streetscape within an area that predominantly

dating to the 1920s, constructed of red brick. It derives historic and

block and is a building of three storeys plus attic, constructed in red brick

comprises modern shopfronts.

architectural interest as a good quality Art Deco inspired building which

with limestone detailing. It derives historic and architectural interest as an early 20th century Neo-Classical building.

5.228

comprises a three-storey building with shop at the ground floor. It is the former Burton’s menswear shop with the typical Burton frontage of the

corner building constructed of yellow stock brick. It faces onto Lewisham

1930s by Harry Wilson, combining Neo-Classical references and Art Deco

High Street and the market. Sharing the same address is the adjacent

motifs. The façade has six central columns, with classical motifs above,

property, a four storey stone temple style building with giant order of

constructed of cream ceramic tiles.

windows are still in situ and are an essential element of this design. This

5.229

vertical emphasis that harmoniously links the neighbouring buildings. The receptors derive historic and architectural interest as attractive late 19th/early 20th century buildings that play a role in one’s understanding of

The receptors derive historic and architectural interest as attractive late the historic development of Lewisham.

5.230

Heritage Value: Low

180-190 Lewisham High Street comprises four storey commercial building

positively contributes to the immediate townscape. 5.235

Heritage Value: Low

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE 5.236

The buildings have a prominent location at the southern end of Lewisham High Street. This historical location contributes to an understanding of their original retail and commercial functions.

19th/early 20th century buildings that play a role in one’s understanding of

building is both attractive in its own right but also provides a necessary

5.234

99-100 Lewisham High Street is located within the Site boundary and

93-95 Lewisham High Street comprises an attractive three storey curved

fluted ionic columns over the upper three storeys. The original black metal

5.223

Heritage Value: Low

low relief plaques depicting a steam train, lorry and steam ships with the

as a good example of a 1930s purpose-built department store for local

5.222

The buildings have a prominent location at the northern end of Lewisham

High Street, a number of which are highly visible in their corner plot

The design by Samuel Ackroyd derives historic and architectural interest

5.221

5.231

Deco building constructed of red brick with carved stone details including

‘Tower House’ in 1932-33 for the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society.

5.220

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE

the historic development of Lewisham. They also group value with 85 – 87 Lewisham High Street.

5.237

The surrounding built form comprises an amalgamation of architectural styles and eras, with many of the buildings located further south along the High Street dating to the 20th century or later. Many of the buildings are in a deteriorating condition and require repair and investment. The Site forms part of the development along the High Street, but shares no historic or functional relationship with the receptors.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

BASELINE: built heritage

BUILDINGS OF TOWNSCAPE MERIT AND AREA OF SPECIAL LOCAL CHARACTER 5.238

5.244

buildings of townscape merit. It comprises the former Woolworth building, which retains its vertical fins and Art Deco appearance.

identified as having some heritage value by Montagu Evans during the pre-application process.

5.245

5.246

the ramps, entrance buildings and Lewisham House have no historic

contributes to an understanding of their original retail and commercial functions. 5.247

20th century or later. Many of the buildings are in a deteriorating condition

The buildings of townscape merit within or near the Site are:

and require repair and investment. The Site forms part of the development

LEWISHAM HIGH STREET: WESTERN ELEVATION

along the High Street, but shares no historic or functional relationship with

• 198-206 Lewisham High Street

the receptors.

• 156-160 Lewisham High Street

LEWISHAM HIGH STREET: EASTERN ELEVATION

• 122-126 Lewisham High Street • 86-88 Lewisham High Street

• 157-173 Lewisham High Street 5.248

the three-storey terrace a varied appearance. No. 155 is a tall building of

• 50-64 Lewisham High Street

similar age in red brick with strongly articulated bay windows across the

The buildings in this group comprise commercial properties, including be found on many high streets in southeast London. Nos. 118-116 has a

entire height of the building. 5.249

A number of mid-20th century buildings constructed following the

5.250

contributes to an understanding of their original retail and commercial

phase of Lewisham’s post-war regeneration and show various Festival of

functions.

Britain inspired design features, such as the Marks & Spencer façade (no. brick and white render. 5.243

The buildings are integrated into the eastern elevation of Lewisham High Street at a central location in Lewisham town centre. This location

destructions of World War II are of some interest. They date from the early

126-122). Nos. 86-88 is a post-war building with setback roof storey, red

Heritage Value: Very Low

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE

Victorian brick elevation with white banding and large dormers. 5.242

Nos. 157-173 is comprised of a six late 19th or early 20th century properties with flats above shops. Gables, chimney and dormers give

• 68-70 Lewisham High Street

Victorian buildings (nos. 206-198 and nos. 70-68 and 64-50), that can

The surrounding built form comprises an amalgamation of architectural styles and eras, including those of the shopping centre dating to the late

significance.

• 116-118 Lewisham High Street

The buildings are integrated into the western elevation of Lewisham High Street at a central location in Lewisham town centre. This location

During consultations with officers during the pre-application process, the was discussed. It was agreed that the shopping centre buildings, including

Heritage Value: Very Low

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE

historic and architectural significance of the post-World War II buildings

5.241

In our professional opinion, No 142-148 should be added to the list of

through most of the Borough linking several centres.” This study identifies around the Site (Figure: 5.3), which have been complemented by buildings

5.240

relationship with the receptors.

arterial road in Lewisham - an historic north to south ‘spine’ that runs buildings of townscape merit along Lewisham High Street within and

5.239

development along the High Street, but shares no historic or functional

the building is unknown and has not been exposed, nor appreciated for several decades. .

LBL published the A21 Development Framework Baseline Study in 2022 which sets out development opportunities along the A21, “the central

screens a curved Art Deco corner; the quality or state of deterioration of

5.251

The surrounding built form comprises an amalgamation of architectural styles and eras, but primarily the adjoining grade II listed church and presbytery. The buildings face the western elevation of the high street and the shopping centre. Many of the buildings are in a deteriorating condition and require repair and investment. The Site forms part of this additional

BASELINE: built heritage

SECTION SUMMARY 5.252

Table 5.1 below presents a summary of the built heritage baseline. Table 5.3

Summary of Built Heritage Baseline

MAP REF.

NAME

GRADE (IF APPLICABLE)

HERITAGE VALUE

FULL ASSESSMENT REQUIRED?

Designated Heritage Receptors

Lewisham Bridge Primary School

High

Yes

World Heritage Site

The Priory

High

Yes – as part of Belmont CA

Rileys (Former Temperance Billiard Hall)

High

Yes

United Reformed Church Sunday School

High

Yes

MAP REF.

NAME

Maritime Greenwich

GRADE (IF APPLICABLE)

WHS

HERITAGE VALUE

Very High

FULL ASSESSMENT REQUIRED?

Yes

Listed Buildings 1

Boone’s Chapel

Very High

Yes

91 and 91a Belmont Hill

High

Yes – as part of Blackheath CA

Ranger House

Very High

Yes

Medium

Yes – as part of St Mary’s CA

St Mary’s Vicarage

II*

Very High

Yes – as part of St Mary’s CA

Garden Walls to South and West of St Mary’s Vicarage, Police Station and Coroner’s Court

Church of St Mary the Virgin

II*

Very High

Yes – as part of St Mary’s CA

340 Lewisham High Street

High

Yes – as part of St Mary’s CA

The Fludyer Tomb, Lee Old Churchyard

II*

Very High

Yes- as part of Belmont CA

Old Swimming Baths

High

Yes – as part of St Mary’s CA

Monument of Sir John Call Bart Lee Old Churchyard

II*

Very High

Yes – as part of Belmont CA

The Sacred Heart Convent

High

Yes – as part of Blackheath CA

Medium

Yes – as part of St Mary’s CA

Church of St Margaret

II*

Very High

Yes – as part of Belmont CA

Walls surrounding Churchyard of St Mary’s Church

The Pagoda

II*

Very High

Yes – as part of Blackheath CA

Ladywell Station

High

Yes – as part of Ladywell CA

Church of the Ascension

II*

Very High

Yes- as part of Blackheath CA

Old Tower of Former Church of St Margaret

High

Yes – as part of Blackheath CA

Hillyfields Sixth Form Centre

II*

Very High

Yes – as part of Brockley CA

School Treatment Centre

High

Yes – as part of St Mary’s CA

Perceval House and Spencer House

II*

Very High

Yes – as part of Blackheath

Lewisham Public Library

High

Yes – as part of St Mary’s CA

22 Dartmouth Row

II*

Very High

Yes – as part of Blackheath

1-6 Aberdeen Terrace

High

Yes – as part of Blackheath CA

The Manor House

II*

Very High

Yes – as part of Greenwich WHS

11, 14-18 Somerset Gardens

High

Yes – as part of Somerset Gardens CA

Roman Catholic Church of Our Ladye Star of The II* Sea including its Forecourt Wall and Gate Piers

Very High

Yes – as part of Greenwich WHS

The Presbytery

II*

Very High

Yes – as part of Greenwich WHS

The Clock Tower

High

Yes

Church of St Saviour

High

Yes

Presbytery Adjoining Church of St Saviour

High

Yes

Former Prudential Building

High

Yes

Church of St Stephen and St Stephen’s Church War Memorial

High

Yes

10-18 Belmont Hill

High

Yes – as part of Belmont CA

Conservation Areas C

St Stephen’s Conservation Area

N/A

High

Yes

Belmont Conservation Area

N/A

High

Yes

Mercia Grove Conservation Area

N/A

Medium

Yes

Ladywell Conservation Area

N/A

High

Yes

Blackheath Conservation Area

N/A

Very High

Yes

St Mary’s Conservation Area

N/A

High

Yes

Lewisham Park Conservation Area

N/A

High

Yes

Somerset Gardens Conservation Area

N/A

High

Yes

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

BASELINE: built heritage

MAP REF.

NAME

GRADE (IF APPLICABLE)

HERITAGE VALUE

FULL ASSESSMENT REQUIRED?

Brockley Conservation Area

N/A

High

Yes

St John’s Conservation Area

N/A

High

Brookmill Conservation Area

N/A

High

Yes

Greenwich Park Conservation Area

N/A

Very High

Yes

Blackheath Conservation Area

N/A

Very High

Yes

Scheduled Monument 51

West Grove, Conduit House, Blackheath

N/A

High

Yes – as part of A

Anglo-Saxon Cemetery in Greenwich Park

N/A

High

Yes – as part of A

Very High

Yes – as part of A

Registered Park and Garden 53

Greenwich Park

Non-Designated Heritage Receptors Locally listed buildings 45

65-71 and 73-85 Lewisham High Street

N/A

Low

Yes

66 Lewisham High Street

N/A

Low

Yes

85-95 Lewisham High Street

N/A

Low

Yes

99-104 Lewisham High Street

N/A

Low

Yes

143-149 Lewisham High Street

N/A

Low

Yes

180-190 Lewisham High Street

N/A

Low

Yes

Buildings of townscape merit N/A

Grouping: Lewisham High Street: western elevation

N/A

Very Low

Yes

N/A

Grouping: Lewisham High Street: eastern elevation

N/A

Very Low

Yes

6.0 BASELINE: TOWNSCAPE Lewisham Shopping Centre, Lewisham

BASELINE: TOWNSCAPE

6.0

BASELINE: TOWNSCAPE

6.1

This section provides analysis of the townscape study area and the identified character areas.

TOWNSCAPE CHARACTER AREAS 6.2

The townscape surrounding the Site may be categorised into five distinct areas. For the purposes of this assessment the character areas are referred to as: 1. TCA1: Lewisham Town Centre 2. TCA2: Residential Zone 3. TCA3: Deptford 4. TCA4: Greenwich Park (a) and Blackheath (b) 5. TCA5: Parks and open green space

6.3

The broad boundaries of the character areas are identified in Figure 6.1. The character and appearance of the character areas is discussed below.

TOWNSCAPE CHARACTER AREA PLAN Application Site

❶

TCA1: Lewisham town centre

❷

TCA2: Residential Zone

❸

TCA3: Deptford

❹

TCA4: Greenwich Park (a) and Blackheath (b)

❺

TCA5: Parks and open green space

3 4b 5f

2a 2c 1

5b 5e

1.5 km

Contains Contains OS OS data data © © Crown Crown copyright copyright and and database database right right 2024 2024

MONTAGU EVANS

LOCATION:

Lewisham Shopping Centre

DATE:

October 2024

SCALE:

1:15,000 @ A3

Figure FIGURE:6.1 Townscape Character Area Plan

▲ NORTH

CHARTERED SURVEYORS 70 ST MARY AXE, LONDON, EC3A 8BE T: +44 (0)20 7493 4002 WWW.MONTAGU-EVANS.CO.UK

BASELINE: TOWNSCAPE

TCA1: LEWISHAM TOWN CENTRE 6.4

6.9

including the Lewisham Clock Tower, St Saviour’s Church and the former

Townscape Character Area 1 comprises the structures of the Lewisham

Prudential Building which are all grade II listed. There are locally listed

Shopping Centre and the adjoining buildings and the developments on

buildings and buildings of townscape interest, particularly the commercial

Lewisham High Street to the north and Lee High Road to the south. It has

buildings dating from the post-war era. All heritage receptors are

a strong retail/mixed-use character. The Site falls within TCA1. Lewisham

discussed in detail in Section 5.0.

Shopping Centre forms the geographical and functional heart of the town centre and the Borough. 6.5

6.10

the extensive bomb damage the area underwent during WW2. Many

includes the multi-storey car park building. Built in the 1970s, the brutalist

are in a deteriorating condition and many poor-quality shopfronts are a

buildings, combining concrete and red brick, are integrated into the

detracting feature of the TCA.

buildings of the High Street. Lewisham House, a 20-storey office building is of no architectural value and forms a utilitarian, block with TCA1. 6.6

A defining characteristic of the Character Area is the major arterial infrastructure network through the centre of the area. Lewisham High Street (A21) and Rushey Green further south, Lee High Road and Loampit

The shops along the High Street are a mix of Edwardian and Victorian properties and later 20th century commercial premises, built following

Lewisham Shopping Centre covers an area of approximately 7.64 ha and

formerly occupied by Citibank, forms part of the Site. The shopping centre

TCA1 comprises several designated and non-designated heritage assets,

6.11

As such, the value identified for this TCA is low.

6.12

Associated viewpoint: 1, 2, 9, 10, 28, 29, 30 33, 34

6.13

Townscape value: Low Figure 6.2

Lewisham High Street looking south. Source: Montagu Evans.

Figure 6.3

Lewisham House. Source: Montagu Evans.

Hill (A20), are the key thoroughfares from the Central London to the south and out of London. Rennell Street forms part of the gyratory that leads motor traffic through the town centre. Molesworth Street in its current form provides access to the shopping centre car park and service deck. It is also, as is Lewisham High Street, heavily used by local buses, separating the TCA from the River Ravensbourne to the west. Overall, there is little public open green space or soft landscaping, and a user would be aware of the heavily urbanised and commercial character of TCA1. 6.7

The town centre predominantly comprises retail/commercial uses, with residential above. To the south on the High Street are the Church of St Saviour and Lewisham Library, to the north Lewisham Police Station and St Stephen’s Church.

6.8

The High Street leads south from the Shopping Centre where there is a mix of architectural styles of some older buildings with modern infill developments. The built form on the high street generally exceeds two storeys. The height of development increases to the north, with buildings of up to 35 storeys at Lewisham Gateway and Conington Road next to Lewisham Station.

BASELINE: TOWNSCAPE

TCA2: RESIDENTIAL ZONE 6.14

Townscape Character Area 2 largely envelopes the Site and has been identified based on its residential use. Within the TCA, three subareas can be identified: f. Blackheath g. West Greenwich and Ashburnham Triangle h. Brockley and Ladywell

6.15

The built form within TCA2 is made up of various residential typologies, including terraces, inter-war semi-detached houses, post war housing blocks and recent flatted developments. The terraces have generally two storeys and are built from stock brick, some feature finer brick or stucco detailing. Some of the terraces have bay windows and all have pitched roofs. The housing blocks are generally built in brick and the recent developments show various construction methods, rendered surfaces and different cladding systems.

Figure 6.4

Lewisham town centre. Source: Montagu Evans.

Figure 6.6

Lewisham Clock Tower. Source: Montagu Evans.

6.16

The residential zones are relatively contained through the orientation of streets and the regularity of development, and there is limited intervisibility with the existing Site. Ample planting, both in terms of street trees and front and rear gardens, create a lavish, verdant atmosphere.

6.17

The character area includes places of worship, education hubs, doctor’s surgeries, small areas of green space and small commercial units, all of which contribute to the amenity of the wider residential area.

6.18

Subarea a) overlaps with the boundaries of the Blackheath Conservation Area. The character of this area is predominantly residential, but the development is less dense than the terraced streets in nearby character areas. The subarea comprises substantial detached and semi-detached properties, dating from the early to late 19th century. There are several listed buildings within this subarea, and it also falls within the Buffer Zone of the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site. There are views to Greenwich Park and across Blackheath which, combined with the lower density of the area, create an open and attractive character.

Figure 6.5

Tall building development around Lewisham Station. Source: Montagu Evans.

Figure 6.7

Further south along Lewisham High Street, towards Ladywell. Source: Montagu Evans.

6.19

Subarea b) comprises the residential elements of the West Greenwich Conservation Area and the Ashburn Bridge Conservation Area to the north of the study area. It consists of the predominantly residential area between Greenwich High Road, Greenwich Street, and Blackheath Road. The residential development comprises 2-3 storey Victorian terraces

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

BASELINE: TOWNSCAPE

which are arranged on a regular street pattern, which allows for large rear gardens. The area incorporates some later infill development, but the historic character of the area is intact. At the southwest tip of the character area there is mix of civic and commercial buildings, including a hotel which is a taller element. At the northern edge is Queen Elizabeth College. 6.20

The St John Conservation Area, Brockley Conservation Area and Ladywell Conservation Area fall into subarea c). It comprises the area of residential northwest and southeast of Hilly Fields. Hilly Fields consists of grassed areas with trees. Paths run though the park, in particular near to the small school campus in the centre of the park. The topography of the landscape means that there are some long views from within the Character Area, especially from the open space. Tall buildings are visible from within subarea c).

6.21

The residential development in the character area consists primarily of a consistent and attractive historic townscape and semi-detached

Figure 6.8

nineteenth century properties. To the west and east are smaller terraces,

Residential areas to the immediate west of the town centre. Source: Montagu Evans.

dating from a similar date. 6.22

Associated viewpoint: 4, 5.1, 5.2, 6, 8, 15, 16, 18, 22, 23, 26, 27, 30, 31, 35,

6.23

Townscape value: Medium

Figure 6.10

Figure 6.9

Residential areas to the west of the town centre. Source: Montagu Evans.

Residential area in close proximity to Hilly Fields, with the tall buildings of Canary Wharf in the far distance. Source: Montagu Evans.

BASELINE: TOWNSCAPE

TCA3: DEPTFORD 6.24

TCA3: Deptford comprises the buildings along New Cross Road, Deptford Bridge and Blackheath Hill to the north of TCA1 and the Application Site. This route – the A2 – is a major throughfare from London to Dover. Deptford Bridge station is on the DLR line and provides access to Lewisham and central London.

6.25

TCA3 comprises the historic properties with a more urban character in the Ashburton Triangle Conservation Area along Greenwich Street and Blackheath Road Greenwich Station; some of the buildings further east on Blackheath Road fall into the West Greenwich Conservation Area. The TCA abuts the buffer zone of the MGWHS.

6.26

The A2 road corridor cuts through the surrounding residential areas which fall into TCA2, creating a distinctively different character with grand, early Victorian terraces and smaller late 19th and early 20th century properties with flats above shops addressing the wide road. The area at the road junction at Deptford Bridge station has the qualities of a small town centre

Figure 6.11

View north along Deptford High Street. Source: Montagu Evans.

with a broader range of uses, such as the Greenwich Magistrates Court and police station. TCA 3 also comprises several commercial and industrial estates located along the A2. 6.27

Associated viewpoint: n/a

6.28

Townscape value: Low

Figure 6.13

Figure 6.12

View looking towards Deptford Bridge Station. Source: Montagu Evans.

Deptford Bridge Station. Source: Montagu Evans.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

BASELINE: TOWNSCAPE

TCA4: GREENWICH PARK (A) AND BLACKHEATH COMMON (B) 6.29

TCA4 occupies the eastern part of the study area to the northeast of the Site; the Site is separated from it by interposing residential developments of TCA2. It comprises the Grade I Registered Park and Blackheath Common, one of the largest areas of common in Greater London, at an expanse of 211.5 acres. Greenwich Park is wholly covered by the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site designation, while Blackheath falls within the WHS buffer zone.

6.30

TCA4 consists of the planned landscape of Greenwich Park, including clusters of trees and open grassland originally laid out by André le Nôtre. There are several buildings within TCA4 which possess high historic and architectural interest

6.31

The topography of the area has an incline north towards Blackheath; in conjunction with the dense tree boundary views south are therefore limited. The heath offers an expanse of open grass land, border to the north by Greenwich Park and to the south by the buildings of Blackheath.

Figure 6.14

Royal Naval College, Greenwich WHS, looking north towards Canary Wharf. Source: Montagu Evans.

Figure 6.15

Royal Naval College, Greenwich WHS. Source: Montagu Evans.

The A2 runs across the heath. Historically the heath was used as pasture and quarried for gravel in the 18th century, which left a terrain of craters and ravines, but since the mid-19th century it has been used for public, recreational use. Key routes including Prince Charles Road and Tranquil Vale intersect the heath, yet the north part of this character area maintains an open feel. 6.32

Associated viewpoint: 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 36, 38, 39

6.33

Townscape Value: Very High

Figure 6.16

View from General Woolfe Statue, Greenwich WHS. Source: Montagu Evans.

BASELINE: TOWNSCAPE

TCA5: PARKS AND OPEN GREEN SPACE 6.34

TCA 5 comprises various areas of open green space, interspersed around the study area. All of the open spaces in the area are used as public amenity for leisure and recreational purposes.

6.35

Hilly Fields lies to the southwest of the Site, nearby is Brockley and Ladywell Cemetery and the northern boundary of Ladywell Fields. Prendergast School, which predates the establishment of Hilly Fields as a public part in the late 19th century, stands at the centre of the park.

6.36

Ladywell Fields is a green open space located alongside the trajectory of the Ravensbourne River which is designated as Metropolitan Open Land. The space contains recreational facilities including a café, playground, skate park, and tennis court. It is bordered by the railway line on its western boundary and the Ravensbourne River on its east.

6.37

To the south of the Site is Lewisham Park, formed of areas of open lawns with mature trees, shrubs and flower arrangements. In the middle of the

Figure 6.17

Hillyfields Park. Source: Montagu Evans.

park there is a large sunken garden surrounded by plane trees. The park contains pathways and a playground area close to the north-eastern boundary. 6.38

Lewisham Park was originally set out as a garden and it retains the feeling of a suburban open green space, providing relief in an otherwise densely urban town centre location. On the far eastern boundary of the park yet set back from the high street and well within the garden/park setting, are three residential tower blocks of 18 storeys. These blocks form the Lewisham Park Towers, built in 1965. Their presence has eroded the green parkland setting of the TCA, introducing an urban building form into an otherwise natural setting. One becomes aware of the proximity of the TCA to the town centre and their presence reduces the TCA’s susceptibility to further peripheral development.

6.39

There are a number of other green spaces forming TCA 5, including Mountsfield Park, Lewisham Park, Manor House Gardens and Brookmill Park; all of which provide important amenity areas within a densely urban environment.

6.40

Associated viewpoints: 3, 4, 7, 25, 32, 37

6.41

Townscape value: Medium

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

BASELINE: TOWNSCAPE

TOWNSCAPE SUMMARY 6.42

Table 6.1 presents a summary of the townscape receptor baseline information.

REF.

TOWNSCAPE CHARACTER AREA

TOWNSCAPE VALUE

FULL ASSESSMENT REQUIRED?

Lewisham town centre

Low

Yes

High

None

Very Low

Yes

Residential zone

Medium

Yes

Deptford

Low

Greenwich Park and Blackheath Common

Very High

Yes

Parks and open green space

Medium

Yes

Table 6.1

Summary of Townscape Receptor Baseline.

7.0 BASELINE: VISUAL

Lewisham Shopping Centre, Lewisham

7.0

BASELINE: VISUAL

BASELINE: VISUAL EXTENT OF VISIBILITY

7.1

A ZTV has been produced to outline the potential areas where the Proposed Development may be visible, up to a 2 km distance from the Site. The ZTV has been produced using topographically referenced three-dimensional models from VuCIty software. It is a tool for a high-level understanding of the extent of visibility, which was further interrogated through review of individual viewpoints using field surveys and digital software.

VISUAL RECEPTORS 7.2

The text below sets out the different groups of people who may experience views of the development, the places where they will be affected and the nature of the views and visual amenity at those points.

7.3

The location of viewpoints is provided at Figure 7.1.

VIEW 14: ISLAND GARDENS

VIEW 38: GREENWICH PARK

VIEW LOCATION PLAN Application Site

13 38

Lewisham DLR station

Albion Way

Hilly Fields

Blythe Hill Fields

5.1.

Vicars Hill at Shell Road

5.2. Ellerdale Street 11

12 36

VIEW 39: ST JOHN’S PARK

20 19

26 28

5.1

5.2

VIEW 37: GREENWICH LOCAL VIEW 5

3 23

6 4

8 17

VIEW A: HONOR OAK ROAD/HONOR OAK PARK

750 m

VIEW 32: KING JOHN’S WALK/ELTHAM PALACE

Ladywell Station Bridge

Mountsfield Park

Courthill Road

St Stephen's (Cressingham Road)

10.

Lewisham High Street

11.

Hyde Vale (Blackheath)

12.

Shooters Hill/General Woolfe Road

13.

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park

14.

Island Gardens

15.

Belmont Hill/Cedars Grove

16.

Belmont Hill

17.

St Mary the Virgin

18.

Chudleigh Road

19.

All Saints' Church

20.

Goffers Road

21.

Telegraph Hill

22.

Loampit Hill

23.

Lee High Road

24.

Honor Oak Road/Honor Oak Park

25.

Lewisham Park

26.

Sunninghill Roads/Lewisham Way

27.

Halesworth Road

28.

Silk Mills Path

29.

Lewisham Clock Tower

30.

Mercia Grove

31.

Marischal Road

32.

Greenwich Local View 10: King John’s Walk/Eltham Palace

33.

Outside Prendergast Vale School

34.

Waterway Avenue (Waterlink Way)

35.

Ryecroft Road

36.

Millennium Circle

37.

Greenwich Local View 5: Eltham Park (North) to Central London

38.

Greenwich Park

39.

Blackheath CA St John’s Park, the road to the north of St John’s Church before the junction with Stratheden Road.

32 7

1.5 km

Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2024 Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2024

MONTAGU EVANS

LOCATION:

Lewisham Shopping Centre

DATE:

October 2024

SCALE:

1:15,000 @ A3

Figure FIGURE:7.1 View Location Plan Montagu Evans.

▲ NORTH

CHARTERED SURVEYORS 70 ST MARY AXE, LONDON, EC3A 8BE T: +44 (0)20 7493 4002 WWW.MONTAGU-EVANS.CO.UK

BASELINE: VISUAL

LOCAL RESIDENTS TO THE WEST OF THE TOWN CENTRE (SE13) 7.4

Local residents to the west of the town centre are predominantly based in late 19th century and early 20th century terraces and inter-war

Vale School. 7.6

The junctions with Shell Road and Algernon Road are key nodes, allowing

7.13

Visual amenity value: High

7.14

Related views: 11, 12, 19, 20, 36, 38, 39

LOCAL RESIDENTS TO THE NORTH OF THE TOWN CENTRE (BELMONT) 7.15

Lewisham town centre. The western section is oriented directly towards

Residents in properties along these roads have a visual relationship with

the Site and the existing shopping centre. From here, Lewisham House and

the town centre and experience its changing nature. The experience of

other tall building developments are visible. Catherham Road and Boyne

these receptors is captured in views 5.1, 5.2 and 27. Overall, the receptors

Road are also pointing westwards towards the towns centre.

approaching their homes, given its proximity and the presence of tall

7.16

7.9

Visual amenity value: Low

7.10

Related views: 4, 5.1, 5.2, 18, 22, 24, 26, 27

LOCAL RESIDENTS TO THE NORTH OF THE TOWN CENTRE (BLACKHEATH) 7.11

7.12

set out in the development plan.

is unlikely to impact this, as the foliage of trees, branches and other flora are seen from a distance and only screen the lower parts of the surrounding development. 7.22

The tall buildings of Canary Wharf, visible across the river, those at Lewisham town centre and at Kidbrooke, provide orientation points and attractive feature on the horizon. Receptors experience the changing skyline of London.

7.23

Visual amenity value: High

7.24

Related views: 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 36, 38

AMENITY USERS OF HILLY FIELDS AND OTHER PARKS 7.25

Located to the west of the town centre, Hilly Fields is a large open space, primarily used by local residents. They use the park for walking, dog walking, exercise, children play and for slower, contemplative activities.

7.26

Focusing on their leisure activities, receptors in the park are less likely to

Visual amenity value: Medium

7.18

Related views: 15, 16 and 31

surrounding it. Hill Fields comprises various lawns, demarcated by paths

AMENITY USERS OF BLACKHEATH AND GREENWICH PARK

and surrounded by mature trees which create a sense of enclosure.

7.19

be aware of townscape character or change to the urban development

Seasonal variation is unlikely to impact this, as the foliage of trees,

Blackheath and Greenwich Park are a major tourist attraction, straddling

branches and other flora are seen from a distance and only screen

the borough boundaries with the Royal Borough of Greenwich. This receptor group consists of pedestrians, choosing the area for extensive

railway line from Lewisham to Rochester, running to the south, separates

walking, enjoying the open expanse of the heath, the views of London’s

these receptors from the next group built. Local residents in this group

skyline and the rich architectural heritage of the area, comprising various

occupy large houses built before World War I, set in large gardens, and

highly listed historic buildings. It also comprises those who come to

mid-20th century flatted development along Lewisham Hill. Due to the

Blackheath and Greenwich Park for other leisure activities including

curved road layout, the railway cuttings and thick vegetation, the area has

dog-walking and exercise. 7.20

Blackheath is a large expanse of open space, framed by the existing tree

Overall, the receptors in this group are likely to have a high awareness of

canopy. It contains planned routes for pedestrians as well as a number of

the town centre when approaching their homes, given the proximity of all

built-up pockets with high quality historic buildings, and features such as

the facilities nearby. However, the experience of the town centre is largely

Millennium Circle and Mounts Pond which provide focal points within the

borders surrounding the open expanse of Blackheath. Seasonal variation

7.17

This receptor group consists of the residents of Blackheath. The North Kent

an inward looking, secluded quality, that sets it apart from the town centre.

urban development surrounding it, which is emphasised by the vegetated

the facilities nearby. Receptors would be aware of the ongoing change as

Residents would be aware of the ongoing change as set out in the development plan.

Overall, the receptors in this group are likely to have a high awareness of the town centre when approaching their homes, given the proximity of all

development nearby. 7.8

Located to the south of Blackheath, separated from it by the North Kent

As the spaces are used for leisure, receptors who are using this space are less likely to be aware of townscape character or change to the

and adjacent roads. Belmont Hill leads in a sweeping curve down towards

Lewisham Exchange and Lewisham House appear in these views.

in this group are likely to have a high awareness of the town centre when

7.21

railway line, receptors in this group live in the properties on Belmont Hill

views eastwards. Existing tall buildings, such as Lewisham Gateway,

7.7

intimate, enclosed character and views are inward looking.

the development plan.

Ellerdale Street, Brookbank Road, Overcliff Road, Sandrock Road and Halesworth Street are oriented directly towards Lewisham town centre.

Here, receptors transition from the verdant character of Blackheath

Lewisham. Residents would be aware of the ongoing change as set out in

The Site is separated from these residents by the visual and physical around the recent developments at Loampit Vale and the Prendergast

is surrounded by a brick wall and has more tree coverage. It has a more

superstore at Conington Road, seen against the tall building skyline of

oriented roads raising up to the leafy streets of Brockley.

barrier of the railway line and the Ravensbourne River which meanders

park and encourages users to stop at these positions. Greenwich Park

Road and Granville Park immediately to the north of the railway bridge. into the highly urbanised town centre. Receptors experience the large

semi-detached houses set along a grid of north-south and east-west

7.5

limited to the arrival point at the interface of Lewisham Hill, Lewisham

visibility from the park. However, there are locations from where receptors can see across the lower lying residential areas towards Lewisham town centre and the tall building developments nearby. 7.27

Hilly Fields is experienced in the context of Lewisham town centre nearby; users will be aware of the ambitions for the town centre as set out in the development plan. The experience for users is therefore of being in a verdant space within a highly urban setting.

7.28

Visual amenity value: Medium

7.29

Related views: 3, 4, 7, 14, 21, 25, 32, 37

BASELINE: VISUAL

7.30

USERS OF THE TOWN CENTRE FACILITIES

7.38

Visual amenity value: Low

The town centre is the commercial heart of the Borough, offering a wide

7.39

Related views: 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 17, 23, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35

people using the retail offer within the shopping centre, along Lewisham

7.40

photography for each view is provided at Appendix 1. 7.41

at Table 7.1.

receptors move.

7.42

by representative views – this report assessed the strategic views

verdant space within a highly urban setting.

designated in the LVMF and the development plan. It was agreed with the

Visual amenity value: Low

7.34

Related views: 1, 2, 9, 10, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34

COMMUTERS AND USERS OF THE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE TOWN CENTRE

competent authority that none of the LVMF viewing corridors would be affected by the Proposed Development. 7.43

Statue. This view takes in the formal, axial arrangement from the park to the Queen's House, the Royal College and the river towards Canary Wharf. As the Site is located behind this view location, it is not included in this

offered by Lewisham town centre. Lewisham is a key transport hub and an

report.

and numerous bus routes. The A20 runs through the town centre on the

7.44

The Site’s relationship with the LVMF viewpoint at Blackheath Point (6A.1) is similar. The view location is to the north of the Site, and the view is

way to Dover.

oriented away from the Proposed Development to the north and Central

The visual receptors using the transport infrastructure will experience a

London. For completeness, a non-verified view is provided at Appendix

mixed use townscape composed of various buildings typical for southeast

3.0. It shows that the Proposed Development would not be in this view.

London, including recent tall building development and commercial properties dating from the Victorian period to the late 20th century. Receptors will primarily be focused on their individual journeys. Aside from users, stopping to benefit from local facilities, the town centre is a transitional stretch of townscape which is not the primary destination for their journey. 7.37

The Site is located to the south of LVMF View 5A.1 from the General Wolfe

The receptors in this group are the users of the transport infrastructure interchange station for the Docklands Light Railway, National Rail services

7.36

In addition to the visual amenity experienced by people – informed

in the development plan. The experience for users is therefore of being in a

7.33

7.35

STATIC VIEWS

users will be aware of the visions for the town centre and the ambition to regrade Lewisham from a 'major' centre to a 'metropolitan' one as set out

The views are representative of the experience of visual receptors within an area. The rationale for the selection of each view is provided

Rennell Street. Tall buildings form part of the surrounding context in which

7.32

The Scoping Opinion and pre-application discussions with the LPA

ZTV and the two sets of data are overlaid at Figure 7.1. The baseline

individual activities. They will be aware of the condition of the buildings as well as the intense motor traffic at the junction of the High Street and

John’s Walk/Eltham Palace (View 32).

representative views has been informed by the preparation of the

Receptors will experience a mixed use townscape while focusing on their surrounding them and the dated and tired nature of the shopping centre,

(View 37) to Central London and Greenwich Local Plan View 10: King

identified 37 AVRs to support the assessment. The location of the

High Street and adjoining streets. 7.31

There are two other static views to be assessed within the visual impact assessment, including Greenwich Local Plan view 5:Eltham Park (North)

REPRESENTATIVE VIEWS

selection of shopping opportunities, including the daily market, a library and various cafés, bars and restaurants. The receptors in this group are

7.46

7.45

The site is located 2.6km from Island Gardens, located in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Island Gardens is identified as Townscape View 24 in the LVMF, looking towards the Royal Naval College. The view has been assessed as part of this report, which demonstrates that the proposed development sits below the tree line on the south side of the Thames.

Receptors will be concentrating on traffic and their destination and therefore would be less aware of the surrounding townscape.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

BASELINE: VISUAL

SUMMARY 7.47

Table 7.1 below provides an overview of the visual receptor considerations, including any additional considerations such as the proximity to key transport nodes.

REF

VISUAL RECEPTOR

REPRESENTATIVE VIEWS AND RATIONALE FOR SELECTION

VISUAL AMENITY VALUE

4, 5.1, 5.2, 18, 22, 24, 26, 27

Local residents to the west of the town centre (SE13)

Directly opposite, high intervisibility

Low

11, 12, 19, 20, 36, 38, 39

Local residents to the north of the town centre (Blackheath)

n/a

High

Representative Views

High quality townscape 15, 16 and 31

Local residents to the north of the town centre (Belmont Hill)

4, 10, 11, 19

Medium

High quality townscape, directly oriented towards the Site, high intervisibility 11, 12, 19, 20, 36, 38

Pedestrians and tourists (Blackheath and Greenwich Park)

11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 36

High

High value, WHS, high intervisibility 3, 4, 7, 21, 25, 32, 37

Users of Hilly Fields and other parks

Medium

Directly opposite, high intervisibility 1, 2, 9, 10, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34

Users of the town centre facilities

9, 10, 29

Low

Direct adjacency 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 17, 23, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35

Commuters and users of the transport infrastructure of the town centre

9, 10, 29

Low

Direct adjacency Static Views 14

LVMF Townscape View 24: Island Gardens, Isle of Dogs to Royal Naval College

This is a static view identified in the London View Management Framework (LVMF).

Very High

Greenwich Local Plan View 10: King John’s Walk/Eltham Palace

This is a static view identified in the Greenwich Development Plan.

Very High

Greenwich Local Plan View 5: Eltham Park (North) to Central London

This is a static view identified in the Greenwich Development Plan.

Very High

Table 7.1

Summary of Visual Receptor Baseline.

8.0 CONSULTATION AND MITIGATION BY DESIGN Lewisham Shopping Centre, Lewisham

CONSULTATION AND MITIGATION BY DESIGN

8.0

CONSULTATION AND MITIGATION BY DESIGN

8.1

A full consultation analysis is provided in the Planning Statement prepared

8.2

8.5

by Quod. Table 8.1 summarises the consultation comments received

by SEW. In summary, the original height distribution concept with taller

from stakeholders through the pre-application and the Scoping Opinion

buildings to the west, medium height buildings in the central part and lower

process in respect of the townscape, visual and built heritage assessment

buildings along Lewisham High Street has been maintained throughout

and the responses to demonstrate where the comments have been

the entire process. The tallest buildings are concentrated to the north

addressed within the assessment.

of the Site closest to the railway station and the Lewisham Gateway development. The overall heights were established in close collaboration

A comprehensive programme of pre-application discussions with the

with Officers.

Council and key stakeholders has been undertaken since 2021. The following key meetings have taken place:

8.6

was originally to be partially retained. As a result of these moves, the

place in September 2024;

proposed public park at the heart of the Site has become a cohesive and

• Focussed pre-application meetings with the Council’s Principal

generous piece of green landscape.

Conservation Officer to discuss heritage matters, including April 2022, August 2022 and April 2024; • One presentations to Historic England, dated January 2024; • Four presentations to the Council’s Design Review Panel (DRP) in October 2022, November 2023, July 2024 and August 2024. The above process, and engagement, highlighted areas of the Proposed Development that were perceived by stakeholders to be in conflict with the planning policy framework and relevant guidance that required further justification and/or revision. A number of significant revisions have been made to the Proposed Development as part of the iterative design process and it is considered that these positively respond to comments raised by stakeholders when considering the development plan as a whole. 8.4

Following a series of initial pre-application meetings with officers at the Council, iterations of the Proposed Development was presented to the Design Review Panel throughout the pre-application process.

A key change to the brief was the decision to include the existing Lewisham House into the design and to remove the service desk which

• A total of 67 pre-application meetings with LBL, with the last one taking

8.3

The design evolution process is set out in full detail in the DAS created

8.7

Following discussions with Officers, the number of existing buildings along the Lewisham High Street which are to be retained has increased.

CONSULTATION AND MITIGATION BY DESIGN

CONSULTEE AND FORM/DATE OF CONSULTATION SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

WHERE IN THIS VOLUME COMMENTS ARE ADDRESSED

Engagement with LBL Pre-App Design Masterplan 11th November 2021

Regarding heritage, the conservation officer pointed out that the heritage asset plan should take into account the following designations: Clock Tower on Lewisham High Street – Grade II listed 73 – 83 Lewisham High Street – locally listed

This has been incorporated into the High Street designation plan produced by Montagu Evans and has been incorporated into the heritage baseline section of this report.

85 & 87 Lewisham High Street – locally listed The draft A21 Development Framework identifies a potential Area of Special Local Character / Conservation Area focused around the Clock Tower. LBL Site Walkaround 12th January 2022

Discrepancy as to the assessment of which buildings are of heritage/townscape value. Request to submit a revised annotated plan identifying buildings of heritage value on Site.

This was produced as part of a separate historic fabric study that was submitted to LBL in 2022 and in June 2024, the conclusions of which have been incorporated into the heritage baseline at Section 5.0 of this report.

Pre-App 03 31st January 2022

The adopted policy position supports the principle of tall buildings within Lewisham Town Centre and for the Lewisham Shopping Centre.

The heights of the proposed buildings were amended accordingly.

Set out key tall building principles, i.e. location of a cluster of tallest buildings around Lewisham Station, the southern end of the site should operate as a transitional zone with more moderately scaled development.

Local and strategic views have been assessed as part of the visual impact assessment. It was concluded that there were no significant adverse effects on any local or strategic views.

Design of tall buildings should respond positively to the site’s position in the wider site allocation area, and to the scale and function of the High Street.

In this context Officers support the principle of tall buildings on the LewishamShopping Centre site but only where it can be demonstrated that their location Regarding concerns of the impact of the Proposed Development on the setting of heritage assets, no adverse impact was found, as anddesign meet the relevant policies, contributes positively to Lewisham Town Centreand achieves good urban design outcomes. summarised in the Table at section . Officers are concerned that the current proposal shows approximately 16/17 buildings over 15 storeys and that the tower typology is the dominant form for the site. Recognised that the heritage context of Lewisham needs to inform the massing strategy and consideration of townscape impacts rather than the proposed building heights being a given. Officers have significant concerns regarding the impact of the height and massing and number of tall buildings proposed on both local and strategic viewsand on the setting of a number of heritage assets. The current proliferation of tall buildings coalesces to form a significant wall of development which causes significant harm and it is considered that the proposal fails to relevant policies andguidance. Pre-App 04: Townscape dated 22nd March 2022

The conservation officer referred to views of the site from Blackheath and made reference to the inclusion of a view from where General Wolfe Road and Shooters Hill Road met. A number of other viewpoints were discussed, including views from the NW of the scheme, a view from Ladywell Station. ME to liaise with the conservation officer to update and agree a viewpoint list. Discussion around which buildings on the High Street would be retained, views from the High Street into the scheme would help determine this.

The views assessed as part of this ES BHTVIA have been formally agreed with the LBL through the scoping process. This includes View 11 from Hyde ale (Blackheath) and View 12 (Shooters Hill/General Woolfe Road). The impact of the Proposed Development on these views has been included in the visual impact assessment at Section 11.0 of this report.

The relationship of buildings on the site with the general scale of buildings on the east side of the High Street, in particular with listed buildings in the vicinity (e.g. southern end), and the transition in height needs further consideration. In regard to massing, officers commented that the clustered approach to the scheme’s massing was the best approach, however were uncomfortable with the overall height of the scheme. If the building heights were reduced, officers would be supportive. March 2022- June 2022 Email correspondence with LBL Lewisham to agree viewpoint locations.

Refinement of views selection, with clarity on the locations of views 11, 14, 15, 25 and 28. Requested the following additional views to be included as part of the assessment: Blythe Hill Fields which is a protected view in the Development Management Local Plan (Site Ref LV2) and the Draft Local Plan. Junction of Hither Green Lane and Ryecroft Road.

Officers comments on the location of views and wireline/render split were incorporated into the selection of views which have been used to assess the visual impact of the scheme.

Agreement of location and selection of all other views. Officers agreed with the proposed wireline/render split.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

CONSULTATION AND MITIGATION BY DESIGN

CONSULTEE AND FORM/DATE OF CONSULTATION SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

WHERE IN THIS VOLUME COMMENTS ARE ADDRESSED

Pre-App 06: High Street Heritage dated 20th April 2022

A comprehensive fabric study has been undertaken in order to identify the degree of heritage and townscape value each building along Lewisham High Street has. This also included an annotated map of those buildings which are statutorily listed, locally listed and identified as buildings of townscape merit. This was discussed and circulated to the conservation officer at a later stage in the preapplication process.

Focused on Lewisham Shopping Centre buildings fronting the High Street. Officers were critical of the methodology used to identify the architectural and historic value of buildings facing onto Lewisham High Street, The proposed loss of such a substantial number of buildings would significantly erode the sense of place and history that the High Street currently embodies. The extent of proposed demolition is not supported. The retention of the following buildings: Woolworths, M&S (no.112-126) is supported.

This fabric study has been incorporated as part of the heritage baseline at Section 4.0 of this report. Pre-App 07 Design and Townscape dated 14th July 2022

Supportive of the rearrangement of the northern part of the site and interface with Rennell Street Supportive of the removal of Lewisham House Supportive of connection between central spine from the Gateway scheme Supportive of the layout of the northern part of the scheme

The design has evolved to remove some of the blocks, resulting in some reduction in quantum, including the reduction of c.140 residential units and a total reduction of c.10, 759 metres squared GEA.

Supportive of High Street composition of retention vs infill Supportive of wider entrance from the High Street into the central part of scheme Supportive of phase 1 on the northern part of the site Concerns over the intensity of buildings in the middle of the scheme Pre-App 08 Abridged Presentation dated 11th August 2022 And LBL Walking Tour dated 25th August 2022

Officers were supportive of the principle of the stepping in height from the Lewisham High Street frontage, to the mid-rise central zone and to the landmark towers to Molesworth Street. The design rationale for this approach respects the setting of the High Street and its heritage assets. Concerns over the additional height that has been added to Blocks N2 and W3. Concluded that whilst there is still further work needed to refine the massing and heights through a series of further townscape, design and heritage meetings, we consider that the scheme as now presented provides a positive starting point to progress through detailed pre-application discussions.

Pre-App 09 dated 16th September 2022 Concerns that the mid-scale buildings which lie along the central spine have an overly dominating impact on the High Street. The height and massing of these blocks limits the appreciation of the stepping up in height towards Molesworth Street as the towers are largely obscured behind these substantive linear blocks in this view. We have particular concerns with the impact of these blocks on the appreciation of the Woolworth’s building in this view. Strongly agree that any building that marks the north side of the entrance to the shopping centre opposite the Woolworth’s Building should be a strong architectural expression to define this key entrance to the retail heart and to the podium level. Mayor/Chief Executive feedback dated 18th October 2023

Height of the two tallest buildings proposed – needs clarification around the equipment in the roof voids which pushes the heights up. Reduce heights. Quality of materials important across the whole site.

Pre-App Workshop: Southern Masterplan 31st January 2024

Omission of the previously proposed new development at the southern end of the Site and retention of the existing no. 208 is welcomed as this has a better The proposals were amended accordingly. scale relationship with the listed Prudential building opposite. The retention of the historic buildings at the southern end of the Site is also welcomed. In particular the Victorian terrace of 5 plots at nos. 198-206 and the 2 storey building with gambrel roof at 196 represents an early phase of the development of the High Street and provide an appropriate setting for the listed buildings nearby.

CONSULTATION AND MITIGATION BY DESIGN

CONSULTEE AND FORM/DATE OF CONSULTATION SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

WHERE IN THIS VOLUME COMMENTS ARE ADDRESSED

Pre-App Workshop dated May 4th 2023 Officers stated that there were too many buildings, too much development. Were not supportive of scale of development across the Site. Officers would accept tall buildings but issue is with the number and the impact in long and short views. Officers saw this as a transitional site which had a relationship to the high street and lower density to the east to consider. Officers were supportive of the scheme but a reduction in scale across the scheme was needed. Pre-App Workshop 23rd April 2024

General height rationale was accepted; A series of design options were presented for Plot N4 with confirmation from officers that ‘parent block’ could go higher; Commented that Plot N2 was too tall and tallest part should come down to 13 storeys.

Pre-App 5th April 2024

Plan on page 8 doesn't show Joiners Arms as being a Locally Listed Building Page 14- views of previous iteration. 3 of these are particularly sensitive in Heritage terms and show need for further work on massing, height, footprint and front building line- from Lee High Road (3), Lewisham High Street north (4) and by the Clocktower 5 Principle- Buildings on the layer behind the high street should be set back far enough so they're not visually competing with or overwhelming the lower scale of the frontage. May need to be set back further than the rear building line of the frontage building to successfully achieve this. View 5- Mass of the lower block appears to project into the zone of the frontage in this view. Latest iteration shows the footprint set closer to the front building line and the visual impact in this view will no be substantially worse. Views 3,4, & 5- The flank elevations of the lower block will be visible as they rise above the roof space of the neighbouring buildings, both from the south and north. Needs careful detailing to give them visual interest. Adding greening would be beneficial. Latest iteration shows the height increased by 2 storeys plus the effect of the mono-pitched roof form- only exacerbate this No objection to mono-pitched roof form, but needs to be part of a scheme which is lowered in height and set back

Pre-App: Townscape Heritage and Retention dated 22nd April 2024

Updates incorporated to fabric study and associated maps, which were circulated back to the conservation officer for agreement;

Comments from the conservation officer on the heritage value map of buildings along Lewisham High Street; Conservation officer agreed that No.68 Lewisham High Street should not be a building of townscape merit; Confirmed which buildings along the High Street have townscape value; Requested inclusion of some designated and non-designated heritage assets onto this map, including the Grade II listed Clock Tower and the nondesignated mill building.

Incorporation of the historic into the heritage baseline section of this report.

Requested an ownership boundary map be overlaid to this map. Conservation officer requested further survey information to justify extent of retention/demolition; Key views of concern are: from the Clock Tower, from Lee Road looking west and one from St Stephens looking south, N4 where it meetings the High Street. Conservation officer expressed support re scale of buildings on Southern element of the Site. Pre-App 8th May 2024

Conservation officer commented that the new massing arrangement responds positively to the High Street and the adjacent buildings. Conservation officer noted that first floor active frontage onto the High Street will be important. Conservation officer would like to see further consideration of treatment of the southern elevation fronting the route through to the High Street.

Pre-App Heritage 10th May 2024

The Historic Fabric Study has been updated and the baseline section Officers note that it would be useful to include in this document some of the many historic photos that exist of the High Street buildings. The context of some in tis report has been updated to reflect the outcome of those discussions. of these has changed (e.g. Woolworth’s and M&S) and historic images will be useful in informing the proposals where their context will change again. Heritage and townscape value of designated and non-designated buildings along the High Street was agreed with conservation officers.

Fig 4 significance map - the street numbers aren’t legible when zoomed in which makes cross reference to Table 1 difficult – could this be improved please? There appears to be inconsistencies between this and Table 1 (e.g. value of Woolworth’s) Appendix 2 – Historic Maps – was not included in the pack - Officers require this to be provided

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

CONSULTATION AND MITIGATION BY DESIGN

CONSULTEE AND FORM/DATE OF CONSULTATION SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

WHERE IN THIS VOLUME COMMENTS ARE ADDRESSED

Engagement with the GLA GLA Pre-App dated 17th March 2022: Townscape

Massing: The central role of the retention and re-use approach to the overall design concept is supported. For example, the idea of utilising an existing vehicular ramp as a pedestrian route and park is interesting and welcome. Nevertheless, it is noted that this strategy will have significant implications in the positioning of the residential towers with rectilinear floorplates, as they could be closely related to structural ‘opportunities’.

The proposals were amended accordingly.

In addition, it should also be noted that views from beyond the site boundary and of the towers in particular (as they will have a wide ranging impact on the surroundings) should endeavour to complement the local historic townscape, respecting the recent social history, as well as the designated and nondesignated heritage assets. It is noted that proposals should avoid harm to the significance of nearby heritage assets. GLA Pre-app dated 10th October 2022

Views from beyond the site boundary should endeavour to complement the local historic townscape – respecting recent social history as well as statutory historic designations;

The proposals were amended accordingly.

Overall the proposed massing strategy has improved; The reduction in overall buildings heights is supported; The increase in massing from east to west appears logical, mitigating impact on historic buildings and the market and helping to integrate the scheme into the all important surroundings of Lewisham town centre; The reduction in scale north to south also appears logical, considering the relationship to the station and Lewisham Gateway to the north and the relationship with a low-rise context tothe south; It is noted that the proposed heights are still very significant and much more information is necessary to establish whether these could be acceptable (Policy D9, part C), particularly in terms of views and architectural quality; It is noted that heritage will be discussed in detail at a separate meeting GLA pre-app Feedback dated 22nd November 2023

•It is noted that the route into the site from the south as proposed now would be quite narrow, providing a contrast from other entrance points;

The proposals were amended accordingly.

•Significant consideration still needs to be given to the ease of access and the prominence/legibility of the access points from the West and South; The different squares and parks, apart from size, currently look quite similar in appearance.

GLA Pre-App 5th December 2023

The applicant is encouraged to share the VuCity model.

Mid-range views considered in visual assessment

The retained Lewisham House building sits awkwardly in the masterplan, this should be addressed as the design progresses, potentially exploring the form of the extension to ensure it relates better to the proposed neighbouring buildings.

Townscape and Visual impact assessments for relevant receptors are included within this report.

The tallest elements appear better distributed to reduce the appearance of the previous dense clusters, which is considered positive. But the proposed heights are very significant an more information remains needed to establish if these would be acceptable. The applicant should consider mid-range views to ascertain appropriate heights and variation in shoulder blocks, to ensure interesting streetscape, particularly around Molesworth Street. Where the proposals include taller buildings the planning application should be accompanied by a Townscape Visual Impact Assessment.

CONSULTATION AND MITIGATION BY DESIGN

CONSULTEE AND FORM/DATE OF CONSULTATION SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

WHERE IN THIS VOLUME COMMENTS ARE ADDRESSED

GLA Pre-App Feedback dated 29th September 2024

No action required

The proposal to retain more of the existing buildings in the south of the site reduces the built form on the site and retains some positive aspects of the High street’s existing scale and character; The proposed changes to the built form along Molesworth Street are also supported, with more visual and physical links created from east to west. However, as previously noted, the applicant should explore mid-range views to ascertain appropriate heights and variation in heights for the shoulder blocks, to ensure they provide interesting streetscapes and respond positively to their specific locations.

GLA’S Practice Note: Heritage Impact Assessment and the setting of heritage assets referenced as a Material Consideration in Section 3.0 of this BHTVIA.

The amendments to building N2 are positive, with a simpler form and greater gap between N2 and E1. Whilst the changes to plot N1 (previously N4) have improved its relationship with the extended Lewisham House building, further exploration of form (as well as materiality) of the emerging group of buildings is required to ensure that they form a coherent family. Elevations showing the relationship between the blocks should also be provided to demonstrate how the different buildings would read together, especially of N1 and N2, which are to be submitted in detail. Although the repetitive nature of the co-living accommodation in plot N1 is noted, the applicant should consider how opening sizes and proportions of solid to void can ensure adequate architectural quality and a positive visual impact, particularly for the High Street. No detailed information on the materiality of blocks N1 and N2 was presented, but the proposal to draw inspiration from the existing High Street context and the high-quality precedents shown are supported. Exploration of façade layering and additional detail supplementary to the primary grid of openings/solid is encouraged as the designs progress, particularly for plot N1. As previously noted, considerable attention will need to be paid to how the Design Code will ensure that the proposals develop into a unique scheme that evolves from its specific site and that reflects its wide range of uses for a diverse population. In any full application, the BHTVIA should pay due regard to the key principles of the GLA’S Practice Note: Heritage Impact Assessment and the setting of heritage assets. Engagement with Historic England Historic England Meeting 17 January 2024

No comments, accepts that many tall building proposals have been consented at Lewisham town centre without HE raising any objections or commenting on heritage impacts. Formal advice letter in due course.

No action required.

Historic England Consultation Response letter dated 28 February 2024

Spread of tall building development further south in Lewisham town centre could visually encroach upon the modest suburban character of both Ladywell and St Mary’s, Lewisham CAs.

Views from Blackheath are included within the visual impact assessment in Section 11.0. of the report.

Highlighted particularly sensitive views as those from Blackheath (11, 12, 13, 19, 20 and 36). The proposals would cause cumulative harm to the historic open character of Blackheath Common within the Blackheath CA. Clarify that this harm would be relatively low. Recognise that the Proposed Development presents an opportunity to enhance Lewisham High Street through the retention and refurbishment of its historic buildings and the introduction of high-quality and contextual infill development. Further site investigations, in consultation with Lewisham Council’s Conservation Officer will be required to determine the extent of fabric to be retained. While none of the buildings on site are included on the National Heritage List for England, we suggest you pursue HE’s screening for potential listing service.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

CONSULTATION AND MITIGATION BY DESIGN

CONSULTEE AND FORM/DATE OF CONSULTATION SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

WHERE IN THIS VOLUME COMMENTS ARE ADDRESSED

Design Review Panel Meetings Lewisham Design Review Panel 01 (18 October 2022) Panel 02, 5th December 2023, Panel 03 (10 April 2024) Panel 04 (July 2024) And Panel 05 (August 2024)

The LDRP appreciated the opportunity to review the scheme several times and expressed gratitude for the exemplary presentation.

The proposals were amended accordingly.

The panel commended the many improvements to the scheme over the course of the pre-application process, including the retention of many of the existing buildings facing Lewisham High Street in full or their most important aspects. However, it was noted that there was further work to be done in this regard in the southern sector in that there were some interesting buildings which could be retained/repurposed, in order to allow preservation of as much of its existing high street character as possible.

Following the final DRP and further discussions with officers at the LBL, the form and architectural appearance of Block N2 was reviewed by the design team. Stakeholders considered that the previous appearance of the building required simplification. In order to achieve this Archio went through a series of design amendments, including extruding the parapet of the taller volume, insetting the lift core to ensure it did not read as a separate volume and removing the lift / plant overrun from the lower-rise volume; these changes resulted in the creation of two simple volumes that are differentiated by their height and material palette. The two volumes were further visually linked by virtue of applying a corrugated edge to two principal corners to demarcate the entrance at ground floor.

At Panel 04, it was confirmed that the stepping up of massing away from Lewisham High Street towards Molesworth Street was successful, as well as the rebalancing of taller buildings. The organisation of the masterplan and its massing seems much clearer. It was commented that the proximity of building N1 and Lewisham House were too close, with further comments on the complexities of phasing to be clearly articulated. Some further comments around the integration of N1, N2 and C1 and their integration with the buildings along Lewisham High Street. Commented on the improvement to the massing of Plot N1, with the taller “parent” and the lower “child” buildings sitting well within the townscape, with the set back to the “child” building from the High Street now supportable as a massing strategy. The 7-storey protruding leg to E1 was not supported as it will be very prominent on the high street but has no townscape role to fulfil. The panel recommended that the massing is revisited. Basic massing changes to N2 are acceptable but still further detailed design changes to be made. 5th December 2023

It was agreed with the DRP that through discussions with the Council, most buildings within the Lewisham High Street frontage which are of heritage value or A full analysis of views was undertaken, and is included within this assessment. make a positive contribution to the local streetscape are proposed for retention within the current scheme. Better definition is needed concerning the extent of work to the retained frontage buildings and the mechanisms for enhancements to the retained buildings The applicant has sought, where possible, to retain buildings along the High Street, where they have heritage merit and can be purposefully within the detailed section of the application. Additional design information should be provided for buildings in close proximity to other heritage sensitive reused without undermining the wider regeneration strategy. A full buildings within the outline section of the application. analysis of this is provided in the assessment section below. The heritage consultants have inputted into the scheme although the work is ongoing. The proposals do not affect the LVMF prescribed views. The effect of the project on the designated and non-designated assets is being assessed with Council Officers. There is potential for the development to retain more elements in the southern portion of the site. As the project progressed the designs need to be analysed and assessed in terms of their impact on key cherished views (HTVIA). In terms of heritage and preservation of the historic assets, the strategy is much improved and the Panel were greatly encouraged to see many more of the existing buildings facing Lewisham High Street to be either retained in full or their most important aspects preserved and the buildings rejuvenated. The Panel felt that there was further work to do in this regard in the southern sector in that there are some interesting buildings which could be retained/ repurposed, in order to allow preservation of as much of its existing high street character as possible.

CONSULTATION AND MITIGATION BY DESIGN

CONSULTEE AND FORM/DATE OF CONSULTATION SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

WHERE IN THIS VOLUME COMMENTS ARE ADDRESSED

Lewisham DRP 14th April 2024

The applicant presented the demolition strategy, which seeks to retain buildings along the High Street, where they have heritage merit and can be purposefully reused without undermining the wider regeneration strategy. The stepped massing strategy was also discussed, which seeks to integrate low rise development along the High Street and gradually increase scale westward towards Molesworth Street.

The panel requested that a presentation was made regarding the heritage strategy and approach towards assessment. The impacts of the proposals on the protected views, local views and the settings of heritage assets have been and continue to be tested. The local and distant views have been agreed with the LBL and tested with Historic England who have accepted the views as proposed and do not want to engage further with regard to the detail of the scheme. The Panel noted the Applicant Team’s evaluation that the proposals will not impact on the LVMF and commented that the reduction in the number of buildings over the course of the design’s evolution has helped reduce both local and distant impact. The Panel observed that the scheme will have a significant impact on the protected and local views since the project proposes a dense group of tall buildings. In particular, further distant views from Blackheath should be provided as the project designs and massing strategies become more refined.

A ZTV was presented to outline the geographical extent from which the proposed development would be visible, and the potential assets Based on the information seen to date it is expected the proposals will cause a medium level of harm and the Applicant Team will need to demonstrate that impacted. A set of verified views was also provided to understand the the public benefits of the scheme, which should be considerable, are sufficient to outweigh the harm caused by the Proposed Development.. visual impact from selected locations. It was recommended that a simpler and more coherent narrative for the organising the building mass, form and scale on the site is developing but there is further work to do to generate a cohesive and convincing approach across all aspects of the site. The Panel identified LH, the north wing of N4, W2 and E4.2 as the most likely locations for landmark structures, and the proposed buildings should exhibit a greater coherence of form, massing and architectural approach, recognising the difference between signature and supporting buildings. The team are recommended to think of this project’s massing as a series of layers running east to west from Lewisham High Street rising ins scale toward Molesworth Street. The high street edge is formed by a crust of finer grain architecture of different periods but with a relatively consistent scale. The work undertaken to maximise the retention of the existing buildings was fully supported. The scale, texture, grain and varied low scale architecture of the high street is extremely important in defining the character of the town centre, and a better balance has to be found between the scale of the proposals, and their negative impact notably N4 but also N2. The east wing of N4 is not acceptable as currently proposed and must be radically set back from the high street. Lewisham DRP 8th July 2024

The design team presented a refined massing strategy, which sought to reinforce the principles of stepping back from the High Street and building height towards Molesworth Street. This was explained with concept diagrams and also visualised using verified views.

The updated design has been integrated into the final proposals.

Detailed consideration was given to Block N1 and N2, including significant changes to the massing to align with the high street frontage and setback some of the taller elements. Detailed design amendments have also been undertaken to ensure the materiality, architectural detail and colouration of these buildings is contextual and a positive design response. Lewisham DRP August 204

A more focussed presentation was provided by the design team, focussing on detailed design elements and landscaping proposals.

The refinements to the design were integrated into the final proposals.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

CONSULTATION AND MITIGATION BY DESIGN

CONSULTEE AND FORM/DATE OF CONSULTATION SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

WHERE IN THIS VOLUME COMMENTS ARE ADDRESSED

Scoping Opinion Scoping Opinion dated 14 June 2024

Agreed with EIA methodology used for heritage, townscape and visual impact; Any views identified as significant in planning policy or guidance documents should be made clear as part of the assessment. It would be expected that, where views may be affected by vegetation, winter photography is used. Accurate visual representations should be produced in accordance with Landscape Institute Techincal Guidance Note 06/19 and agreed with LBL as stated.

Strategic views are clearly identified as static views which are assessed separately from representative views in Section 7.0 and Section 11.0 of the report. Winter views have been provided as part of the Verified Views prepared by Miller Hare in Appendix 1.0 of this report.

AVRs are produced in accordance with best practice guidance, All cumulative schemes identified for assessment should be clearly identified on a plan showing their location relative to the Proposed Development and for detailed in the Miller Hare methodology at Appendix 1.0. each viewpoint by an AVR illustration where they would be in view. Cumulative schemes identified for assessment are shown on a map at The approach to the determination of significance is considered acceptable. Figure 2.2. The Royal Borough of Greenwich has advised that the impact of the Proposed Development on Greenwich Local View 5 and 10 as well as views from Views 5 and 10 of Greenwich Local Plan, as well as views from Greenwich Park and Blackheath Conservation Area should be included. Greenwich Park and Blackheath CA have been included in the visual It is agreed that assets will be identified through the use of ZTV testing and the modelling process outlined within the ES.

assessment as views 32, 37, 38 and 39.

It is noted that the TVIHA will also provide assessment of effects on Townscape Character Areas (TCAs) within a 1km study area. The ES must demonstrate Figure 5.1. includes a map of all heritage assets considered within the that the extent of the proposed study area is the appropriate size to ensure that all heritage assets likely to be affected by the Proposed Development has assessment, and justification for those that have been scoped out. been included and can be properly assessed. GLHER results are included in Appendix 4.0. of this report. The ES must be supported by a figure which clearly identifies all built heritage receptors that have been assessed. Relevant planning guidance documents have been included in the In accordance with NPPF Paragraph 200, the built heritage assessment should include a GLHER.

Legislation and Policy Section at Section 3.0.

Requirements for the inclusion of reference to the Historic England Advice Note 12, Principles of Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (July 2021).

Different methodologies are provided for each discipline in Section 2.0. of the report, with separate baseline and assessment sections.

It should be noted that each separate discipline (heritage, townscape and visual) should be clearly defined and dealt with its own methodology and effects identified. The assessment of built heritage should be informed by the townscape and views assessment and provide clear cross-reference as appropriate. Engagement with Blackheath Society Blackheath Society 26 June 2024

Positive feedback in relation to retail strategy and new public space. Positive feedback in relation to density and overall building heights.

No action required

9.0 ASSESSMENT: hERITAGE RECEPTORS Lewisham Shopping Centre, Lewisham

A SH NG KI

(T e lec M ast om mu nic ati on )

Shelter

ive r rn eR Ra ve ns bo u

ILLE AN V GR

7.8m

58 60

62 64

143

TCB s

Sh elte r

TR EE T HIG HS

Sh elte r

244 24 4 a

246 20

20a 20b

Tedman

Retention with significant alteration (building structure)

Court

19 7

Le Ad

Demolition Plan, red showing wholesale demolition, teal showing retention without works (building structure), light blue sowing retention of high street facing façades as a minimum, light green showing retention with significant alteration building structure). Source: SEW Architects to 2 30

236

10 CLIP PER WAY

r Sh elte

Car Park

to Sa rk H 12 ous e

r Sh elte

LE WIS HA M

HIG HS

TR EE T

232 to 23 8 24 0

24 2

244 24 4a

213

221

246

20.8m

21 1

El Sub Sta

PW 9

252

226

EN GA TE

20 9

236 a

St Mark's

13.8m

207

TCB

219

GROV

21 7

LIMES

203

ST RE ET

199

201

10.4m

Pr 9 15

Works

ST RE ET

252

Retention of high street facing facades as a minimum

TCBs

Borough Council Depot

to 2 30 36 to 2 232 23 8 24 0

24 2

El Su

b Sta

164

to 17 0 172

176 17 4

to 1 90 180 19 6 19 4 192

20 6

8 to

Excluded from the Application boundary

Retention without works (building structure)

25a

18 5

Demolition

Detailed planning application component

25b

River

For Approval

Application boundary

Sorting Office

CU RN ES S

173

rne

Figure 9.1

For Information Robert Square

25c

175

u nsbo Rave

2. 3.

TCB

Existing buildings are based on a combination of OS and existing Lewisham Shopping Centre survey. St Saviour's OS 'OI1395747.dwg' was received on 11.05.20. RC Primary School Existing Lewisham Shopping Centre survey BONF information (Ruxton Survey) was received IELD RO AD from Landsec on 17.02.20. All Parameter Plans to be read in conjunction with the Design Code and Development Specification.

St Saviour's RC Church

17 7

No implied licence exists. This drawing should not be used to calculate areas for the purposes of valuation. Do not scale this drawing unless printed correctly. All dimensions to be checked El Sub Sta TCB on the site by the contractor and such dimensions to be their responsibility. All work 9.9m must comply with relevant British Standards and Building Regulations requirements. Drawing TCBs TCBs errors and omissions to be reported to the architect. To be read in conjunction with Architect's specification and other consultant information. S

Brookland

1. Shelter

157 to 159

Key

9.7m

Riverdale

Notes 171

Pond

LA NE

General Notes

the baseline is assessed below.

BAR NSTA PLE

Shelter

155a

161

Shelter

effect of these activities on the value of the heritage receptors identified in

166

155

Riverdale House

1 to

TCB

construction necessary to facilitate the Proposed Development. The likely

Lewis ham Me thodist Churc h

El Sub Sta

Bank

Ramp

ST RE ET

151

10.7m

BIO NW AY

162

to 14 9

PCs

LE WI SH AM

236 a

13 9 14 1

Car Park AL

S Br

CU RN ES S

rm y

EN GA TE

3 1 to 12 a

116 118

1 13 7

activities that would be undertaken on the Site during demolition and

226

LEW IS G ROVE 26

Mer cia H

114

ouse

13 1 13 3

Sa lv Ha ation ll A

elements of the application. ES Volume 1 Chapter 5: Demolition and

(T e lec M ast om mu nic ati on )

23 21

TCBs

9.6m PC

Construction sets out the anticipated programme of works and the key

213

21 7

10.4m

221

41 43

TCB

219

rk ge Pa Colle t Ch is Bapt

SE ON RI

Aberglaslyn

Shelter

Hybrid Application (during phases 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b and 3a) and the Detailed

Aberglaslyn

M ER CIA GRO VE

31 33 35

Bank

E ND CLAR

129

Brookland

The demolition and construction phase will occur as both part of the

21 1

125

L EL OD ALK W

The Cottage 1

potential affects arising on one heritage receptor are comparable.

Works

River

London Sivan Temple

117 119 12 1

Car Park

relatively confined location (for example conservation areas), where the

Shelter

ow er Bellfl Court

AD RO

113 115

include areas where there is a high concentration of heritage assets in a

8.7m

Quaggy

potential effects arising from the Proposed Development. Groupings also Tank

ST RE ET

100 to 104

110

6.2 5

8.6m

111

SIL

Borough Council Depot

CL O SE

HR OA

20 9

the heritage receptors and the Proposed Development, as well as the

TCBs

HIG

101 to 105

16 14

EN UE AV E SI D

BA NK

LEE

30a 30

106 108

Bank

10.4m

207

AY W

YE W

Lee Bridge Bank

Sorting Office

FW 35

AV EN

PH 1

8.7m

93 95

D EA

AT E

Clock Tower

TCB

8 to

W AL K

EL DE R

Clinic

TCB

203

on the assessment of setting (Section 5.0), the intervisibility between

L ILShelter TH ON LM BE

Shelter

Ramp

the purposes of this assessment. Such groupings have been based

9 to 2

to 71

Mill House

ET TRE RTH S

Shel ter

SWO

MOLE

EL M

98 to 103

E LAC PN RO MY

Police Headquarters

ST RE

OVE GR

T EE TR HS HIG AM ISH LEW

PH Play Area

Where relevant, heritage receptors have been grouped together for 31

AD RO AD ME CK LO

Shelter

Cornmill Gardens

7.6m

El Sub Sta

arising from impacts to heritage receptors is provided at Table 9.1.

ROVE 13

'S G

EN EPH

Sienna Alto

IR A

DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION

Bd y

COR NMIL 7.6m L LA NE

built heritage receptors identified in Section 5.0. A summary of the effects TRE EW

ar d

St Stephen's Church

r Rive rne

9.3

ST ST

This section assesses the impact of the Proposed Development on the PINE

Riverdale

ou ensb Rav

ra Vica

Glass Mill Leisure Centre

VIAN STREET

8.5m

ROA

Venice Corte

Prendergast Vale College

9.2

GHAM

Co ns t

1 to 152

3 to 7

9.1

Roma Corte

SSIN

8 Bo ro

8.2m

Shelter

ver

ct SL

y Ri Quagg

Viadu

1 to 27

Torre Vista

Shelter

CRE

7.8m

LOAMPIT VALE

93 to 97

ASSESSMENT: HERITAGE RECEPTORS

Pond

Shelter

TCB

6.6m

9.0

D OA

ASSESSMENT: hERITAGE RECEPTORS

Drovers Court

R ION AT

1 to 11

Beaver House

River Mill Two

R DL am ish Lew tation S

Warehouse

S M EW

Brick Kiln One

Slaithwaite Court

ASSESSMENT: hERITAGE RECEPTORS

9.4

The Demolition and Construction phase will involve the demolition of the

proposed change, given that construction activity is to come forward on

need to consider that harm in the overall planning balance, which takes

existing shopping centre building on Site (see demolition plan at Figure

the allocated Site. The magnitude of impact to the buildings is Medium,

into account the Proposed Development as a whole.

9.1). Given the location of non-designated heritage receptors directly

given the extent that is to be demolished during this stage, however, the

adjacent to the existing shopping centre, this will have a direct effect on

aspects of the building that derive heritage significance (the principal

the following buildings:

façades) are to be retained. This results in a Minor/Moderate Adverse

• 50-64 Lewisham High Street (partial demolition of southerly and

effect. This effect is temporary, short term and Not Significant.

westerly party walls and subsequent integration with new building which is subject to a detailed planning application);

9.7

non-designated heritage receptors will be fully demolished with the

• 66 Lewisham High Street (partial demolition of southerly and westerly

• 68-70 Lewisham High Street (partial demolition of southerly and

to their potential heritage value (see Figure 6.4), and no building that has

is subject to a detailed planning application);

been assessed to have heritage value is to be wholly demolished, with the

• 86-88 Lewisham High Street (partial demolition of northerly and

9.9

Development would be Low, given that the existing shopping centre is an

and integration with new building that is subject to an outline planning

allocated site and future development is anticipated to come forward.

application).

When calibrated with the buildings Low or Very Low value, this results in a

surrounding area, which could affect a heritage receptor’s significance. 9.14

There will also be visual impacts during this phase of the Proposed Development, comprising equipment associated with construction such as cranes and hoarding.

to be Low during this phase of the Proposed Development, given that

loss of neighbouring party wall and partial demolition. The assets have

the heritage value of each of the building, derived principally from their

a high ability to accommodate the proposed change, given that the

elevations fronting the High Street, remains unchanged. This results in a

existing shopping centre is an allocated site and future development is

likely effect of Minor. The nature of effect is judged to be Adverse brought

anticipated to come forward. The magnitude of impact to these buildings

by the environmental and visual effects of demolition and construction in

will be Low during this phase of the Proposed Development, given that

the immediate vicinity of the listed building. This effect is temporary, short

the heritage significance of each of the buildings, derived principally from

term and Not Significant.

their elevations fronting the High Street, remains unchanged. This results 9.10

For building Number 156-160 Lewisham High Street, the magnitude of

judged to be Adverse brought by the environmental and visual effects of

impact will be High, resulting in an effect of Moderate Adverse. This effect

demolition and construction in the immediate vicinity of the listed building.

is permanent, long term and Significant. An adverse nature of effect is

being retained. They too have a high ability to accommodate the

receptors: there will be increased noise, vibration, dust and traffic in the

sensitivity of Low. We consider the magnitude of impact to these buildings

These buildings to experience various degrees of change including

partial demolition, with the principal (easterly) façade of these buildings

environmental conditions into the setting (and experience) of the heritage

The susceptibility of these receptors to this stage of the Proposed

• 180-190 Lewisham High Street (partial demolition of westerly partly wall

and 142-148 Lewisham High Street (Woolworths Building) are to undergo

This phase of the Proposed Development could also introduce new

Oakes.

westerly party walls and integration with new building that is subject to

Buildings 122-126 Lewisham High Street (Marks and Spencer’s Building)

9.13

Nos. 72-78 High Street designed by the Boots’ chief architect, Colin St Clair

• 116-118 Lewisham High Street (partial demolition of southerly and

9.6

improvements.

proposed for demolition are constructed in the twentieth century, including

a detailed planning application and outline planning application);

in a likely effect of Minor Adverse nature of effect. The nature of effect is

Works during this phase include cleaning, maintenance, repair and internal

exception of Nos.156-160 Lewisham High Street. The remaining buildings

easterly party wall and integration with new building which is subject to

9.5

All other buildings proposed for comprehensive demolition are not formally identified as heritage assets. Due consideration has been given

westerly party walls and subsequent integration with new building which

an outline planning application);

9.12

Building of Townscape Merit, discussed below. 9.8

The decision maker needs to consider the Proposed Development as a whole, including the operational phase which is discussed below.

exception of Nos 156-160 Lewisham High Street, which is identified as a

party walls and subsequent integration with new building which is subject to a detailed planning application);

No designated heritage receptor would be fully demolished. No

9.11

identified given the historic and architectural value of this building has been lost as a result of the wholesale demolition which is a permanent and long-term effect.. As per Paragraph 209 of the NPPF, which considers harm to, or loss of non-designated heritage assets, the decision maker will

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

ASSESSMENT: hERITAGE RECEPTORS

9.15

Views of construction equipment from the wider area is likely to have a

9.17

9.22

Numbers 122-126 and 142-148 Lewisham High Street, have a Low

Site, the magnitude of impact for the demolition and construction phase

susceptibility to the operational phase of development, given the extent

area of development and the limited visibility of works which will take

of development is Nil, resulting in an effect of None. These effects are

of change that their immediate setting has undergone over the latter

place at lower levels. This is generally limited to the heritage receptors

summarised in Table 9.1. below.

half of the twentieth century. When calibrated with the Very Low value

within closest proximity to the Site:

OPERATIONAL DIRECT EFFECTS

of these receptors, the resulting sensitivity is Low. The direct works to

Activities in the demolition phase would comprise the partial demolition

integration into the new buildings on Site. As a result, the magnitude of

• 100-104 Lewisham High Street;

and integration of the party walls of several buildings along the High

impact is Medium, resulting in an effect of Minor/Moderate Beneficial.

• 143-149 Lewisham High Street;

Street, into the new buildings which are subject to either a hybrid

The effect is Not Significant, long-term and local. The nature of effect is

• 157-173 Lewisham High Street;

application. Following this, the subsequent direct works will be carried out

beneficial given the refurbishment and upgrade works to the principal

• 198-206 Lewisham High Street;

to these buildings along the High Street. This will include cleaning, repair

facades of the building, from which their historic and architectural value

• Clock Tower;

and internal improvements.

is derived.

• 65-85 Lewisham High Street; • 85-95 Lewisham High Street; • 90-98 Lewisham High Street;

• St Saviour’s Church and adjoining Presbytery; • Former Prudential Building;

9.18

9.19

• The Priory;

9.20

integrated into the parkland originally designed by André Le Nôtre, Louis XIV’s court gardener, set along the Grand Axis from the Queen’s House to the River Thames. The significance of the axis was recognised when the

• 90-104 Lewisham High Street (Locally Listed Building);

view from the General Wolfe statue was added to the protected views set

• 116-118 Lewisham High Street (Building of Townscape Merit);

these receptors to be Very Low, during this phase of the Proposed

• 157-173 Lewisham High Street (Building of Townscape Merit);

Development. This results in a likely effect of Negligible Adverse. This

• 180-190 Lewisham High Street (Locally Listed Building);

effect is temporary, short term and not significant. Views of construction

been identified.

who are among the country’s most famous architects. The buildings are

• 86-88 Lewisham High Street (Building of Townscape Merit);

Development will be Low. We consider the magnitude of impact to

appreciate their significance and thus why a Negligible Adverse effect has

architectural compositions, designed by Wren, Hawksmoor and Vanbrugh,

• 68-70 Lewisham High Street (Building of Townscape Merit);

The susceptibility of these receptors to this stage of the Proposed

out in the LVMF. 9.24

The Lewisham Gateway and the Connington Road developments, which

The susceptibility of these receptors to this stage of the Proposed

comprise tall buildings between 25 and 34 storeys, are located between

Development would be Low, and when calibrated with the Low to Very Low values of these receptors, the resulting sensitivity is Low. We consider the magnitude of impact to these buildings to be Low during this phase of the Proposed Development. This results in a likely effect of Minor Beneficial. The effect is Not Significant, direct, long-term and local. The nature of effect is beneficial given the refurbishment to the exterior and interior of the building to better reveal its architectural and historic value.

The Site is located approximately 900 m to the south of the MGWHS and its buffer zone which includes the open expanse of Blackheath Common.

• 198-206 Lewisham High Street (Building of Townscape Merit); 9.21

The heritage value of the MGWHS is identified at Section 5.0. as Very High. The WHS is one of Britain’s most complex and well-preserved Baroque

• 66 Lewisham High Street (Locally Listed Building);

• Mercia Grove CA.

within the wider setting of the assets will not affect one’s ability to

9.23

• 50-64 Lewisham High Street (Building of Townscape Merit);

• Belmont CA;

lower levels. The presence of these demolition and construction activities

MARITIME GREENWICH WORLD HERITAGE SITE AND BUFFER ZONE (MAP REF: A AND B)

on the following buildings:

• St Stephen’s CA;

development and the limited visibility of works which will take place at

Given the location of non-designated heritage receptors directly adjacent to the existing shopping centre, this will have a direct effect

• United Reform Church Sunday School;

due to the temporal nature of the works, the concentrated area of

INDIRECT EFFECTS (SETTING IMPACTS) WORLD HERITAGE SITE

Following the cleaning, repair and maintenance works undertaken during

be more readily legible.

• Rileys (Former Temperance Billiard Hall);

equipment form from the wider area is likely to have a limited impact

the partial rebuilding of both Nos 122-126 and 142-148, as well as their

heritage receptors would improve and their architectural quality would

• 10-18 Belmont Hill; • Lewisham Bridge Primary School;

these buildings undertaken during the operational phase will comprise

the Demolition and Construction phase, the function and usability of all

• Church of Stephen and Stephen’s Church War Memorial;

9.16

For the remaining heritage receptors, considering their distance from the

limited impact due to the temporal nature of the works, the concentrated

the Site and the MGWHS. 9.25

This assessment for MGWHS also considers the following receptors, which are located within Greenwich WHS: • The Manor House (Map Ref; 17); • Roman Catholic Church of Our Ladye Star of The Sea including its Forecourt Wall and Gate Piers (Map Ref: 18); • The Presbytery (Map Ref: 19). • West Grove, Conduit House, Blackheath (Map Ref: 51)

ASSESSMENT: hERITAGE RECEPTORS

• Anglo-Saxon Cemetery in Greenwich Park (Map Ref: 52)

Development would be understood as part of the evolving skyline

• Greenwich Park Conservation Area (Map Ref: Q)

of Lewisham town centre, which currently comprises the buildings of

• Greenwich Park RPG (Map Ref: 53)

Lewisham Gateway, Loampit Vale and at Conington Road. The Proposed

9.26

Their heritage value is also identified as Very High.

9.27

The MGWHS is embedded in the emerging townscape of south-east

at the junction of Rennell Street and Molesworth Street next to Lewisham

London, comprising the tall building zones at Canary Wharf, Millwall,

9.32

appreciate the OUV. The magnitude of impact on the WHS and it’s

The WHS is located in a planned area for tall and high density

the heath. As a result, the susceptibility of the receptor to the type of change is therefore Medium. When calibrated with the Very High value the sensitivity of the receptor is High. 9.39

Gateway and the tall building at Conington Road, thereby helping consolidate the Lewisham cluster. The proposed buildings would be appreciable from the receptor’s setting as a composition of high-quality

BOONE CHAPEL I (MAP REF: 1) 9.33

From the Ranger’s House, the Proposed Development would be seen in conjunction with the other tall buildings at Lewisham, such as Lewisham

LISTED BUILDINGS

results in a Medium to High sensitivity.

buildings delivered through the Design Code with highly articulated elevations which provide texture and visual interest.

The heritage value of the chapel is identified at Section 5.0. as Very High.

impact of the Proposed Development is limited to intervisibility, albeit

Attributed to Sir Christopher Wren, the chapel is the only survivor of

heavily filtered, from the wooded areas within the southern part of

the late 17th century almshouse complex commissioned by Christopher

and the likely effect Minor. The effect would be Neutral given that the Proposed

Greenwich Park and from Blackheath Common. From most areas of the

Boone.

Development would be seen as part of the existing Lewisham skyline.

The Site is located approximately 1 km to the west of the chapel, linked

THE CLOCK TOWER (MAP REF: 20)

Royal Park, the proposed height would sit below the canopy of trees bounding the southern border of the open space, (as articulated by View

9.34

by Lee High Road, the A20, which leads from the chapel in long curves

37 from Greenwich Park, looking cross the Royal Naval College). Looking towards the WHS from the north, from Island Gardens (as demonstrated by View 14), whilst there is a historic connection between the two areas, the Proposed Development sits well below the tree canopy and thus visibility

9.35

As the Site is located to the south-west of the MGWHS and its key components, the Queen’s House, Royal Observatory and the Naval College, it lies behind the Grand Axis which runs northwards from Queen’s House to Canary Wharf and would not affect the alignment of the Baroque composition. The Proposed Development would be most visible from Blackheath in the buffer zone to the south of the Royal Park. The Buffer Zone is a component of setting to protect the OUV of the MGWHS and is not an asset in its own right nor an extension of the WHS boundary. The Proposed

9.36

9.40

9.41

As with the MGWHS, the magnitude of impact is considered to be Very Low

Identified as having a High value in Section 5.0, the clock tower was

towards Lewisham town centre, which is earmarked as an area of growth

erected for Queen Victoria’s diamond jubilee on the central crossing of

in the Local Plan.

Lewisham High Street and Lee High Road, it lies directly opposite the Site and has watched over the town centre for over a century.

Despite its proximity to the road and the new buildings in the town centre, the receptor has a medium ability to accommodate the type of change

is limited.

9.31

Tall buildings have become a key component of the horizon line framing

Neutral. The effect is Not Significant, indirect, long-term and local.

receptors within it have a Low susceptibility to the Development. This

9.30

tall buildings at the town centre. Lewisham is identified as a growth area.

heritage receptors is considered to be Very Low and the likely effect Minor

development and, as a result, the WHS and the individual heritage

Due to the separating distance of the Site from the MGWHS, the potential

The Proposed Development would not impact the viewer's ability to

The receptor is embedded in the open landscape of Blackheath, facing the built-up areas of Lewisham with a clear view of the emerging cluster of

would adversely impact the OUV of the MGWHS.

development. It would sit within the context of existing and emerging

9.29

9.38

Proposed Development would not give rise to any setting impacts that

other tall building zones across the capital can be seen, for example the

9.28

heritage value is identified at Section 5.0. as Very High.

roofscape of southeast London. The views as a whole demonstrate the

Thames will continue to evolve. From the MGWHS and its buffer zone,

The Ranger’s House is a fine late 17th century building on the edge of the Royal Park, located approximately 1.3 km to the north of the Site. Its

low-rise neighbourhoods of Ladywell and Brockley, emulating the varied

recognises that the cluster of tall buildings on the north side of the River

cluster which is under construction.

9.37

train and DLR station. The roofline would step down to the south and the

Blackwall and the Greenwich Peninsula. The MGWHS Management Plan

Eastern Cluster in the City of London, Kidbrooke and the Canada Water

RANGER’S HOUSE (MAP REF: 2)

Development would complete the emerging cluster at taller elements, achieving a balanced composition with a concentration of taller elements

9.42

Since the clock tower was built, Lewisham High Street has undergone

caused by the Proposed Development without change to its value. The

major changes. Following the destructions of World War II much of the

susceptibility of the receptor to the type of change is therefore Medium.

town centre was rebuilt in the 1950s. The arrival of the shopping centre

When calibrated with the Very High value the sensitivity of the receptor is

in the late 20th century introduced a new super structure into the town

High.

centre which erased much of the original street layout. Road widening

Due to the curving nature of Lee High Road, there is no intervisibility between the receptor and the proposed buildings. The Proposed Development would have a Nil magnitude of impact to the value of the receptor. The Proposed Development would give rise to a None effect. The effect is not significant and will be indirect, long-term and local.

and improvement works necessitated the clock tower to be moved. The receptor is an object structure within the main high street and has a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed without change to its value. The susceptibility of the receptor to the type of change is therefore Low. When calibrated with the High value the sensitivity of the receptor is Medium.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

ASSESSMENT: hERITAGE RECEPTORS

9.43

CHURCH OF ST SAVIOUR AND ADJOINING PRESBYTERY (MAP REF. 21 AND 22) 9.45

9.46

the sensitivity of the receptor is Medium.

Lewisham town centre was badly affected by World War II and many of

9.51

replacing buildings which have reached the end of their lifespan. Overall,

rebuilt. Some of the buildings within the setting of the receptors are in

the improvements to Lewisham High Street would contribute to an

need of repair and investment. The town centre is identified as a growth

ability of the observer to recognise and appreciate the listed clock tower

overall uplift of the town centre and therefore the setting of the church

area in the Local Plan. As a result, the church and presbytery have a high

(as demonstrated by View 29 and the standalone assessment of the

and presbytery. Taller elements would be concentrated towards the west

ability to accommodate the type of change proposed without change

Clock Tower separately prepared by Montagu Evans). The Proposed

and north of the Site, away from the receptor. The buildings opposite at

to its value. The susceptibility of the receptor to the type of change is

Development would thus have a Minor likely effect on the receptor. The

the southern end of the Site would be refurbished and new public space

therefore Low. When calibrated with the High value the sensitivity of the

effect would be Beneficial given that the Proposed Development would

introduced. The Proposed Development is therefore considered to have a

receptor is Medium. 9.47

The Proposed Development would transform the town centre and introduce high quality architecture, replacing buildings which have

effect would be indirect, long-term and local.

Low magnitude of impact on the heritage value of the receptor. 9.52

impacts. The effect is not significant. This effect would be indirect,

High Street would contribute to an overall uplift of the town centre and

long-term and local.

therefore the setting of the church and presbytery. Taller elements would

CHURCH OF ST STEPHEN AND WAR MEMORIAL (MAP REF: 24)

be towards the western site boundary away from the receptors. The bulk

9.48

9.49

9.50

value. It is a fine example of the Victorian’s reinterpretation of the Early English style, complete with the interiors and stained glass windows.

The Proposd Development would have a Minor likely effect on the

9.54

The church stands diagonally opposite the Site to the north of the

receptor. The effect would be Beneficial given that the above mentioned

junction of Lewisham High Street and Rennell Street. Since the rerouting

impacts. The effect is not significant. This effect would be indirect,

of Lewisham High Street, Rennell Street and Molesworth Street and the

long-term and local.

demolition of the historic buildings to the south of St Stephen’s Grove in the

FORMER PRUDENTIAL BUILDING (MAP REF: 23)

late 20th century, the receptor has lost its original setting to the south and

The former Prudential Building has a High heritage value primarily due to

to have a Low magnitude of impact on the heritage value of the receptor.

and the connections with the Prudential Insurance Company. View 29 (Proposed, showing detailed plots N1 and N2, alongside the illustrative scheme). Source: Millerhare

9.53

along the high street. The Proposed Development is therefore considered

its architectural quality and the well preserved early 20th century interiors

Figure 9.2

The Proposed Development would have a Minor likely effect on the receptor. The effect would be Beneficial given that the above mentioned

reached the end of their lifespan. Overall, the improvements to Lewisham

of the Proposed Development would be obscured by the existing building

As with the heritage receptors nearby, the Proposed Development would transform the town centre and introduce high quality architecture,

the buildings along the High Street were destroyed and subsequently

The Proposed Development would neither impede nor improve the

new piece of high-quality townscape. The effect is not significant. This

the type of change is therefore Low. When calibrated with the High value

heritage value.

on the heritage value of the receptor.

remove negative elements from the receptor’s setting and introduce a

proposed without change to its value. The susceptibility of the receptor to

style, built in red brick with a 38 m tall campanile. The receptor has High

along the high street frontage. They would appear as a backdrop to the

9.44

Prudential Building has a high ability to accommodate the type of change

hundred years. It is a striking building in an Italianate early Renaissance

would be set back from the clock tower behind the existing buildings

Development is therefore considered to have a Low magnitude of impact

growth area with a tall building cluster emerging to the north. The former

Located on Lewisham High Street opposite the Site, the church of has been the heart of Lewisham’s catholic community for more than a

have a general uplifting impact on the town centre. The taller elements

receptor and the traditional buildings in the foreground. The Proposed

of its original setting. Lewisham town centre has been identified as a

west. It now faces the Lewisham Gateway redevelopment which comprises several tall buildings. As identified by the Local Plan, the town centre is a growth area and the church’s setting is set to see further change. As a result, the church and presbytery have a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed without change to its value. The susceptibility of the receptor to the type of change is therefore Low. When calibrated with the High value the sensitivity of the receptor is Medium.

ASSESSMENT: hERITAGE RECEPTORS

9.55

The Proposed Development would transform the town centre and

9.59

receptor. The effect is not significant. This effect would be indirect,

reached the end of their lifespan. Overall, the improvements to

are incidental, and the Proposed Development would be understood as

long-term and local.

Lewisham High Street would contribute to an overall uplift of the town

part of the busy, urban town centre environment as set out in the Local

centre and therefore the setting of the church and presbytery. The

Plan, where there is contrast between buildings, a varied scale between

RILEY’S (FORMER TEMPERANCE BILLIARD HALL) AND UNITED REFORMED CHURCH SUNDAY SCHOOL GROUPING (MAP REF.: 28 AND 29)

Proposed Development would be seen next to the tall buildings of

development and a large range of styles, details and materials. That

the Lewisham Gateway development and understood as part of the

intervisibility does not impact on the value of the heritage receptor.

of party walls revealed after the road widening works of the late 20th century, the northern servicing and delivery area at Salisbury Yard,

9.60

9.61

car park. From the church, the proposed public space at Rennell Street would be noticeable, creating a welcoming and verdant entry point into the Site and an attractive new streetscape. The proposed buildings,

9.62

Temperance Billard Hall are fine examples of their types that have been

LEWISHAM BRIDGE PRIMARY SCHOOL (MAP REF: 26)

and Courthill Road. There are a number of taller, recent developments

9.64

also creates visual interest and variation to the backdrop of the church.

When calibrated with the High value the sensitivity of the receptor is Medium.

The school sit next to the emerging cluster of tall buildings at Loampit Vale

9.70

9.65

the taller elements would be seen in conjunction with the Lewisham Gateway development and understood as part of the emerging cluster at Lewisham town centre.

The Proposed Development would complement the emerging cluster of tall buildings at the railway station and introduce new public space at

9.71

heritage receptors. The Proposed Development would be understood as

Street. As part of the proposals, Lewisham House would be reconfigured,

part of the busy, urban town centre environment as set out in the Local

introducing high quality design.

Plan, where there is contrast between buildings, a varied scale between development and a large range of styles, details and materials.

While the transformative impact of the Proposed Development would enhance the visual amenity to the area surrounding the school, it would not change the receptor’s value. The Proposed Development is therefore considered to have a Nil magnitude of impact on the heritage value of the receptor.

The improvements to Lewisham High Street would contribute to an overall uplift of the town centre that would be tangible around the two

the interface of the River Ravensbourne, Rennell Street and Molesworth

9.66

Due to the visual barrier that the railway line introduces, the Proposed Development would be only partially visible. Where glimpses are possible,

the sensitivity of the receptor is Medium.

articulated panels, shop fronts and columns.

the fenestration and for the window glazing bars. The angled roof profile

The susceptibility of the receptor to the type of change is therefore Low.

the type of change is therefore Low. When calibrated with the High value

The verticality of design is demonstrated by the position of windows,

combination of red and buff brick, as well as dark green detailing around

accommodate the type of change proposed without change to its value.

a growth area and a tall building zone. The susceptibility of the receptor to

the existing High Street buildings, including the Church of St Stephen.

on Site. N2 also comprises variation in materiality, through the use of a

As a result, the church and former billiard hall have a high ability to

Modern extensions have altered the rear of the school. The main

and Lewisham Gateway. As identified by the Local Plan, the town centre is

Stephen’s Church.

and as such, there is further variation in design to the proposed buildings

affected by the wider transformation of the town centre and the borough.

Lewisham House is directly opposite.

defunct area of the High Street and within the immediate setting of St

The N2 building has been designed by a different architectural practice

the surrounding residential neighbourhoods, this part of Lewisham is

River Ravensbourne and the Site, which lies approximately 220 m away.

faience columns to the shopfront; has created interest to a previously

storeys as it wraps around the Site and provides a contextual scale to

the two historic buildings can still be understood as serving part of

entrance still overlooks an open space that is oriented towards the

townscape composition.

The base of N1 forms a plinth that steps down from four storeys to two

such as the eight storey building opposite the former billiard hall. While

Identified in Section 5.0 as a receptor with High heritage value, the

ventilated classrooms and the well preserved interiors are rare.

be visible above the outline element, contributing to a visually interesting

Separated from the town centre by the railway line, the receptors’ setting is comprised of the mixed-use building stock along Lewisham High Street

high-quality buildings delivered through the Design Code with highly

bonding and composition through a careful detailing approach of

9.69

long-term and local.

design ideas at the beginning of the 20th century. The layout, well-lit and

The distinct roof profile of N1 and its angled form, varied brickwork

the heart of their community for many decades.

The Proposed Development would have a None likely effect on the

would be appreciable from the receptor’s setting as a composition of

detailed elements of the Proposed Development, Plots N1 and N2, would

each other on Courthill Road at the corner of Lewisham High Street,

magnitude of impact on the heritage value of the receptor.

school is one of the first buildings that was infirmed by modern school

9.63

Both the receptors have a High heritage value. They stand opposite approximately 230 m to the south of the Site. The church and former

which would represent an increase in intensity and scale on the Site,

articulated elevations which provide texture and visual interest. The

9.68

The Proposed Development is therefore considered to have a Nil

receptor. The effect is not significant. This effect would be indirect,

blank walls, Lewisham House and the access ramps for the multistorey

9.58

The Proposed Development would have a None likely effect on the

church, when seen from Lewisham High Street. However, these views

flank of Lewisham Shopping Centre comprises a fragmented assembly

9.57

9.67

introduce high quality architecture, replacing buildings which have

emerging cluster at Lewisham town centre. Currently, the northern

9.56

While the Proposed Development would change the setting of the

9.72

As such, the Proposed Development would not be understood to impact the setting of the historic buildings and is therefore considered to have a Nil magnitude of impact on the heritage value of the receptor.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

ASSESSMENT: hERITAGE RECEPTORS

9.73

The Proposed Development would have a None likely effect on the

the Proposed Development, Plots N1 and N2, would create a distinct

from many vantage points within the conservation area. The conservation

receptor. The effect is not significant. This effect would be indirect,

roof profile and angled form in views looking south from within the CA.

area lies close to a major town centre that has been identified a growth

long-term and local.

The single use of a lighter tone brick materiality for the taller and main

area and tall building zone by the Local Plan. As a result, the conservation

CONSERVATION AREAS

element of N1 establishes a simple volumetric presence, unencumbered

area has a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed

by setbacks or projections.

without change to its value. The susceptibility of the receptor to the type

ST STEPHEN’S CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: C) 9.74

The conservation area comprises the Victorian terraces to the east of

9.77

appearing behind N1 (as articulated in AVR View 28 in Appendix 1.0), in

historic character and appearance and has been identified at Section 5.0 as having Medium heritage value. The railway line separates the conservation area from the residential areas of Blackheath to the north, to the east are the large houses of the Belmont Conservation Area. The conservation area has lost its traditional

9.78

widening work that led to the rerouting of Rennell Street at the junction with Molesworth Street and Lewisham High Street have introduced a

9.79

of change is therefore Low. When calibrated with the Medium value the

tonality of N1.

Margaret, all located in Lee Churchyard, they have a heritage value of

9.80

shortcomings of the road widening works which left the party wall of the property on the corner of Lewisham High Street and Rennell Street exposed and introduced the unsatisfactory public realm between the shopping centre and the Gateway development. New, high quality buildings and public space would give Rennell Street a welcoming character and draw people into the Site, creating a safe and pleasant 9.81

sensitivity of Medium. The Proposed Development would introduce additional buildings in the views from with the conservation area. The proposed buildings, which would represent an increase in intensity and scale on the Site, would be appreciable from the receptor’s setting as a composition of high-quality

receptor. The effect is not significant. This effect would be indirect,

buildings delivered through the Design Code with highly articulated

long-term and local.

elevations which provide texture and visual interest. 9.86

The detailed elements of the Proposed Development, Plots N1 and N2,

The following receptors, by virtue of their location within the Belmont

would thus be visible from specific points within the CA, as demonstrated

Conservation Area are assessed as part of the impact on the CA:

by AVR View 16 (contained in Appendix 1.0 of this report). The red buff

• The Fludyer Tomb, Lee Old Churchyard (Map Ref: 5)

brick materiality of N2 is particularly noticeable, as well as the horizontal

• Monument of Sir John Call Bart Lee Old Churchyard (Map Ref: 6)

emphasis on the façade, expressed by the reoccurring balconies and

• Church of St Margaret (Map Ref: 7)

facades. The articulated roof form of N2 and subsequent step down

• 10-18 Belmont Hill (Map Ref: 25)

further aids in breaking up the perception of mass. The lighter tonality and

• The Priory (Map Ref: 27)

angled roof form of N1 is also perceptible from the CA. The detailed design

The Belmont Conservation Area comprises the large late 19th and early

an increase in intensity and scale on the Site, would be appreciable

value.

9.85

The Proposed Development would have a None likely effect on the

the east. It has been identified at Section 5.0 as having Medium heritage

9.82

For 10-18 Belmont Hill and The Priory, both of which have a heritage value

area would be limited. Intervisibility between the proposals and the

in the Local Plan. The proposed buildings, which would represent

which provide texture and visual interest. The detailed elements of

9.84

of High, when calibrated with their Low susceptibility, this equates to a

20th century houses north of Belmont Hill leading to the town centre from

delivered through the Design Code with highly articulated elevations

has been applied to identify a sensitivity of Medium.

details. As a result, the change to the setting of the conservation

the tall building cluster next to Lewisham railway station as set out

from the receptor’s setting as a composition of high-quality buildings

Very High, resulting in a sensitivity of Medim/High. Professional judgement

In the views along the High Street, the Proposed Development would

BELMONT CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: D)

sensitivity of the receptor is Low.

pedestrian experience. The taller elements would help consolidate

The Fludyer Tomb and Monument of Sir John Call Bart, and Church of St

on the heritage value of the receptor.

without change to its value. The susceptibility of the receptor to the type

The Proposed Development would help address some of the

will create visual interest when viewed in conjunction with the lighter

Development is therefore considered to have a Nil magnitude of impact

been identified as a growth area. The conservation area abuts one of the

9.76

above also have a Low susceptibility to the Proposed Development. For

conservation area would not impact the value receptor. The Proposed

new, high rise context, typical for a major London town centre that has

By virtue of their location within the CA, the heritage receptors located

which the variation in materiality which comprises a richer, red buff brick

there is contrast and varied scale of development and architectural

Road, Lewisham Gateway and Lewisham Shopping Centre and the road

area has a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed

9.83

be understood as part of a busy, urban town centre environment where

setting to the west: modern large-scale developments between Conington

tall building zones listed in the Local Plan. As a result, the conservation

sensitivity of the receptor is Low.

design proposals from within St Stephen’s CA. N2 may be partially visible

the grade II listed church of St Stephen’s (see above). It has a consistent

9.75

of change is therefore Low. When calibrated with the Medium value the

N1 is of greater scale and thus is the most visible element of the detailed

of both buildings and clear contrast between them and the existing built form in the CA, ensures they form an attractive new part of the townscape in the setting of the CA.

ASSESSMENT: hERITAGE RECEPTORS

9.87

9.88

While the difference in scale would be noticeable, the stepped skyline and

9.94

street which makes a positive contribution to the receptor’s setting,

attractive composition and appropriate backdrop to the conservation area.

the conservation area sits within a major town centre adjacent to a tall

As a result, the change to the setting of the conservation area would

an enclosed churchyard setting, which is clearly defined by a hard border

sensitivity of the receptor is Low. 9.95

elevations which provide texture and visual interest. 9.96

The susceptibility of the CA and the station to the type of change is therefore Low. When calibrated with the High value the sensitivity of the

The detailed elements of the Proposed Development would be partially

receptors is Medium. 9.101

parallel to the railway line, intervisibility with the Site is limited, but the upper parts of the Proposed Development would be visible from the rear

demonstrated by the symmetrically placed windows and associated

gardens and Ellerdale Street which is oriented towards the town centre.

balconies, is appreciable from within the CA. The use of traditional ratios and

The Mercia Grove Conservation Area has Medium heritage significance

proportions, and emphasis on symmetry echoes the historic character of

as identified in Section 5.0. Located approximately 85 m to the east of

the Mercia Grove CA. The slight setback not only breaks up the perception

the Site, the conservation area is one of the smallest, only comprising two

of mass but also creates a visually interesting backdrop to the CA. 9.97

There is a historic, functional relationship between the residential areas

Following the rebuilding after World War II and the construction activities

and the shops and facilities of the town centre. As such, intervisibility

in the late 20th century, the setting of the conservation area has

between the conservation area and the much larger shopping centre

changed fundamentally. From the street between the two terraces, the

buildings would not alter the conservation area’s character. Its significance

upper part of the multistorey car park that forms part of the Lewisham

would be preserved. The Proposed Development is therefore considered

Shopping Centre is visible above the properties on Lewis Grove. From

to have a Nil magnitude of impact on the heritage value of the receptor. 9.98

The Proposed Development would have a None likely effect on the receptor. The effect is not significant. This effect would be indirect, long-term and local.

The streets within the conservation area run off Vicars Hill, which joins Ladywell Road near the station. From the streets running northwards

1.0.) of this report. The buff red brick and emphasis on horizontality,

MERCIA GROVE CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: E)

Conington Road are visible.

accommodate the type of change proposed without change to its value.

visible from the CA, as articulated by AVR View 30 (contained in Appendix

would be indirect, long-term and local.

the tall building developments to the north at Lewisham Gateway and

result, the conservation area and station building have a high ability to

buildings delivered through the Design Code with highly articulated

and the heritage receptors within it. The effect is not significant. This effect

the junction of Mercia Grove with Lewis Grove and Lewisham High Street,

become an important component in the receptor’s setting. As a

appreciable from the receptor’s setting as a composition of high-quality

magnitude of impact on the heritage value of the CA and the heritage

9.93

tall building developments in southeast London and beyond have

the appearance of the new buildings. The proposed buildings would be

The Proposed Development is therefore considered to have a Nil

rows of late 19th century two storey terraces.

at Lewisham station, as set out in the draft Local Plan, and the other

elegant, vertical forms and the large amount of planting which would soften

architectural value of the church as outlined in Section 5.0.

Ladywell is located at a short distance to the west from Lewisham town centre. Over the last decade, the emerging cluster of tall buildings

be mitigated by the skilful articulation of each block with an emphasis on

Development in views looking west does not undermine the historic and

9.92

9.100

would be visible from within the conservation area. The visual impact would

the church and associated structures. Glimpsed visibility of the Proposed

The Proposed Development would have a None likely effect on the CA

The Proposed Development would replace the current multistorey car park

High heritage value.

on the Site, and introduce a new retail frontage along the High Street which

of the assets does not affect one’s appreciation of the heritage value of

9.91

station and Ladywell CA have been identified in Section 5.0 as having

with taller buildings, which would represent an increase in intensity and scale

The introduction of the Proposed Development in the wider periphery

receptors within it.

Station (Map Ref: 38) is also considered as part of this assessment. The

of change is therefore Low. When calibrated with the Medium value the

comprising iron railings and supplemented by a number of mature trees.

9.90

development to the north of Ladywell station. The Grade II listed Ladywell

without change to its value. The susceptibility of the receptor to the type

significance would be preserved.

The Ladywell Conservation Area lies approximately 400 m to the west of the Site and comprises the late Victorian suburban residential

area has a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed

area would not detract from the quality of the conservatism area and

The Church of St Margaret and associated structures are located with

9.99

building zone identified in the Local Plan. As a result, the conservation

be limited. Intervisibility between the proposals and the conservation

9.89

LADYWELL CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: F)

Despite the sense of enclosure created by the arrangement of the

vertical emphasis of the buildings would mitigate the impact and create an

The proposed buildings would complement the emerging tall building cluster at the station, ensuring a balanced composition of the Lewisham town centre skyline. 9.102

As a result, the change to the setting of the conservation area and station would be limited. Intervisibility between the proposals and the receptors would not detract from the quality of the conservatism area and significance would be preserved. The Proposed Development is therefore considered to have a Nil magnitude of impact on the heritage value of the receptors.

9.103

The Proposed Development would have a None likely effect on the receptors. The effect is not significant. This effect would be indirect, long-term and local.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

ASSESSMENT: hERITAGE RECEPTORS

BLACKHEATH CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: G AND R) 9.104

9.109

ability to accommodate the type of change proposed without change

The following receptors, by virtue of their location within the Blackheath

to its value. The susceptibility of the receptor to the type of change is

Conservation Area are assessed as part of the impact on the CA:

and Coroner’s Court (Map Ref: 32) • 340 Lewisham High Street (Map Ref: 34)

• The Sacred Heart Convent (Map Ref 36)

The Sacred Heart Convent, Old Tower of Former Church of St Margaret

• Old Swimming Baths (Map Ref: 35)

• Old Tower of Former Church of St Margaret (Map Ref: 39)

and 1-6 Aberdeen Terrace have a heritage value of High. When calibrated

• Walls surrounding Churchyard of St Mary’s Church (Map Ref: 37)

• 1-6 Aberdeen Terrace (Map Ref: 43)

with the Low susceptibility, this results in a sensitivity of Medium.

• School Treatment Centre (Map Ref: 40)

Located approximately 300 m to the northeast of the Site, the Blackheath

9.111

• Lewisham Public Library (Map Ref: 42)

The Proposed Development would introduce additional tall elements

Conservation Area falls partially into the MGWHS buffer zone. It has a

into the emerging skyline of Lewisham. The buildings would be largely

Very High heritage significance as identified in Section 5.0, along with the

obscured by mature trees and interposing existing developments from

approximately 230 m away from the Site. It is focused on the church of the

following receptors located within it: The Pagoda, Church of the Ascension,

many parts of the conservation area and the listed building within

same name, listed at grade II*, and the civic buildings and housing from

Perceval House and Spencer House, 22 Dartmouth Row.

it. However, as demonstrated by viewpoints 11, 12, 19 and 20 there is

the Victorian and Edwardian era that surround it. The Vicarage is an 17th

some intervisibility from the heath. The proposed undulating roofline

century house that was later extended and altered; today it is listed at

composition comprises a taller cluster to the north that integrates the

grade II*. Several other buildings, such as the Old Swimming Baths and the

buildings at Lewisham Gateway. Across the distance, the proposed

Library, are listed at grade II.

buildings would be appreciable from the receptor’s setting as a

developments such as the Pagoda (map ref.: 8), the Paragon (located

composition of high-quality buildings delivered through the Design Code

outside the study area) and the buildings on Dartmouth Row, some of

The skyline that can be seen beyond the tree canopies that enclose the

9.112

heath is continuously changing, which adds to the interest of the views out of the conservation area. Canary Wharf, Kidbrook and more recently

9.113

transport corridor, which runs through the conservation area and the visual separation of the railway viaduct, the conservation area has limited intervisibility with Lewisham town centre. However, the conservation area falls within the New Cross/Lewisham/Catford Opportunity Area with two growth points, Lewisham town centre and Catford town centre in close

The Proposed Development would have a Negligible likely effect on the

novel effect with interesting points of orientation. From the conservation

change to the skyline. The effect is not significant. This effect would be

area, much of London can be seen. Both the London Plan and the Local

indirect, long-term and local. 9.114

proximity. 9.118

to its value. The susceptibility of the receptor to the type of change is therefore Low. When calibrated with the High value of the CA and the

a change to their heritage significance. They would experience a Negligible Neutral effect, similar to the conservation area in which they

Grade II* Pagoda, Church of Ascension Perceval and Spencer House and

fall. This is Not Significant and would be indirect, long-term and local.

As a result, the conservation area and the receptors within it have a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed without change

The heritage receptors within the conservation area, would not experience

There are a number of highly graded assets within the CA including the

following receptors; 340 Lewisham High Street, Old Swimming Baths, School Treatment Centre and Lewisham Public Library the sensitivity of the receptor is Medium.

22 Dartmouth Row. The ZTV overlay with the heritage asset plan at Figure 5.2 indicates intervisibility between these receptors and the Proposed

Due to alignment of Lewisham High Street, Lewisham’s key north-south

magnitude of impact on the heritage value of the receptor.

receptor. The effect would be Neutral given the distance and the limited

much the surrounding land as growth areas.

9.117

This conservation area is located to the south of the railway viaducts,

The Proposed Development is therefore considered to have a Very Low

Lewisham Gateway and the tall building at Conington Road introduced a

Plans of the adjoining boroughs, Lewisham and Greenwich, have identified

9.116

with highly articulated elevations which provide texture and visual interest.

which can be seen at distance from the centre of the heath.

9.108

• Garden Walls to South and West of St Mary’s Vicarage, Police Station

The other receptors located within Blackheath CA, 91 and 91a Belmont Hill,

• 91 and 91a Belmont Hill (Map Ref: 30)

9.110

St Mary’s Vicarage (Map Ref: 3)

• Church of St Mary the Virgin (Map Ref: 4)

to High.

• 22 Dartmouth Row (Map Ref: 12)

9.107

•

House and Spencer House, 22 Dartmouth Row, their sensitivity is Medium

• Perceval House and Spencer House (Map Ref: 11)

The following receptors, by virtue of their location within the St Mary’s Conservation Area are assessed as part of the impact on the CA:

the following receptors, the Pagoda, Church of the Ascension, Perceval

• Church of the Ascension (Map Ref: 9)

9.106

9.115

therefore Low. When calibrated with the Very High value of the CA and

• The Pagoda (Map Ref: 8)

9.105

ST MARY’S CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: H)

As a result, the conservation area and the receptors within it have a high

9.119

For the receptors located within the CA that have a Very High heritage

Development. Where visible, the proposals are seen in conjunction with the

value as identified in Section 5.0, including St Mary’s Vicarage and the

existing and emerging tall building development around Lewisham, and it

Church of St Mary, when calibrated with the Low susceptibility, their

is not considered that this marginal visibility will affect one’s appreciation

sensitivity will be Medium/High.

of the heritage value of the receptors located within the CA.

ASSESSMENT: hERITAGE RECEPTORS

9.120

9.121

For the receptors that have a medium value, including the walls around St

9.127

the emerging skyline of Lewisham. The overall townscape composition

sensitivity of Low/Medium.

Development without tree coverage; even during the winter months,

would be consolidated. As a result, the change to the setting of the

branches and remaining foliage would have a filtering effect. Where visible,

conservation area would be limited. Intervisibility between the proposals

only a small part of the top of the proposed buildings would be noticeable.

and the conservation area would not detract from the quality of the

The Proposed Development would be understood as part of the emerging

conservatism area and significance would be preserved. The Proposed

skyline of Lewisham town centre. As a result, the change to the setting of

Development would not change the setting of the Stone House and the

the conservation area would be limited. Intervisibility would not detract

other listed buildings within the conservation areas and the receptors’

from the quality of the conservatism area and significance would be

significance would remain intact. The Proposed Development is therefore

preserved. The Proposed Development is therefore considered to have a

considered to have a Nil magnitude of impact on the heritage value of the

Nil magnitude of impact on the heritage value of the receptor.

receptors.

Only the upper parts of the Proposed Development would be noticeable

change to the setting of the conservation area and the other heritage receptors within it would be limited. Intervisibility between the proposals and the receptors would not impact on the viewers’ ability to appreciate the receptors and their significance would be preserved. The Church of St Mary and associated listed structures are located within an enclosed churchyard setting, which is bordered by a dense boundary

9.128

of mature trees. As a result, partial visibility of the Proposed Development is largely occluded by interposing vegetation, especially during winter months when the trees are in leaf. The introduction of the Proposed Development within the wider setting of the church is not considered to alter one’s appreciation of its significance.

9.129

The Proposed Development is therefore considered to have a Nil magnitude of impact on the heritage value of the receptor. The Development would have a None likely effect on the receptor. The effect is not significant. This effect would be indirect, long-term and local.

9.124

The heritage receptors located within the conservation area would not experience a change to their heritage significance. They would experience an effect of None, similar to the conservation area in which they fall.

LEWISHAM PARK CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: I) 9.125

9.130

The conservation area is located approximately 575 m to the south of the Site and comprises the open space of the park and the grand houses surrounding it. Three post-World War II tower blocks stand immediately is part of the A21 corridor that connects Lewisham town centre with the South Circular at the Catford gyratory. Catford itself is subject to the

9.131

the type of change proposed without change to its value. The susceptibility of the receptor to the type of change is therefore Low. When calibrated with the High value the sensitivity of the receptor is Medium.

long-term and local.

SOMERSET GARDEN CONSERVATION AREA, ST JOHN’S CONSERVATION AREA AND BROOKMILL CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: J, L AND M)

BROCKLEY CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: K) 9.135

The Brockley Conservation Area is located to the west of the Site,

The three conservation areas occupy the land that slopes down from the

approximately 630 m away, comprising Hilly Fields and the residential

elevated land to the north towards Lewisham town centre. The area is

streets to the west of the park. The conservation area comprises large

bordered by Loampit Vale/Lewisham Vale to the west and Brookmill Road

houses and terraces, developed in the second half of the 19th century

to the east, straddling the railway line. St John’s station lies at the centre.

and more modest houses on the streets further west. Some of the larger

The building stock across all three areas is high-quality, mid-19th century

houses stand on Drake Stret, which offers views out towards Lewisham

housing, including short terraces, semi-detached and detached houses,

town centre. The majority of the streets in the conservation area run

some of which are listed such as Somerset Gardens (grade II), or Stone

north-south and views out are only possible at the junctions with the

House, the Italianate villa on Lewisham Way, listed at grade II*.

east-west streets.

The A20 (Lewisham Way and Loampit Vale) leads from the conservation

9.136

The emerging new townscape is visible, comprising tall new developments,

areas down into the town centre, offering vistas across the town centre

such as the 35 storey tower at Conington Road and the cluster at

and the emerging new townscape, comprising tall new developments, such

Lewisham Gateway, which are comprised in the town centre tall building

as the 35-storey tower at Conington Road and the cluster at Lewisham

zone, defined in the Local Plan. 9.137

As a result, the conservation areas have a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed without change to its value. The

As a result, the conservation areas have a high ability to accommodate

susceptibility of the receptor to the type of change is therefore Low. When

the type of change proposed without change to its value. The

calibrated with the High value the sensitivity of the receptor is Medium.

calibrated with the High value the sensitivity of the receptor is Medium. 9.132

The Proposed Development would have a None likely effect on the receptors. The effect is not significant. This effect would be indirect,

susceptibility of the receptor to the type of change is therefore Low. When

of this part of the Borough, including the delivery of 2,700 new homes.

9.134

receptor. The effect is not significant. This effect would be indirect,

defined in the Local Plan.

Catford Town Centre Framework which sets out LBL’s vision for the future

As a result, the conservation areas have a high ability to accommodate

The Proposed Development would have a None likely effect on the

Gateway, which are comprised in the town centre tall building zone,

to the west of the park on Lewisham High Street. Lewisham High Street

9.126

The Proposed Development would introduce additional tall elements into

mature trees in the park. The ZTV shows the visibility of the Proposed

belonging to the established and emerging skyline of the town centre. The

9.123

9.133

Mary’s Church and the garden walls around the vicarage, these will have a

from Lewisham High Street. The buildings would be understood as

9.122

Much of the Proposed Development would be screened by the

9.138

By virtue of its location within Brockley CA, the Hillyfields Sixth Form Centre (Map Ref: 10) is included within this assessment. It has a heritage

By virtue of its location within Somerset Garden CA, 11 and 14-18 Somerset

value of Very High, and also has a Low susceptibility to the proposals,

Gardens (Map Ref: 44) is included within this assessment. It has a heritage

resulting in a sensitivity of Medium/High.

value of High, and also has a Low susceptibility to the proposals, similarly resulting in a sensitivity of Medium.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

100

ASSESSMENT: hERITAGE RECEPTORS

9.139

Seen across the separating distance, the upper parts of the Proposed

adopt a contextual and sensitive materiality and design approach to the

Development would be visible. The overall skyline composition of

buildings along Lewisham High Street.

Lewisham, comprising the tall buildings at Lewisham Gateway and Conington Road, would be consolidated. As a result, the change to

9.144

result in a Minor Beneficial effect. A beneficial nature of effect is identified

from the quality of the conservatism area and the significance would be

former shopping centre Site. This effect is Not Significant and would be

Hillyfields Sixth Form Centre.

indirect, long-term and local.

receptors. The effect is not significant. This effect would be indirect, long-term and local.

cumulate versions of the relevant AVRs in the Assessment of Effects: Visual section of this Volume which have been used to understand the likely effects of the Proposed Development on heritage receptors. The

High Street are assessed together as a group, given their collective

AVRs indicate how cumulative developments would appear and therefore

proximity to the Proposed Development. The receptors within this grou

indicate the change to the setting of the heritage receptor which may

comprise the following:

be introduced by the new construction activity associated with those

• 65-68 Lewisham High Street (Map ReF: 45)

developments. 9.146

There is one cumulative scheme considered within this assessment, Lewisham Retail Park, located approximately 200m to the north of the

Given the extent of change that the immediate setting of these buildings

Site. This would potentially introduce more demolition and construction

has undergone with the intervention of the shopping centre during

activity to the wider setting of the following heritage receptors:

the latter half of the twentieth century, these buildings have a Low

• Church of St Stephen and St Stephen’s Church War Memorial, Lewisham (Map Ref: 24)

Low heritage value, this will result in a sensitivity of Low.

• Lewisham Bridge Primary School (Map Ref: 26) • Conservation areas to the west of the Site (Map Refs: F and K)

The Proposed Development will introduce a number of tall buildings on Site, which will culminate in height to the North of the Site, to the

9.147

This type of activity would introduce noise, traffic and visual influences

northwest of the receptors, decreasing in height to the east of the Site.

which are unattractive and which detract from the wider area in which

The new buildings will introduce high-quality architecture onto the existing

the receptors are experienced, and for that reason, the combined effect

shopping centre Site, as well as extensive improvements to public realm

of the construction and demolition of the Proposed Development and

and landscaping. This includes a roof level garden which will be a key

cumulative schemes would continue to have a Low magnitude of impact,

feature in the wider settings of the receptors. The design of the majority of

resulting in Minor Adverse likely effects. These effects are indirect,

buildings, which is to be dcided in detail at the reserved matters stage, will

medium-term, temporary and would not be significant.

likely effects of the Proposed Development on heritage receptors. 9.150

The cumulative schemes are not considered to change the finding of likely effects on any of the heritage receptors assessed above and the outcome of the combined likely effects of the Proposed Development and cumulative schemes is not considered to change the impact on the heritage receptors.

SECTION SUMMARY

primarily a qualitative assessment, but regard has been had to the

susceptibility to the Proposed Development. When calibrated with their

9.143

Visual section of this Volume which have been used to understand the

The assessment of qualitative demolition and construction effects is

The following locally listed buildings on the eastern frontage of Lewisham

• 143-149 Lewisham High Street (Map Ref: 49) 9.142

9.145

The assessment of the cumulative schemes has had regard to the cumulative versions of the relevant AVRs at the Assessment of Effects:

CUMULATIVE DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION STAGE

The Proposed Development would have a None likely effect on the

• 85-95 Lewisham High Street (Map Ref: 47)

9.149

enabled through the introduction of high-quality architecture on the

a Nil magnitude of impact on the heritage value of the Brockley CA and

9.141

COMPLETED DEVELOPMENT STAGE

given the improvements to the setting of the locally listed buildings,

preserved. The Proposed Development is therefore considered to have

NON-DESIGNATED HERITAGE RECEPTORS: LOCALLY LISTED BUILDINGS ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF LEWISHAM HIGH STREET

continue to remain as None.

Given the impact is limited to one of setting, the Proposed Development remaining peripheral to one’s experience of each of the buildings. This will

between the proposals and the conservation area would not detract

For all other heritage receptors the likely effect of the combined effect of the construction and demolition of the Proposed Development would

will have a Low magnitude of impact on the heritage value of the receptor,

the setting of the conservation area would be limited. Intervisibility

9.140

9.148

9.151

The findings of the assessment of likely effects on heritage receptors is summarised at Table 9.1 below.

9.152

Summary of likely effects on heritage receptors. Significant likely effects are shaded in blue.

ASSESSMENT: hERITAGE RECEPTORS

REF

HERITAGE RECEPTOR

VALUE

SUSCEPTIBILITY

SENSITIVITY

MAGNITUDE (CONSTRUCTION)

LIKELY EFFECT (CONSTRUCTION)

LIKELY EFFECT (CONSTRUCTION, MAGNITUDE (OPERATIONAL) CUMULATIVE)

LIKELY EFFECT (OPERATIONAL)11

LIKELY EFFECT (OPERATIONAL) (CUMULATIVE)

Low

Medium to High

Nil

None

Very Low

Minor Neutral

101

World Heritage Sites A/B

Maritime Greenwich WHS and Very High Buffer Zone

Listed Buildings 1

Boone’s Chapel

Very High

Medium

High

Nil

None

Nil

None

Ranger House

Very High

Medium

High

Nil

None

Very Low

Minor Neutral

St Mary’s Vicarage

Very High

Low

Medium/High

Nil

None

Nil

None

Church of St Mary the Virgin

Very High

Low

Medium/High

Nil

None

Nil

None

The Fludyer Tomb, Lee Old Churchyard

Very High

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Nil

None

Monument of Sir John Call Bart Lee Old Churchyard

Very High

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Nil

None

Church of St Margaret

Very High

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Nil

None

The Pagoda

Very High

Low

Medium to High

Nil

None

Very Low

Negligible Neutral

Church of the Ascension

Very High

Low

Medium to High

Nil

None

Very Low

Negligible Neutral

Hillyfields Sixth Form Centre

Very High

Low

Medium to High

Nil

None

Nil

None

Perceval House and Spencer House

Very High

Low

Medium to High

Nil

None

Very Low

Negligible Neutral

22 Dartmouth Row

Very High

Low

Medium to High

Nil

None

Very Low

Negligible Neutral

The Manor House

Very High

Low

Medium to High

Nil

None

Very Low

Minor Neutral

Roman Catholic Church of Our Ladye Star of The Sea including its Forecourt Wall and Gate Piers

Very High

Low

Medum to High

Nil

None

Very Low

Minor Neutral

The Presbytery

Very High

Low

Medium to High

Nil

None

Very Low

Minor Neutral

The Clock Tower

High

Low

Medium

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Low

Minor Beneficial

Church of St Saviour

High

Low

Medium

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Low

Minor Beneficial

Presbytery Adjoining Church of St Saviour

High

Low

Medium

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Low

Minor Beneficial

Former Prudential Building

High

Low

Medium

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Low

Minor Beneficial

Church of St Stephen

High

Low

Medium

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Nil

None

11 *In the context of heritage, when we are thinking about a major change and its directional affect and concluding neutral, that is consistent with Historic England’s The Setting of Heritage Assets (HE GPA 3) (2015). A neutral impact in an ES context in NPPF terms means it has no impact on our appreciation of significance

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

102

ASSESSMENT: hERITAGE RECEPTORS

REF

HERITAGE RECEPTOR

VALUE

SUSCEPTIBILITY

SENSITIVITY

MAGNITUDE (CONSTRUCTION)

LIKELY EFFECT (CONSTRUCTION)

LIKELY EFFECT (CONSTRUCTION, MAGNITUDE (OPERATIONAL) CUMULATIVE)

LIKELY EFFECT (OPERATIONAL)11

LIKELY EFFECT (OPERATIONAL) (CUMULATIVE)

10-18 Belmont Hill

High

Low

Medium

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Nil

None

Lewisham Bridge Primary School

High

Low

Medium

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Nil

None

The Priory

High

Low

Medium

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Nil

None

Rileys (Former Temperane Billiard Hall)

High

Low

Medium

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Nil

None

United Reformed Church Sunday School

High

Low

Medium

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Nil

None

91 and 91a Belmont Hill

High

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Very Low

Negligible Neutral

Garden Walls to South and West of St Mary’s Vicarage, Police Station and Coroner’s Court

Medium

Low

Low/Medium

Nil

None

Nil

None

340 Lewisham High Street

High

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Nil

None

Old Swimming Baths

High

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Nil

None

The Sacred Heart Convent

High

Low

Medim

Nil

None

Very Low

Negligible Neutral

Minor Neutral

Walls surrounding Churchyard Medium of St Mary’s Church

Low

Low/Medium

Nil

None

Nil

None

Ladywell Station

High

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Nil

None

Old Tower of Former Church of High St Margaret

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Very Low

Negligible Neutral

School Treatment Centre

High

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Nil

None

Lewisham Public Library

High

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Nil

None

1-6 Aberdeen Terrace

High

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Very Low

Negligible Neutral

11, 14-18 Somerset Gardens

High

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Nil

None

Conservation Areas C

St Stephen’s Conservation Area

Medium

Low

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Nil

None

Belmont Conservation Area

Medium

Low

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Nil

None

Mercia Grove Conservation Area

Medium

Low

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Nil

None

Ladywell Conservation Area

High

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Nil

None

ASSESSMENT: hERITAGE RECEPTORS

103

REF

HERITAGE RECEPTOR

VALUE

SUSCEPTIBILITY

SENSITIVITY

MAGNITUDE (CONSTRUCTION)

LIKELY EFFECT (CONSTRUCTION)

LIKELY EFFECT (CONSTRUCTION, MAGNITUDE (OPERATIONAL) CUMULATIVE)

LIKELY EFFECT (OPERATIONAL)11

LIKELY EFFECT (OPERATIONAL) (CUMULATIVE)

G and R

Blackheath Conservation Area

High

Low

Low to Medium

Nil

None

Very Low

Minor Neutral

St Mary’s Conservation Area

High

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Nil

None

Lewisham Park Conservation Area

High

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Nil

None

Somerset Gardens Conservation Area

High

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Nil

None

Brockley Conservation Area

High

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Nil

None

Brookmill Conservation Area

High

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Nil

None

Greenwich Park Conservation Very High Area

Low

Medium to High

Nil

None

Very Low

Minor Neutral

Scheduled Monuments 51

West Grove, Conduit House, Blackheath

High

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Very Low

Negligible Neutral

Anglo-Saxon Cemetery in Greenwich Park

High

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Very Low

Negligible Neutral

Very High

Low

Medium to High

Nil

None

Low

Minor Neutral

Registered Park and Garden 53

Greenwich Park

Non-Designated Heritage Receptors Locally listed buildings 45

65-71 and 73-85 Lewisham High Street

Low

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Low

Minor Beneficial

66 Lewisham High Street

Low

Minor Adverse

Low

Minor Beneficial

85-95 Lewisham High Street

Low

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Low

Minor Beneficial

90-104 Lewisham High Street Low

Low

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Low

Minor Beneficial

143-149 Lewisham High Street

Low

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Low

Minor Beneficial

180-190 Lewisham High Street

Low

Minor Adverse

Low

Minor Beneficial

Buildings of townscape merit N/A

50-64 Lewisham High Street

Very Low

Low

Minor Adverse

Low

Minor Beneficial

N/A

68-70 Lewisham High Street

Very Low

Low

Minor Adverse

Low

Minor Beneficial

N/A

86-88 Lewisham High Street

Very Low

Low

Minor Adverse

Low

Minor Beneficial

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

104

ASSESSMENT: hERITAGE RECEPTORS

REF

HERITAGE RECEPTOR

VALUE

SUSCEPTIBILITY

SENSITIVITY

MAGNITUDE (CONSTRUCTION)

LIKELY EFFECT (CONSTRUCTION)

LIKELY EFFECT (CONSTRUCTION, MAGNITUDE (OPERATIONAL) CUMULATIVE)

LIKELY EFFECT (OPERATIONAL)11

LIKELY EFFECT (OPERATIONAL) (CUMULATIVE)

N/A

116-118 Lewisham High Street

Very Low

Low

Minor Adverse

Low

Minor Beneficial

N/A

122-126 Lewisham High Street (Marks and Spencer’s Building)

Very Low

Low

Medium

Minor/Moderate Adverse

Medium

Minor/Moderate Beneficial Minor/Moderate Beneficial

N/A

142-148 Lewisham High Street (Woolworth’s Building)

Very Low

Low

Medium

Minor/Moderate Adverse

Medium

Minor/Moderate Beneficial Minor/Moderate Beneficial

N/A

156-160 Lewisham High Street

Very Low

Low

High

Moderate Adverse

N/A

(Significant)

N/A

198-206 Lewisham High Street

Very Low

Low

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Low

Minor Beneficial

N/A

157-173 Lewisham High Street

Very Low

Low

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Low

Minor Beneficial

Table 9.1

Summary of likely effects on heritage receptors.

10.0 ASSESSMENT: TOWNSCAPE Lewisham Shopping Centre, Lewisham

106

ASSESSMENT: TOWNSCAPE

10.0

ASSESSMENT: TOWNSCAPE

10.1

10.6

experienced within close proximity to the site, in particular on Lewisham High Street, Rennell Street and Molesworth Street. This would have an

The likely effect is local level, over a short to medium term. This likely effect is not significant. 10.12

across longer distances, visible from the surrounding character areas. The cranes would be new elements within the view, but the magnitude of impact is considered to be Nil and the effects on all remaining

magnitude of impact on TCA2 would be Very Low.

important consideration to the vitality of the townscape. Construction

undertaken on the Site during demolition and construction necessary to

vehicles, comprising ready-mix lorries, articulated low loaders, plant

facilitate the Proposed Development.

delivery and rigid vehicles, would have an adverse impact on the function of the townscape in the immediate area. The Transport Assessment

The construction stage would directly affect Townscape Character Area

TCAs None. The duration of the effects is considered to be short to

The continued functioning of the local area during the phase is an

anticipated programme of works and the key activities that would be

submitted with the planning application provides mitigation measures to

medium-term and reversible.

OPERATIONAL SALIENT FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 10.13

principles determined by the parameter plans are underpinned by the

logistic management team would organise and plan prescribed delivery

Townscape Character Area 1 is identified as having Low value, Townscape

illustrative material set out in the Design and Access Statement prepared

times to ensure that busy roads do not become congested with frequent

Character Area 2 as having Medium value. Much of Lewisham town centre

by the architects; however, the illustrative masterplan is only illustrative

material deliveries.

is being transformed as set out in the local development plan. Lewisham

and does not form the basis of assessment. With the exception of Plots

External works including public realm landscaping would commence

N1 and N2, the architectural quality and urban design benefits are to

completed or are nearing completion. This activity is considered to be an

towards the end of the construction phase. The works would demonstrably

be secured through subsequent reserved matters applications. Those

expected feature of the transformation of the Site, and the principle of

improve the site and connections to the surrounding area.

applications must accord to the Design Code submitted with this proposal,

Gateway and the tall building at Conington Road have recently been

development here is accepted. The effects are the necessary first steps to enable the proposed development and would be removed following completion. Lorries and construction vehicles are a common phenomenon

10.8

This document refers to the parameter plans and detailed material for Plots N1 and N2 which inform the relevant assessments of receptors. The

reduce the disruption caused by construction and site preparation. The

and to a lesser extent Townscape Character Area 2: Residential Zone.

In terms of indirect effects, the demolition and construction phase of the Proposed Development would be likely to manifest only in cranes

the temporary nature of the works. Given the buffer effect of TCA1, the

10.7

As a result of the Low magnitude of impact overall, the demolition and construction residual effects are Minor Adverse to both character areas.

Notwithstanding, the magnitude of impact on TCA1 would be Low due to

1: Lewisham Town Centre, the character area in which the Site is located,

10.9

which is a control document and has informed the assessment.

The standard environmental controls required under legislation and best practice guidance would be met as a matter of course. In order

10.14

In summary, the scheme seeks to deliver the comprehensive, phased

to further mitigate the impact of demolition and construction to the

redevelopment of land at Lewisham Shopping Centre. The Proposed

immediate area the Applicant may enter into a ‘Considerate Constructors’

Development sits at the heart of Lewisham town centre between the

scheme to ensure best practice. Mitigation and monitoring measures

emerging Lewisham Gateway scheme to the north and existing residential

would be secured and controlled through an appropriate Construction

neighbourhoods of Lewisham to the south and southeast, Brockley and

The susceptibility of the receptor is therefore Low. In the case of TCA1, the

Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) based on the CEMP submitted

Ladywell to the west, Blackheath to the northeast and St John to the

sensitivity of the receptor is Low when calibrated with the Low value. TCA2

with the planning application. This may be secured through condition.

northwest. The Site lies approximately 250 m to the south of the Lewisham

in this part of Northfleet As a result, construction activities are a common sight within TCA1 and TCA2, and the character areas have a high ability to accommodate this type of change without change to the value. 10.5

10.11

adverse impact to the character, function and appearance of TCA1.

DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION

10.4

area during the demolition and construction phase.

Road and Lewisham Road. The magnitude of this impact would be most

A qualitative assessment is provided below. A summary of the effects

ES Volume 1 Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction sets out the

ground level to the immediate environment within TCA1. The phase would

thoroughfares towards the town centre through TCA2, such as Lee High

This section assesses the effect of the Proposed Development on the

The CEMP will need to be mindful of the operation for nearby cumulative developments to ensure minimal impact to the continued function of the

Construction related traffic and noise would be noticeable along the main

arising from impacts to townscape receptors is provided at Table 10.1.

10.3

10.10

existing structures on the Site, which would provide a visual buffer at result in increased noise, vibration, dust and traffic in the surrounding area.

townscape character areas identified in Table 6.1. 10.2

The Site would be enclosed with hoardings during the demolition of the

has a Medium value which, calibrated with the Low susceptibility, leads to

railway and DLR stations; numerous bus routes run along the site

a Low to Medium sensitivity.

boundary. The shopping centre site has a PTAL rating of 6b (the highest).

ASSESSMENT: TOWNSCAPE

SITE LAYOUT 10.15

10.20

The site layout has been driven by three key factors: 1. Optimising access across the Site and opening up routes from Lewisham High Street to Molesworth Street and creating a safe

10.21

the centre of the Site along activated frontages and through animated

10.27

are not subject of the scope of the outline parts of the hybrid planning application and the parameter plans it contains. A Design Code specifies

The proposed heights for the Site would complement existing buildings

the design ambitions for the entire site. The detailed design will be

and those on the adjoining development sites. The proposed heights

assessed via future Reserved Mattes Applications. 10.28

The two blocks submitted in detail indicate the design aspirations for the entire scheme. The Proposed Development would be robustly articulated with a material palette and design features that would be sustainable

Any assessment of acceptability must be made on the basis of the effects

and complementary to the surrounding townscape. The Proposed

be formed by a sequence of spaces, connecting the High Street and

of the development as a whole, and the way that tall building development

Development would be read as several distinct elements, each with

Molesworth Street, and the centre of the Site with Limes Grove. The new

interacts with the site and surrounding development. The proposals

their own individual expression, albeit having a consistent architectural

public park for Lewisham would sit above the retail accommodation.

have been rigorously tested within a virtual model, taking account of the

language. These principles are set out in the Design Code prepared by

principal ways in which the site would be experienced.

SEW Architects and the following sections.

be framed by Buildings N1 and N2. The southern end of the Site would

10.22

Only Blocks N1 and N2 are subject of the detailed part of the hybrid planning application. The appearance and character of the other plots

(notably Belmont Hill) and views across Blackheath.

the road crossing that connect the Site with the railway station. It would

The Design Code demonstrates how the Proposed Development is anticipated to create a varied townscape around these spaces, providing

10.23

The modelled views illustrate that the tall buildings would create a

10.29

The Design Code ensures that the Proposed Development would make

a series of characterful areas that respond to the specific conditions

successful townscape, integrated into the existing skyline of Lewisham

a positive contribution to the existing community, enabling development

around the Site.

town centre. Overall, the Proposed Development would sit comfortably in

in unison with the schemes on the adjacent sites. The Design Code

MASSING AND HEIGHT

the wider urban landscape of southeast London and particularly the views

demonstrates how the town centre character and heritage of the Site

from Blackheath.

and wider character area have been drawn out in the detailed design of

PUBLIC SPACE

the proposals. The contextual influences are reflected in the architectural

All plots relate to the surrounding existing townscape, particularly the existing buildings on both sides of Lewisham High Street and the emerging context, including the buildings of the Lewisham Gateway scheme and

10.24

those at Conington Road, which all fall into TCA1. 10.19

ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN

drawn from the journey through the Site, and along the surrounding roads

fronting onto Rennell Street would become an arrival space adjacent to

10.18

of taller buildings would incorporate the existing Lewisham House. The

stem from an analysis of long, medium and immediate views which are

public spaces. There would be three main public open zones. The area

10.17

wayfinding and connectivity through the Site.

of the Site range from + 93.585 m AOD to +24.735 m AOD.

3. Capitalising on the existing buildings along Lewisham High Street. The resulting arrangement of building blocks would create new routes into

+ 119.255 m AOD), stepping down towards the Site. The northern grouping

attractive undulating skyline composition, the buildings in the southern half

2. Maximising public space and creating a new park for Lewisham.

Overall, the high quality public space would contribute to the experience and enjoyment of the townscape and environment, and enhance

Site and position of the new public park (+132.285 m AOD). Creating an

the north.

10.26

the established cluster of tall buildings at the stations, (+ 82.755 m AOD to

tallest building would mark the junction of the key routes across the

and welcoming access point from Rennell Street and the station to

10.16

Taller buildings are concentrated in the northern half of the Site, closest to

107

both hard and soft landscaping. The illustrative scheme shows how these

expression and materiality of the proposed buildings, and in the detailing and character of the public realm and landscaping.

spaces could be designed. The raised park at the centre of the Site would

The entire town centre sits in the New Cross/Lewisham/Catford

become a unique feature and a destination in its own right, offering spaces

Opportunity Area, identified in the development plan as a growth area

for leisure, meeting people and enjoying quiet, contemplative activities.

in Lewisham with significant development opportunities. The railway and DLR stations and local bus routes give access to the Proposed

The proposals envisage the delivery of a series of public open spaces with

10.25

The character of other landscaped spaces would be influenced by

Development and support high density living as set out and supported

their public or private nature and their relationship with the surrounding

by the Local Plan. Therefore, a cluster of taller buildings are proposed

buildings. Private gardens and residential areas will be delineated through

which are considered to be appropriate to the location, mindful of

the use of planting and landscaping techniques, aiding legibility and

the townscape sensitivities in the surrounding area and the emerging

wayfinding. Landscaped areas would contribute to a layering of greenery

townscape context anticipated through the development plan.

that reflects and complement the tapering and undulating character of the built form and would be appreciable in close and mid-distant views.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

108

ASSESSMENT: TOWNSCAPE

DIRECT EFFECTS TOWNSCAPE CHARACTER AREA 1: LEWISHAM TOWN CENTRE 10.30

10.35

The Site falls within Townscape Character Area 1, which comprises the buildings of various sizes, ages, styles and materials, that form the

10.36

the proposed public park would sit. Trees and planting would provide a

townscape value leads to a sensitivity that is Low to Medium. 10.40

TCA1 and the tall buildings at Lewisham Gateway, Conington Road and Loampit Vale act as a buffer that separates TCA2 from the Site. The buildings in TCA1 follow the ambitions set out in the Local Plan and step down towards the more low-rise residential neighbourhoods of TCA2from

Only plots N1 and N2 are subject of the detailed part of the hybrid

many vantage points, only the top elements of the Development would

planning application. The architectural form would be appreciated from

be visible. From the streets in subarea 2c, which point towards the Site,

long-, mid- and close distance viewpoints, including Lewisham High Street

the entire skyline of Lewisham town centre would be visible. The Proposed

and the new public park. Subtle differences in the elevational treatment

Development completes the composition, introducing tall, slender

The Proposed Development would comprise the redevelopment of the

of the two buildings create visual interest while maintaining an overall

elements into the view. The high quality architecture would make a positive

Site and deliver a mixed-use, housing led scheme. The range of uses

harmonious appearance.

contribution to the local townscape.

proposed development. This results in a Low sensitivity.

would be complementary to the existing and emerging character of the area, the town centre, as set out in the development plan. The quantum

10.37

and intensity of use, in conjunction of the scale of development, would be consistent with the use and type of development in the immediate and wider study area, which already includes large and tall development.

Overall, the proposed development would have a High magnitude of high quality development. The proposals would mark a demonstrable

Proposed Development, offering new shops, cafés, bars, restaurants and

improvement to the character, appearance and function to the area. The

leisure opportunities would be felt across the entire study area and benefit

resultant likely effect would be direct, permanent, long-term, Moderate

the local community.

buildings along Lewisham High Street, visibility of the taller elements would

INDIRECT EFFECTS TOWNSCAPE CHARACTER AREA 2: RESIDENTIAL ZONE

High Street and the adjoining townscape by the low-rise buildings in

10.38

The open space at the heart of the Site, connected with the high street would serve the residents in TCA2. The overall transformative uplift of the

Beneficial

elements would be screened in the short distance views from Lewisham

10.41

impact on TCA1 as it would replace the existing buildings with a new

Set back from the existing eaves line established by the traditional be largely restricted to mid-distance and longer views. As a result, the tall

10.34

Townscape Character Area is Low, which in combination with the Medium

integrate them into the emerging Lewisham town centre skyline.

is for these reasons that TCA1 is judged to have a Low susceptibility to the

10.33

Street which together enclose the central development plot above which

design development the height of the tall buildings was reduced to fully

The character area falls within an Opportunity Area and sits adjacent Gateway and the sites to the east and northwest of the railway station. It

10.32

Area and more change is to be expected. The susceptibility of the

conceived to maximise the amount of sunlight into this space. During

Townscape to be Low.

to several redevelopment sites in the town centre, such as Lewisham

time. Much of it falls within the New Cross/Lewisham/Catford Opportunity

building plots along Molesworth Street and five close to Lewisham High

much needed green resource. The arrangement of the buildings has been

town centre. The townscape value is identified at Baseline Conditions:

10.31

The outline element of the Proposed Development comprises eight

10.42

The magnitude of impact is considered to be Medium and thus the likely effect is Minor. The effect is Beneficial. The effect would be local, direct and long-term.

TOWNSCAPE CHARACTER AREA 4: GREENWICH PARK AND BLACKHEATH COMMON

Townscape Character Area 2: Residential zone occupies much of

the foreground. The new high street buildings would be integrated into

the study area. Blackheath (subarea 2a) is located to the northeast,

the established street frontage in a fashion that responds to the older

Greenwich and Deptford (subarea 2b) to the north, Brockley and Ladywell

neighbours both in terms of use and scale and appearance.

(subarea 2c) and the southern residential areas of Lewisham surround the

comprises the large open space formed by the royal park and the

town centre. Their character is suburban in appearance. Mature trees line

common, offering long views across the open space towards Canary

the streets, and the houses, typically late 19th and early 20 century, two

Wharf to the north, Kidbrook to the southeast and Lewisham town

storey terraces have long gardens. There are grander properties in the

centre to the southwest. Much of the land visible from TCA4 falls either in

Blackheath subarea. Large parts of the historic townscape within TCA2

the New Cross/Lewisham/Catford Opportunity Area or the Isle of Dogs

are covered by conservation area designations and comprise statutorily

Opportunity Area. The London skyline is continuously evolving and some

and locally listed buildings.

of London’s tallest buildings appear in the view. As a result, it is considered

The Site is currently occupied by the existing Lewisham Shopping Centre complex. Built in the 1970s, Lewisham Shopping Centre is a sprawling structure that comprises a 20 storey office block (Lewisham House), a leisure hall, large service courts and a multi-storey car park. It lacks any architectural interest and has no heritage value. Some elements of the shopping centre, such as the multi-storey car park building on Molesworth Street and the low block fronting onto Rennell Street, have a detrimental impact on Lewisham's streetscape.

10.39

TCA2 is embedded in the wider townscape of southeast London from where several large scale development areas can be seen, such as Lewisham town centre, Canary Wharf, Canada Water or Kidbrooke. As a result, TCA2 has been exposes to on-going change over a long period of

10.43

Townscape Character Area 4: Greenwich Park and Blackheath Common

that the receptor has a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed without change to its value. The susceptibility of the receptor to the type of change is therefore Low. When calibrated with the High value the sensitivity of the receptor is Medium.

ASSESSMENT: TOWNSCAPE

10.44

TCA4 sits on an elevated position in relation to the Site and TCA1 which

of Lewisham town centre. Despite the filtering of foliage and vegetation,

are located next to the riverbed of the River Ravensbourne. For this

the high-quality elevational treatment would be noticeable as would be

reason, much of the Proposed Development would be obscured by

the improved edge treatment around the Site, where the new buildings

interposing existing development and the trees that enclose TCA4. Only

would replace the old shopping centre structure.

the upper parts of the buildings would be visible, supporting wayfinding and legibility. The taller elements would mark the location of the town centre and help locate the position of the railway station at the heart of Lewisham. Overall, the Proposed Development would not impact on the

10.51

10.52

10.45

10.46

The magnitude of impact is considered to be Nil and thus the likely effect

10.53

The magnitude of impact is thus Nil, resulting in an effect of None.

From TCA2 several large scale development areas in southeast London

development and structures such as Crystal Palace radio beacon, for

development plan. The susceptibility of the Townscape Character Area is Low, which in combination with the Medium townscape value leads to a sensitivity that is Low to Medium. Although screened by the residential areas in TCA2 the Proposed Development would appear above the established roofline in the views

10.56

primarily a qualitative assessment, but regard has been had to the

deals with the cumulative impact to public transport. The siting and scale

cumulate versions of the relevant AVRs in the Assessment of Effects:

of development is intended to optimise the use of the land, in a highly

Visual section of this Volume which have been used to understand the

sustainable location near to Lewisham station. At ground floor level

likely effects of the Proposed Development on townscape receptors. The

commercial uses, active frontages and public realm improvements will

AVRs indicate how cumulative developments would appear and therefore

provide vitality to the street. 10.61

The cumulative developments are considered to contribute towards the regeneration of Lewisham town centre. The Proposed Development, Lewisham Retail Park and Carpetright are located in ‘edge of centre

The demolition and construction of the cumulative schemes around the

areas’, as identified by the Lewisham Town Centre Local Plan (2014). The

Site at Loampit Vale, Silver Road and the Lewisham Retail Park would

Development and cumulative schemes are complementary in use, and in

potentially introduce more demolition and construction activity into TCA1:

accordance with the objectives and the vision of the development plan

Lewisham Town Centre.

and the more strategic aspiration to create a Metropolitan Centre.

This type of activity would introduce noise, traffic and visual influences

of the construction and demolition of the Proposed Development and

would be mostly screened by the tree canopy in the parks. Even during the

cumulative schemes would continue to have a Low magnitude of impact,

winter months, vegetation in the park would provide some filtering.

resulting in Minor Adverse likely effects. These effects are indirect,

Where visible, the undulating composition of the Proposed Development,

backdrop to the parks. It would help embed the Site into the wider skyline

Lewisham town centre. The Transport Assessment (Chapter 9 of the ES)

the receptors are experienced, and for that reason, the combined effect

2a and 2b). From the other open spaces, the Proposed Development

to the tall buildings of Lewisham Gateway, would provide an attractive

Cumulatively, the developments will generate more than 700 residential

which are unattractive and which detract from the wider area in which

from some of the subareas, particularly the parks to the west (subareas

stepping up to Block C4 at the centre of the Site and then transitioning

and re-providing street blocks with active frontages.

The assessment of qualitative demolition and construction effects is

developments. 10.55

removing the existing large developments set in surface level car parks

units and more than 700 student rooms that will intensify the use of

be introduced by the new construction activity associated with those

of scale.

will further change the function of the area south of the railway line,

10.60

indicate the change to the setting of the heritage receptor which may

example, reinforce the dynamic nature of the Heath and provide a sense

The majority of cumulative schemes are located in the TCA1. Lewisham developments. The Lewisham Retail Park and Carpetright developments

This section of the Volume assesses the potential effects arising from

DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION STAGE

Lewisham town centre is undergoing major change as set out in the

10.59

Retail Park, Carpetright and 1 Silver Road are the most substantial

Several parks and public green spaces are spread across the study area,

Cross/Lewisham/Catford Opportunity Area. The visibility of significant

10.50

reconfiguration of Loampit Vale roundabout.

surrounding area, as listed in Section 2.0.

Wharf, Canada Water or Kidbrooke. The TCA is embedded in the New

10.49

town centre, notably in and around Lewisham Station, by virtue of the

TOWNSCAPE CHARACTER AREA 5: PARKS AND OPEN GREEN SPACE

and beyond can be seen, such as Lewisham town centre, Canary

10.48

Site is approaching completion and is considered as part of the Baseline.

impact upon one’s experience of the townscape character area.

with the potential impacts of other development schemes within the

10.54

The Lewisham Gateway development immediately to the north of the

Notwithstanding the partial visibility, the Proposed Development will not

the impact of the Development to townscape receptors in combination

such as Hilly Fields and Blythe Hill to the west of the Site and Ladywell

10.47

10.58

The development is considered an improvement to the function of the

is None.

Fields and Lewisham Park to the south.

COMPLETED DEVELOPMENT STAGE

CUMULATIVE

openness of the parkland.

109

medium-term, temporary and would not be significant. 10.57

For all other townscape receptors, the likely effect of the combined effect of the construction and demolition of the Proposed Development would continue to remain as either Negligible Adverse or None.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

110

ASSESSMENT: TOWNSCAPE

SECTION SUMMARY 10.62

The assessment on townscape receptors is summarised in Table 10.1 below.

REF

TOWNSCAPE RECEPTOR

SENSITIVITY

MAGNITUDE (CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION)

LIKELY EFFECT (CONSTRUCTION LIKELY EFFECT (CONSTRUCTION, AND DEMOLITION) CUMULATIVE)

MAGNITUDE (OPERATIONAL)

LIKELY EFFECT (OPERATIONAL)

LIKELY EFFECT (CUMULATIVE)

Lewisham town centre

Low

Minor Adverse

High

Moderate Beneficial

(Significant)

Minor Adverse

Residential zone

Low to Medium

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Medium

Minor Beneficial

Greenwich Park and Blackheath Common

Medium

Nil

None

Nil

None

Parks and open green space

Low to Medium

Nil

None

Nil

None

Table 10.1 Summary of likely effects on townscape receptors.

11.0 ASSESSMENT: VISUAL

Lewisham Shopping Centre, Lewisham

112

ASSESSMENT: VISUAL

11.0

ASSESSMENT: VISUAL

11.1

This section assesses the likely effect arising from the impact of the Proposed Development on the visual receptors identified in Table 7.1. For ease of reference the View Location Plan is re-provided at the start of this section (Figure 11.1).

VIEW 14: ISLAND GARDENS

VIEW 38: GREENWICH PARK

VIEW LOCATION PLAN Application Site

13 38

Lewisham DLR station

Albion Way

Hilly Fields

Blythe Hill Fields

5.1.

Vicars Hill at Shell Road

5.2. Ellerdale Street 11

12 36

VIEW 39: ST JOHN’S PARK

20 19

26 28

5.1

5.2

VIEW 37: GREENWICH LOCAL VIEW 5

3 23

6 4

8 17

VIEW A: HONOR OAK ROAD/HONOR OAK PARK

750 m

VIEW 32: KING JOHN’S WALK/ELTHAM PALACE

Ladywell Station Bridge

Mountsfield Park

Courthill Road

St Stephen's (Cressingham Road)

10.

Lewisham High Street

11.

Hyde Vale (Blackheath)

12.

Shooters Hill/General Woolfe Road

13.

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park

14.

Island Gardens

15.

Belmont Hill/Cedars Grove

16.

Belmont Hill

17.

St Mary the Virgin

18.

Chudleigh Road

19.

All Saints' Church

20.

Goffers Road

21.

Telegraph Hill

22.

Loampit Hill

23.

Lee High Road

24.

Honor Oak Road/Honor Oak Park

25.

Lewisham Park

26.

Sunninghill Roads/Lewisham Way

27.

Halesworth Road

28.

Silk Mills Path

29.

Lewisham Clock Tower

30.

Mercia Grove

31.

Marischal Road

32.

Greenwich Local View 10: King John’s Walk/Eltham Palace

33.

Outside Prendergast Vale School

34.

Waterway Avenue (Waterlink Way)

35.

Ryecroft Road

36.

Millennium Circle

37.

Greenwich Local View 5: Eltham Park (North) to Central London

38.

Greenwich Park

39.

Blackheath CA St John’s Park, the road to the north of St John’s Church before the junction with Stratheden Road.

32 7

1.5 km

Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2024 Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2024

MONTAGU EVANS

LOCATION:

Lewisham Shopping Centre

DATE:

October 2024

SCALE:

1:15,000 @ A3

Figure FIGURE:11.1 View Location Plan

▲ NORTH

CHARTERED SURVEYORS 70 ST MARY AXE, LONDON, EC3A 8BE T: +44 (0)20 7493 4002 WWW.MONTAGU-EVANS.CO.UK

114

ASSESSMENT: VISUAL

REPRESENTATIVE VIEWS 11.2

The assessment is informed by the ZTV at Figure 2.1 and the verified views provided at Appendix 1.

DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION 11.3

and S1 with shoulder block elements that establish a stepped approach to

• View 37: Greenwich Local View 5: Eltham Park (North) to Central

the massing. 11.16

More detailed elements of the design are to be decided at the

Construction phase is identified:

detailing. However, this is only illustrative and does not form the basis

The Works will have a limited effect on the value of visual receptors

• Local residents to the north of the town centre (Blackheath);

of assessment. With the exception of Plots N1 and N2, the architectural

identified in the baseline of this chapter. This is because construction

• Local residents to the north of the town centre (Belmont);

quality and urban design benefits are to be secured through subsequent

11.10

• Local residents to west of the town centre (SE13);

11.11

11.12

11.13

impact of cranes and other construction equipment. 11.14

Development varies from different locations. The north-south orientated streets with consistently scaled development on either side largely obstructs views of the Proposed Development. There is already a well-established distinction between the residential

sensitivity of Low.

the taller, modern buildings that define the town centre in views looking

The maximum extent of visibility is demonstrated by AVR Views 5.1 and

principally the Lewisham Gateway development. 11.15

11.19

character of this area of visual amenity and its low scale terraces against

emerging tall building context that comprises Lewisham town centre,

of a wider panorama.

the following visual receptor groups and static views, a Nil magnitude

from this character area is a kinetic one in which visibility of the Proposed

Low/Medium. Professional judgement has been applied to identify a

views, the Proposed Development will appear as part of the existing and

the relatively limited visual impact, often experienced in transit and as part

to proximity and orientation of visual receptors in relation to the Site. For

towards the Site. It should be highlighted that the experience of receptors

Local residents to the west of the town centre have a Medium

5.2, 33 and 34 (contained in Appendix 1.0 of this report). In these long

Site. Impacts from a distance are more likely to be neutral in nature due to

These visual and environment impacts would vary in magnitude according

here, the lateral nature of Ellerdale Street, allows for direct, open views

The effects are temporary, short-term and reversible.

the Low value of this visual amenity area, this results in a sensitivity of

Views of the Site from locations AVRs 5.1 and 5.2 (contained in Appendix 1.0 of this report) are aided by the orientation of streets, which from

susceptibility to the Proposed Development. When calibrated with

experience some of these environmental impacts, but mainly the visual

the ability to appreciate the visual amenity where close in proximity to the

11.18

LOCAL RESIDENTS TO THE WEST OF THE TOWN CENTRE (SE13)

surroundings of the Site. Residents of the immediate area would also

The nature of the effect often reverts to Adverse owing to the changes to

symmetry and legibility.

OPERATIONAL

Each receptor group would experience the demolition and construction dust, traffic and general activity would be most acute from the immediate

will be perceptible, as well as its articulated roofline and emphasis on

• Commuters and users of the transport infrastructure of the town centre.

construction apparatus required on Site relative to the existing condition. phase in a similar way, although the environmental impacts from noise,

taller blocks on the Site. The rich red brick, buff materiality of Plot N2

For the following visual receptor groups, a High magnitude of impact,

• Users of town centre facilities;

stage of the Proposed Development would also include cranes appearing

Given the location of plots N1 and N2 on the eastern element of the Site, these will only be visible through gaps in the building line of the remaining

Construction phase is identified:

closer-range views, to visual receptors in immediate surroundings. This

There would be a marked increase in the quantum of activity and scale of

11.17

resulting in an effect of Moderate Adverse during the Demolition and

equipment. The demolition of the existing building would also be visible in

as part of the skyline.

and has informed the assessment.

• Amenity Users of Hilly Fields and other parks to the west

In terms of the likely effects on visual receptors, the activities at this stage activities in the local area, such as hoarding, construction traffic and tall

Design Code submitted with this proposal, which is a control document

Construction phase is identified:

demolition and construction phase also.

of the Proposed Development would include the visibility of construction

reserved matters applications. Those applications must accord to the

For the following visual receptor groups, a Low magnitude of impact, resulting in an effect of Minor Adverse during the Demolition and

beginnings of the assessment for each receptor, which apply to the

11.8

• View 32: Greenwich Local View 10: King John’s Walk/Eltham Palace

Architects gives an indication of architectural form, materiality and

local. The susceptibility and sensitivity to change is summarised at the

11.7

has been mitigated through design measures including the setback of S4

resulting in an effect of Negligible Adverse during the Demolition and

effects are temporary, of short to medium-term duration, indirect and

11.6

• Amenity users of Blackheath and Greenwich Park;

reserved matters stage, however, the Design Code prepared by SEW

11.9

Proposed Development.

11.5

most perceptible from the residential area to the west. The scale of blocks

For the following visual receptor groups, a Very Low magnitude of impact,

undertaken during demolition and construction necessary to facilitate the

11.4

this area. The western elevations of Blocks C5, C4, C3, S2, S1 and S4 will be

Construction phase is identified:

London

ES Volume 1 Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction sets out the anticipated programme of works and the key activities that would be

of impact, resulting in an effect of None during the Demolition and

The introduction of a number of tall buildings on Site will bring the sense of scale of the town centre within closer proximity to visual receptors of

east. Notwithstanding this, there is an evident increase in scale which is perceptible in views from the western residential areas. This will largely be greatest for those residential areas immediately west of Molesworth Street, as articulated by AVR Views 33 and 34 (contained in Appendix 1.0 of this report), and those residential streets that are easterly-westerly orientated and thus have unobstructed views towards the Proposed Development. From other areas, the visibility is more limited, with the Proposed Development coming in and out of focus.

ASSESSMENT: VISUAL

11.20

11.21

The magnitude of impact to this receptor group is therefore Medium,

11.27

perceptible in views from the northern residential area, as articulated by

Significant and would be local, direct and long-term.

predominantly contained to those north-south orientated streets that

AVR View 16 (contained within Appendix 1.0 of this report). From other

align with the Site. AVR View 19 (contained in Appendix 1.0 of this report)

areas, visibility may be more limited given the alignment of streets, density

demonstrates the extent of intervisibility from Blackheath Church,

of development and interposing vegetation.

The scale of the Proposed Development would be readily perceptible,

the extent of built form in this area largely occluding the Proposed Development from view – only the uppermost elements remaining visible.

centre. The scale, form and massing has been considered in detail, and

Moderate Neutral, given that the greatest visibility is limited to localised

of the outline component, plus other control documents such as the

in an effect of Minor/Moderate Neutral. This magnitude of impact is

be local, direct and long-term.

Development Specification and Framework and Design Code. As a

judged on the introduction of tall buildings, which remain peripheral to

consequence, the direction of effect is considered neutral.

the receptor’s experience and add to an already established and existing

AMENITY USERS OF BLACKHEATH AND GREENWICH PARK

LOCAL RESIDENTS TO THE NORTH OF THE TOWN CENTRE (BLACKHEATH)

context of buildings defining Lewisham town centre.

11.28

11.35

Amenity users of Blackheath and Greenwich Park will have a Low susceptibility to the proposals, given their focus and engagement on the

LOCAL RESIDENTS TO THE NORTH OF THE TOWN CENTRE (BELMONT HILL)

Local residents to the north of the town centre (Blackheath) will have a

attractive environmental surrounds comprising Blackheath and Greenwich

Local residents to the north of the town centre will have a Medium

Park and associated recreational activities. When calibrated with the Very

with the High value of this visual amenity area this results in a sensitivity of

susceptibility to the Proposed Development. When calibrated with the

High value of this visual amenity area, the sensitivity is Medium/High.

Medium/High.

Medium value of this visual amenity area, this results in a sensitivity of

11.29

Medium.

Visibility from this area is demonstrated by a series of AVR views from

11.36

Visibility from this area is demonstrated from Blackheath by a series of AVR views from the heathland, including AVRs 11,12,19,20 and 36

Visibility from this area is demonstrated by AVR views 16 and 15. In these

(contained in Appendix 1.0 of this report). The open character of the

proximity to it (AVR Views 11, 12,19 and 20 – contained in Appendix 1.0

long views, the Proposed Development will appear as part of the existing

Heath allows for long and obstructed views towards the Proposed

of this report). The Proposed Development is seen in conjunction with

and emerging tall building context that comprises Lewisham town centre,

Development, which will form a new feature on the skyline by introducing a

the existing modern, tall building development which characterises the

including the evolving development around Lewisham Station and

number of tall buildings of varying height.

periphery of the Heath in views looking south towards Lewisham.

Lewisham House.

the heathland, as well as some of the residential streets which lie in close

11.30

11.37

The Proposed Development is seen in conjunction with the existing

The Proposed Development will introduce a greater sense of scale with

modern, tall building development which characterises the periphery

building development that the Proposed Development will form part of,

a number of buildings over 20 storeys. The massing of the buildings on

of the Heath in views looking south towards Lewisham. The Proposed

marking the proximity of Lewisham town centre.

Site is varied, gradually increasing from the northern element of the Site

Development increases the scale of buildings on the periphery and brings

and from Lewisham House, stepping down again towards the southern

the sense of urbaneness closer.

A network of towers is already visible and forms part of the evolving tall

11.31

The ZTV at Figure 2.2 demonstrates that there will be visibility from

element of the Site. From View 16 this approach appears contextual to the

the heath, towards the Proposed Development. The open character of

low-scale residential character of the terraces on either side of the road,

the Heath allows for long and obstructed views towards the Proposed

descent, ensures that the new buildings do not form an overbearing feature on the Heath, remaining subservient to the historic buildings which surround it. The mid to lower elements of the new buildings remain occluded from view by the interposing built form and landscape. The Proposed Development remains a peripheral feature in long views towards Lewisham.

11.32

However, given the topography of the heath, which forms a plateau before a gradual descent, ensures that the mid to lower elements of the new buildings remain predominantly occluded from view. The new buildings thus

views looking southeast, marking the location of the town centre.

new buildings of up to 25 storeys. However, the topography of the heath, forming a plateau before a gradual

11.38

with the tallest block, Block C4, appearing as point of focus for receptors in

Development, which will form a new feature on the skyline by introducing

11.26

The magnitude of impact is therefore Low, resulting in an effect of Minor/ parts of the visual amenity area. This effect is Not Significant and would

Medium susceptibility to the Proposed Development. When calibrated

11.25

11.34

The magnitude of impact to this receptor group is therefore Low, resulting

high quality design would be delivered through the maximum parameters

11.24

Notwithstanding this, there is an evident increase in scale which is

more limited given the fine urban grain of development, with views

often poor, and subject to existing contrasts in scale relative to the town

11.23

11.33

resulting in an effect of Minor/Moderate Neutral. This effect is Not

and seen within the context of existing visual amenity of the area that is

11.22

From the residential areas around the heath, visibility is slightly

115

do not form an overbearing feature on the Heath, remaining subservient to

Furthermore, the experience of receptors within this visual amenity area

the historic buildings which surround it. The Proposed Development remains

is a kinetic one, in which the Proposed Development appears in and

a peripheral feature in long views towards Lewisham.

out view, given the extent of interposing development and vegetation, as well as the alignment of streets and associated development. This is demonstrated by AVR View 15, in which the Proposed Development appears off to the left of the frame, partially occluded by interposing development and vegetation.

11.39

Furthermore, the experience of receptors within this visual amenity area is a kinetic one, in which the Proposed Development will appear in and out of view, depending on the receptor’s position, sometimes remaining wholly occluded.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

116

ASSESSMENT: VISUAL

11.40

In views further north, from Greenwich Park, the impact of the Proposed

established urban and tall building backdrop to the park, which the new

Development is articulated by AVR Views 13 and 38. From here, the extent

built form complements.

of separation distance and interposing development and vegetation largely limits visibility with new buildings on Site. 11.41

11.47

Views 11, 12, 20, 36 and 19 (contained in Appendix 1.0 of this report), does

in and out of focus, sometimes remaining as a peripheral feature in views

marginally appear on the periphery of the WHS, when viewed from the

from Hilly Fields park.

albeit at odds with the existing character of the natural landscape, is seen in

11.48

As such, the magnitude of impact of the Proposed Development would be Low, resulting in an effect of Minor/Moderate Beneficial. The effect is Not

A beneficial nature of effect is identified given the creation of dynamic, skyline views from these open spaces which are created through the

11.49

11.50

on Site, the undulating and tapering effect of which provides an exciting and

landscape. When calibrated with the Medium value of this visual amenity

11.51

Fields, which comprises minimal vegetation, largely limited to its outer

11.52

11.57

Receptors within this group will experience the greatest change to visual

existing High Street buildings, including the Church of St Stephen. 11.58

variation in brickwork and materiality that is demonstrated by the existing High Street buildings. This simultaneously establishes a layering effect of buildings from the High Street towards the Northern Square, through the use of a darker brick at ground level and for the foreground buildings, with a lighter tonality for those buildings which are further setback 11.59

experience of the receptor returns to the lower-scale historic buildings that front the High Street. These remain the dominant feature on the

This visual experience is demonstrated by the linear kinetic sequence of

streetscape, with intermittent views of the taller scale development

views along Lewisham High Street (9, 29 and 10). This is a kinetic experience,

beyond.

in which the majority of buildings fronting the High Street are retained, and at eye, level the existing street scene is retained on both sides.

the density and scale of development in views looking eastwards from the

As the trajectory of receptors within this visual amenity area becomes more linear, the taller scale buildings disappear out of focus and the

skyline feature within the town centre.

The proposals will introduce a number of tall buildings on Site, increasing

The variation in brickwork of Block N1, which comprises a lighter colour for the upper elements of the building and a darker for the plinth, echoes the

will replace the former shopping centre building and form a distinctive new

11.53

The base of N1 forms a plinth that steps down from four storeys to two storeys as it wraps around the Site and provides a contextual scale to the

Users of the town centre facilities will have a High susceptibility to the

amenity, given the introduction of a number of tall buildings on Site, which

boundaries, allows for long vistas towards the Proposed Development.

11.60

The clock tower forms an object building, seen as part of a kinetic sequence when moving along Lewisham High Street and Lee High Road.

In views from the northern end of the High Street, looking south, the open

The setting of the building is quite contained by the existing buildings lining

the southerly element of the Site. The use of shoulder blocks and setbacks

character of the streetscape around St Stephen’s Church provide a clear

the High Street and its backdrop varies depending on where the observer

reduces the perception of mass in these longer views.

understanding of the increased scale of new buildings on the former High

is located. In some instances (when travelling north and south) the clock

Street. From here, Plots N1 and N2 definitively change the nature of scale

tower will be seen against a clear sky backdrop. In others, it will be seen

along the High Street, now reflecting the height of the Lewisham Gateway

against existing development. The observer is readily aware that this is an

Development opposite. The buildings act as a gateway which marks one’s

urban environment.

centre of the park. The scale of buildings on Site varies, declining towards

11.46

against the new skyline.

amenity, this will result in a sensitivity of Medium.

Visibility for these visual receptors is demonstrated by AVR Views 3 and 21 (contained in Appendix 1.0 of this report). The open character of Hilly

the unique roof form and character of which are better appreciated

Proposed Development. When calibrated with the Low value of visual

area, the sensitivity is Low/Medium. 11.45

articulation, forming a contrast between the lower-scale historic buildings,

USERS OF THE TOWN CENTRE FACILITIES

susceptibility to the proposals, given their focus and engagement on recreational activities associated with the parkland, as well as the green

located to the south of the Site establish a contrast in materiality and

attractive skyline, signalling the regeneration of Lewisham town centre.

signalling the regeneration of this town centre.

Amenity users of Hilly Fields and other parks to the west, will have a Low

of buildings behind. The modern architectural character of the buildings

A beneficial nature of effect is identified given the attractive skyline composition that is created by the construction of a range of tall buildings

Moving further south along the High Street, the historic buildings of varying eras that front the northeastern end are seen with the backdrop

For the reasons outlined above, the magnitude of impact on this visual The effect is Not Significant and would be local, direct and long-term.

ranging in scale and architectural form creates an attractive composition,

11.44

11.56

In views further west, including that from Telegraph Hill Park, the extent

receptor group would be Low, resulting in an effect of Minor Beneficial.

implementation of the Proposed Development. The silhouette of buildings

AMENITY USERS OF HILLY FIELDS AND OTHER PARKS TO THE WEST

unencumbered by setbacks or projections.

obstructs views of the Proposed Development.

Significant and would be local, direct and long-term. 11.43

taller and main element of N1 establishes a simple volumetric presence,

of separation distance and interposing development and vegetation

conjunction with the wider urban development that comprises Lewisham. 11.42

the shopfronts. The single use of a lighter tone brick materiality for the

a kinetic one, with receptors also being engaged on their associated recreational activities. As such, the Proposed Development will appear

The distinct roof profile and angled form of N1 is appreciable, as well as its varied brickwork bonding and careful detailing of faience columns to

Furthermore, it should be noted that the experience of receptors is

Notwithstanding, the Proposed Development, as illustrated by AVR

open green expanse of Blackheath. However, the Proposed Development,

11.55

The Proposed Development, is however, seen alongside the existing and emerging tall building context of Lewisham which includes the Lewisham gateway development around the station. There is thus an already

11.54

entry into the centre and main shopping district of Lewisham.

ASSESSMENT: VISUAL

11.61

The view included within the pack is located at the northern extent of

11.67

11.62

terms of landscaping, public realm and amenity, architecture and built

view, and does not consider the 360 degree nature of how the memorial

form that is brought by the replacement of the existing shopping centre.

sits within the open space; however, it is a fair and representative viewing

This effect is Significant and would be local, direct and long-term.

location, demonstrating how the proposals may be seen beyond the

COMMUTERS AND USERS OF THE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE TOWN CENTRE

In the view, the clock tower is backdropped by the existing Lewisham

11.68

will have a Medium susceptibility to the Proposed Development, given

House, against a clear sky backdrop. To the left and right, the composition

their location within the town centre, but general focus on wayfinding and

of Blocks N2 and N4 step down to frame the memorial. This is aided

transport nodes. When calibrated with the Low value of the visual amenity

further by the contrast in materials between the proposed red brick and

area, this results in a sensitivity of Low/Medium.

the appreciation of the memorial is part of a kinetic experience in an

11.69

experience along this route will change as a result of the introduction of

changes as the observer moves along the High Street, where the observer

a number of tall buildings of varying scales which will replace the former

will retain a focus of the memorial in the foreground due to the relative distance and motion parallax of building in the backdrop. To the southern end of the High Street, the scale of new buildings begins to

shopping centre building. 11.70

introduced. At eye level when receptors are walking through the High

High Street frontage, notwithstanding block S4, which, given the layout of

Street, which is an enclosed space, with consistently scaled development

the Site remains in closer proximity to the existing high street buildings.

on either side, commuters will have less of an awareness of the tall

Visibility would also be gained, in lateral views across the High Street of centre of the Site, which would become a unique feature and a destination

buildings which are introduced on Site. 11.71

centre of the Site, which would become a unique feature and a destination

visual amenity.

in its own right; the hard and soft landscaping contributing to the quality of

The experience of receptors along the High Street is a kinetic one, in which the extent of visibility with the Proposed Development varies, with the backdrop of taller buildings coming in and out of view. Where visible, the

visual amenity. 11.72

backdrop of taller buildings coming in and out of view. Where visible, the

contextualised by appropriate and complementary architectural language

interaction with the existing buildings along the High Street frontage is

and materiality that simultaneously allows for a contrast between the

contextualised by appropriate and complementary architectural language

existing historic buildings and the Proposed Development.

and materiality that simultaneously allows for a contrast between the

Given the change in scale of building heights along the High Street and the influx of new development on Site, the magnitude of impact of the Proposed Development is considered to be High, resulting in a Moderate/ Major Beneficial effect.

The experience of receptors along the High Street is a kinetic one, in which the extent of visibility with the Proposed Development varies, with the

interaction with the existing buildings along the High Street frontage is

11.66

It is not only the introduction of taller buildings that will impact upon the receptors experience, but also the introduction of a raised park at the

in its own right; the hard and soft landscaping contributing to the quality of

11.65

The greatest extent of change to visual amenity will occur towards the northern end of the Site, where buildings of the greatest scale are being

fall away, but still maintains a mid-height scale, mostly set back from the

the proposed landscape strategy which includes the raised park at the

Receptors will be using the north-south key route of Lewisham High Street, which connects with the station on its northern end. Their visual

urban environment, the composition at this point is balanced. It quickly

11.64

Commuters and users of the transport infrastructure of the town centre

House building. The top of the memorial spire is seen above Lewisham

the memorial itself which is of Portland stone. Whilst recognising that

11.63

A beneficial nature of effect is identified given the considerable uplift in

Lewisham High Street, where it meets the Lee High Road. It is a static

listed memorial.

117

existing historic buildings and the Proposed Development. 11.73

For the reasons outlined above, the magnitude of impact on this group of receptors is High, resulting in an effect of Moderate Beneficial. This effect is Significant and would be local, direct and long-term.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

118

ASSESSMENT: VISUAL

CUMULATIVE DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION STAGE 11.74

STATIC VIEWS 11.79

representative views – the assessment has considered strategic views

The assessment of qualitative demolition and construction effects is

designated in the development plan, or that were agreed with the

primarily a qualitative assessment, but regard has been had to the

competent authority.

cumulate versions of the relevant AVRs in the Assessment of Effects: Visual section of this Volume which have been used to understand the

11.80

identified view and the likely visual receptors is provided below. This

indicate how cumulative developments would appear and therefore

description is set alongside a corresponding AVR of the Proposed

indicate the change to the setting of the visual receptor which may

Development and analysis of any significant effect occurring.

be introduced by the new construction activity associated with those

DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION

The demolition and construction of the cumulative schemes around the

11.81

undertaken during demolition and construction, necessary to facilitate the

potentially introduce more demolition and construction activity to users of the town centre facilities and would be visible in mid to long distance views from the surrounding residential areas and open green spaces, including Blackheath. For all visual receptor groups, the magnitude of impact and likely effects in the cumulative demolition and construction stage remain the same.

THE COMPLETED DEVELOPMENT STAGE 11.77

The cumulative schemes set out in Section 2.0. have been considered in terms of potential effects on visual receptors within the study area. These schemes are illustrated in the diametric image at Figure 2.2.

11.78

In the cumulative condition, the magnitude of impact and likely effects will remain the same.

ES Volume 1 Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction sets out the anticipated programme of works and key activities that would be

Site at Loampit Vale, Silver Road and the Lewisham Retail Park would

11.76

For these static views, a description of the existing scene for each

likely effects of the Proposed Development on visual receptors. The AVRs

developments. 11.75

In addition to the visual amenity experienced by people – informed by

Proposed Development. 11.82

Given the extent of separation distance between the static views and the Site, it is unlikely that the demolition and construction phase of the Proposed Development would have an impact on the visual receptors of the static views.

ASSESSMENT: VISUAL

119

VIEW 24: LVMF TOWNSCAPE VIEW 24: ISLAND GARDENS, ISLE OF DOGS TO ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE EXISTING

PROPOSED

CUMULATIVE

11.83

11.89

11.92

11.84

The viewpoint is located approximately 2.6km to the northwest of the Site at its closest point. The view is identified with the London View

considered to be Low, given the extent of separation distance between

Management Framework (LVMF).

Island Gardens and the Site, notwithstanding that the focus of receptors

foreground and centre of the view.

11.90

Greenwich Maritime’s status as a World Heritage Site means that it’s setting must be managed with sensitivity to

the Baroque King William and Queen Anne wings, by Christopher Wren

its Outstanding Universal Value. Permanent structures or

and Nicholas Hawksmoor.

infrastructure in the view should preserve or enhance the

Beyond this, the Old Royal Observatory, located on higher ground within

setting of the World Heritage Site. Consideration should be

Greenwich Park is visible from points east of the axial view. The visual

11.88

The strategic designation of the viewpoint means that the visual amenity

The visual management guidance set out in the LVMF for the Island Gardens view is as follows:

In the background, the northern elevation of the Royal Naval College

11.87

effect is not considered to change in the cumulative scenario.

Naval College.

stands prominently, along with Ingio Jones’ Queen House, seen between

11.86

The magnitude of impact of the Proposed Development and subsequent

will primarily be focused on the view across the Thames, to the Royal

The viewpoint is characterised by the expansive trajectory of the River Thames, which is orientated on a lateral, east to west axis through the

11.85

The susceptibility of visual receptors to the Proposed Development is

given to advice set out in the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site Management Plan. Applicants will be required to demonstrate that proposed development will not damage the setting of the World Heritage

as experienced by visual receptors is identified as having a Very High

Site or other landmarks in the view. Development at the

value.

Deptford Creek / Greenwich Opportunity Area in the right of the view should contribute to the view as a whole. 11.91

The dotted blue and purple wirelines indicate that the Proposed Development will be wholly occluded by interposing vegetation and development. As a result the magnitude of impact would be Nil, resulting in an effect of None.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

120

ASSESSMENT: VISUAL

VIEW 32: GREENWICH LOCAL VIEW 10: KING JOHN’S WALK/ELTHAM PALACE EXISTING

PROPOSED

CUMULATIVE

11.93

11.98

11.101

11.94

This viewpoint is located from the junction of King John’s Walk and Eltham Palace, approximately 2.4km, to the northwest of the Site at its closet

considered to be Medium, given that residents of this area will have a high

distance. The view is identified within Greenwich Local Plan as a local view.

engagement with their surroundings. When calibrated with the Very High visual amenity value, this equates to a sensitivity of High.

The viewpoint is characterised by the residential development which aligns St John’s Park Road, comprising a range of architectural styles,

11.99

eras and forms. 11.95

development which would not have a materially adverse effect on the

The viewpoint is characterised by the main thoroughfare which is which the eye is drawn along. The primary receptors would likely be local residents of this part of Greenwich.

11.97

The strategic designation of the viewpoint means that the visual amenity as experienced by visual receptors is identified as having a Very High value.

Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) stipulates that within the locally designated views, planning permission will only be given for overall perceptive and essential quality of the view.

orientated on an east-west axis, forming a linear trajectory in the view, in

11.96

The susceptibility of visual receptors to the Proposed Development is

11.100

The dotted wireline indicates that the Proposed Development would be wholly occluded from view, given the extent of interposing development. As a result, the magnitude of impact would be Nil, resulting in an effect of None.

The magnitude of impact of the Proposed Development and subsequent effect is not considered to change in the cumulative scenario.

ASSESSMENT: VISUAL

121

VIEW 37: GREENWICH LOCAL VIEW 5: ELTHAM PARK (NORTH) TO CENTRAL LONDON EXISTING

PROPOSED

CUMULATIVE

11.102

11.108

11.113

11.103

This viewpoint is located in Eltham Park (north), approximately 5.5km to the southeast of the Site at its closet distance. The view is identified within

is Low, given their focus on recreational activities associated with the

Greenwich Local Plan as a local view.

park, as well as the existing tall building context of Canary Wharf. When

by the border of various forms of vegetation including hedgerows and

11.109

which would not have a materially adverse effect on the overall perceptive and essential quality of the view.

reinforcing the immediate residential character of the area. 11.110

distance will ensure that it remains a peripheral feature in the view. It

Canary Wharf, in the backdrop of the view. Receptors are thus aware of

will add to the existing and evolving tall building context which marks

their proximity to the urban centre, indicated by the presence of this tall

Lewisham town centre.

and modern building development. The primary visual receptors would likely be amenity users of Eltham Park.

11.107

The strategic designation of the viewpoint means that the visual amenity as experienced by visual receptors is identified as having a Very High value.

Given the open greensward of the park, the Proposed Development will be seen in long vistas to the northwest, however the extent of separation

and break in tree line, affords long views of the tall building cluster, forming

11.106

Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) stipulates that within the locally designated views, planning permission will only be given for development

Beyond this, the rooftops of the surrounding houses are perceptible,

The elevated topography of the park, combined with its general openness

effect is not considered to change in the cumulative scenario.

Medium.

mature trees, defining the boundary of the park.

11.105

The magnitude of impact of the Proposed Development and subsequent

calibrated with the Very High amenity value, this equates to a sensitivity of

The viewpoint is characterised by the open greensward of the park which travels from the foreground to the midground of the view, terminated

11.104

The susceptibility of visual receptors to the Proposed Development

11.111

Given the extent of mature vegetation on the boundary of the park, in summer months, this will further inhibit visibility of the proposals, becoming more perceptible in winter months when the trees shed their leaf.

11.112

For the reasons outline above, the magnitude of effect would be Very Low, resulting in an effect of Negligible Neutral.

Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Volume 2 of Environmental Statement | October 2024

122

ASSESSMENT: VISUAL

REF

VISUAL RECEPTORS

VALUE

SUSCEPTIBILITY SENSITIVITY

MAGNITUDE (CONSTRUCTION)

EFFECT (CONSTRUCTION, MAGNITUDE LIKELY EFFECT (CONSTRUCTION) LIKELY CUMULATIVE) (OPERATIONAL)

LIKELY EFFECT (OPERATIONAL)

LIKELY EFFECT (CUMULATIVE)

Representative Views 4, 5.1, 5.2, 18, 22, 24, 26, 27

Local residents to the west of the town centre (SE13)

Low

Medium

Low/Medium

Low

Minor Adverse

Medium

Minor/Moderate Neutral

Minor/Moderate Beneficial

11, 12, 19, 20, 36, 38, 39

Local residents to the north of the town centre (Blackheath)

High

Medium

Medum/High

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Low

Minor/ Moderate Neutral

Minor/Moderate Neutral

15, 16 and 31

Local residents to the north of the town centre (Belmont Hill)

Medium

Very Low

Negligible Adverse

Low

Minor/Moderate Neutral

11, 12, 19, 20, 36, 38

Amenity Users of Blackheath and Greenwich High Park

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Low

Minor/Moderate Beneficial

3, 4, 7, 21, 25, 32, 37

Amenity Users of Hilly Fields and other parks Medium to the west

Low

Low/Medium

Low

Minor Adverse

Low

Minor Beneficial

Minor/Moderate Beneficial

1, 2, 9, 10, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34

Users of the town centre facilities

High

Medium

High

Moderate Adverse

High

Moderate/Major Beneficial

(Significant)

1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 17, 23, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35

Commuters and users of the transport infrastructure of the town centre

Low

Moderate Adverse

Moderate Beneficial

(Significant)

LVMF Townscpae View 24: Island Gardens, Isle of Dogs to Royal Naval College

Very High

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Nil

None

Greenwich Local View 10: King John’s Walk/ Eltham Palace

Very High

Medium

High

Nil

None

Nil

None

Greenwich Local View 5: Eltham Park (North) Very High to Central London

Low

Medium

Nil

None

Very Low

Negligible Neutral

Table 11.1

Summary of likely effects on visual receptors.

Low

Medium

Low/Medium

High

Static Views

MONTAGU EVANS 70 ST MARY AXE, LONDON, EC3A 8BE TEL: +44 (0)20 7493 4002

WWW.MONTAGU-EVANS.CO.UK

LONDON | EDINBURGH | GLASGOW | MANCHESTER

APPENDIX 1: VERIFIED VIEWS AND METHODOLOGY PREPARED BY MILLER HARE Lewisham Shopping Centre, Lewisham

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study October 2024

Contents Views Assessment

25 | Lewisham Park

114

1 | Lewisham DLR 2023

26 | Sunninghill Roads / Lewisham Way

117

2 | Albion Way

27 | Halesworth Road

122

3 | Hilly Fields

28 | Silk Mills Path

125

4 | Blythe Hill Fields

29 | Lewisham Clock Tower

128

5.1 | Vicars Hill at Shell Road

30 | Mercia Grove

133

5.2 | Ellerdale Street

31 | Marischal Road

138

6 | Ladywell Station Bridge

32 | King John’s Walk/Eltham Palace

143

7 | Mountsfield Park

33 | Outside Prendergast Vale School

146

8 | Courthill Road

34 | Waterway Avenue (Waterlink Way)

151

9 | St Stephen’s (Cressingham Road)

35 | Ryecroft Road

154

10 | Lewisham High Street

36 | Millennium Circle

157

11 | Hyde Vale (Blackheath)

36w | Millennium Circle | winter

160

11w | Hyde Vale (Blackheath) | winter

37 | The Queens House gardens

165

12 | Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road

38 | St Johns Park | Option 1

168

12w | Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road | winter

39 | Greenwich Local View 5: Eltham Park (North) to Central London

171

13 | Chalton Way/Greenwich Park

13w | Chalton Way/Greenwich Park | winter

Appendices

174

14 | Island Gardens

Technical notes

174

15 | Belmont Hill / Cedars Grove

View Locations

175

16 | Belmont Hill

Details of schemes

183

17 | St Mary the Virgin

Model Overview (Plots N1, N2 and Maximum Parameters)

184

18 | Chudleigh Road

Model Overview (Plots N1, N2 and Illustrative)

185

Client Land Securities Properties Limited

19 | All Saints’ Church

Accurate Visual Representations

186

19w | All Saints’ Church | winter

Methodology for the production of Accurate Visual Representations 188

Architect Studio Egret West, Mae Architects & Archio Architects

20 | Goffers Road

20w | Goffers Road | winter

21 | Telegraph Hill

102

22 | Loampit Hill

105

23 | Lee High Road

108

24 | Honor Oak Road / Honor Oak Park

111

Townscape Consultant Montagu Evans LLP Visualisation Millerhare

Views Assessment

1 | Lewisham DLR 2023

2 | Albion Way

3 | Hilly Fields

4 | Blythe Hill Fields

5.1 | Vicars Hill at Shell Road

5.2 | Ellerdale Street

6 | Ladywell Station Bridge

7 | Mountsfield Park

8 | Courthill Road

9 | St Stephen’s (Cressingham Road)

10 | Lewisham High Street

11 | Hyde Vale (Blackheath)

11w | Hyde Vale (Blackheath) | winter

12 | Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road

12w | Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road | winter

13 | Chalton Way/Greenwich Park

13w | Chalton Way/Greenwich Park | winter

14 | Island Gardens

15 | Belmont Hill / Cedars Grove

16 | Belmont Hill

17 | St Mary the Virgin

18 | Chudleigh Road

19 | All Saints’ Church

19w | All Saints’ Church | winter

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

20 | Goffers Road

20w | Goffers Road | winter

21 | Telegraph Hill

22 | Loampit Hill

23 | Lee High Road

24 | Honor Oak Road / Honor Oak Park

25 | Lewisham Park

26 | Sunninghill Roads / Lewisham Way

27 | Halesworth Road

28 | Silk Mills Path

29 | Lewisham Clock Tower

30 | Mercia Grove

31 | Marischal Road

32 | King John’s Walk/Eltham Palace

33 | Outside Prendergast Vale School

34 | Waterway Avenue (Waterlink Way)

35 | Ryecroft Road

36 | Millennium Circle

36w | Millennium Circle | winter

37 | The Queens House gardens

38 | St Johns Park | Option 1

39 | Greenwich Local View 5: Eltham Park (North) to Central London

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Camera Location

HFOV

View

Description

MH Reference

Type

Method

Easting

Northing

Height

Camera

Lens

Photo

Image

Photo date/time

Bearing distance (km)

Lewisham DLR 2023

1100

Render (AVR3)

Verified

538143.2

175837.0

9.39

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

73.9

73.2

09/10/2023 15:43

165.0

0.3

Albion Way

5500

Render (AVR3)

Verified

538483.6

175372.9

14.06

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

73.9

73.3

10/10/2023 07:47

303.9

0.3

Hilly Fields

1400

Render (AVR3)

Verified

537365.8

175344.0

51.99

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.5

73.4

09/10/2023 14:44

76.4

0.9

Blythe Hill Fields

1500

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

536606.6

173870.8

54.82

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.7

73.4

09/10/2023 13:57

43.9

2.3

5.1

Vicars Hill at Shell Road

1900

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

537548.6

175453.0

30.58

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.1

73.2

09/10/2023 14:56

81.8

0.7

5.2

Ellerdale Street

1700

Render (AVR3)

Verified

537746.1

175511.0

15.22

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.3

73.2

09/10/2023 15:07

85.3

0.5

Ladywell Station Bridge

0200

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

537739.5

174936.2

18.53

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

74.5

73.4

01/11/2021 15:08

38.1

0.8

Mountsfield Park

0210

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

538393.1

173937.4

34.69

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

73.5

72.8

28/10/2021 14:47

353.9

1.6

Courthill Road

0230

Render (AVR3)

Verified

538422.3

174876.2

24.99

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

73.7

72.7

28/10/2021 14:23

343.3

0.7

St Stephen's (Cressingham Road)

2500

Render (AVR3)

Verified

538292.9

175809.9

9.60

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.3

73.5

10/10/2023 06:35

195.7

0.3

Lewisham High Street

0260

Render (AVR3)

Verified

538154.8

175127.3

12.04

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

74.3

73.3

01/11/2021 13:49

8.8

0.4

Hyde Vale (Blackheath)

2700

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

538631.9

176733.4

46.56

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.4

73.5

10/10/2023 07:17

199.2

1.3

11w

Hyde Vale (Blackheath) | winter

2750

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

538632.0

176733.4

46.52

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.1

73.2

16/02/2024 09:31

199.2

1.3

Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road

4800

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

538870.8

176824.8

48.50

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.7

73.3

10/10/2023 07:07

207.0

1.4

12w

Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road | winter

4850

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

538870.8

176824.7

48.41

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.1

73.2

16/02/2024 10:30

207.0

1.4

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park

6000

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

539713.8

177058.4

42.91

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.3

73.1

08/10/2023 11:34

224.7

2.1

13w

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park | winter

6050

Render (AVR3)

Verified

539713.7

177058.4

42.90

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.1

73.2

16/02/2024 11:27

224.7

2.1

Island Gardens

7600

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

538341.5

178276.1

6.74

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.5

73.4

10/10/2023 06:35

182.6

2.7

Belmont Hill / Cedars Grove

0350

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

538919.6

175608.8

30.86

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

73.7

72.6

28/10/2021 12:08

265.2

0.7

Belmont Hill

0360

Render (AVR3)

Verified

538578.6

175687.8

20.50

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

72.6

28/10/2021 12:22

249.0

0.4

St Mary the Virgin

0370

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

537949.8

174766.4

13.72

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

74.2

73.3

01/11/2021 13:22

19.0

0.8

Chudleigh Road

0400

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

537273.3

174638.8

18.39

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

73.5

72.8

28/10/2021 16:16

46.1

1.3

All Saints' Church

5700

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

539643.3

176273.5

37.43

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.1

73.2

08/10/2023 12:17

243.1

1.6

19w

All Saints' Church | winter

5750

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

539643.3

176273.5

37.44

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.1

73.2

16/02/2024 11:46

243.1

1.6

Goffers Road

0490

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

539029.5

176491.5

46.98

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

73.6

72.8

28/10/2021 11:05

220.7

1.2

20w

Goffers Road | winter

4950

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

539029.5

176491.5

46.98

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.2

73.3

16/02/2024 11:01

220.7

1.2

Telegraph Hill

0420

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

535816.0

176066.5

48.88

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

73.7

73.2

28/10/2021 16:49

102.1

2.5

Loampit Hill

4400

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

537469.3

176091.3

20.01

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.5

73.4

09/10/2023 15:30

125.8

0.9

Lee High Road

0450

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

539265.1

175190.6

17.78

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

73.6

72.8

28/10/2021 12:43

289.0

1.1

Honor Oak Road / Honor Oak Park

0670

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

535322.2

173974.5

71.45

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

73.8

73.1

10/10/2023 14:44

61.5

3.3

Lewisham Park

0640

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

538125.5

174477.9

16.47

NIKON Z 7 DSLR

24mm

72.9

72.1

08/03/2022 14:13

5.0

1.1

Sunninghill Roads / Lewisham Way

0680

Render (AVR3)

Verified

537620.0

176002.6

12.06

NIKON Z 7 DSLR

24mm

72.2

71.9

15/07/2022 16:38

127.0

0.8

Halesworth Road

7000

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

537546.4

175818.7

28.01

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.4

73.2

09/10/2023 15:19

111.7

0.7

Silk Mills Path

0990

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

538253.0

175992.7

11.59

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

73.7

73.2

22/10/2023 09:12

184.3

0.4

Lewisham Clock Tower

0910

Render (AVR3)

Verified

538351.3

175592.2

9.99

NIKON Z 7 DSLR

24mm

72.2

71.9

15/07/2022 10:48

252.2

0.1

Mercia Grove

0720

Render (AVR3)

Verified

538432.1

175473.8

11.89

NIKON Z 7 DSLR

24mm

71.9

15/07/2022 10:26

289.8

0.2

Marischal Road

0730

Render (AVR3)

Verified

538573.8

175570.7

14.14

NIKON Z 7 DSLR

24mm

72.0

15/07/2022 10:11

266.6

0.4

King John’s Walk/Eltham Palace

0610

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

542264.3

173914.0

53.92

NIKON Z 7 DSLR

24mm

72.1

20/01/2022 11:42

292.0

4.4

Outside Prendergast Vale School

0740

Render (AVR3)

Verified

537978.5

175732.5

9.40

NIKON Z 7 DSLR

24mm

71.9

15/07/2022 15:44

127.1

0.3

Waterway Avenue (Waterlink Way)

0750

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

538026.1

175642.5

10.28

NIKON Z 7 DSLR

24mm

71.9

71.8

15/07/2022 15:57

115.5

0.2

Ryecroft Road

0590

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

538376.4

174836.2

22.22

NIKON Z 7 DSLR

24mm

72.3

72.1

01/11/2021 13:51

347.6

0.7

Millennium Circle

3000

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

539340.1

176602.0

45.46

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.1

73.2

08/10/2023 11:57

226.8

1.5

36w

Millennium Circle | winter

3050

Render (AVR3)

Verified

539340.0

176602.0

45.41

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.1

73.3

16/02/2024 11:13

226.8

1.5

Greenwich Local View 5: Eltham Park (North) to Central London

2350

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

543733.1

175409.5

75.53

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

50mm

39.0

38.7

14/07/2024 11:36

271.5

5.5

The Queens House Gardens (Greenwich Park)

2070

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

538722.1

177838.9

9.52

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.0

73.2

14/07/2024 08:07

192.4

2.3

St Johns Park

2100

Wireline (AVR1)

Verified

540282.4

177156.5

42.67

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.1

73.1

04/07/2024 10:31

232.1

2.6

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

View location map 5

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham DLR 2023

4737_1101

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham DLR 2023

4737_1103

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham DLR 2023

4737_1104

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham DLR 2023

4737_1106

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham DLR 2023

4737_1105

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Albion Way

4737_5501

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Albion Way

4737_5503

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Albion Way

4737_5504

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Albion Way

4737_5506

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Albion Way

4737_5505

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hilly Fields

4737_1401

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hilly Fields

4737_1403

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hilly Fields

4737_1404

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hilly Fields

4737_1406

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hilly Fields

4737_1405

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Blythe Hill Fields

4737_1501

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Blythe Hill Fields

4737_1503

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Blythe Hill Fields

4737_1504

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Vicars Hill at Shell Road

4737_1901

5.1

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Vicars Hill at Shell Road

4737_1903

5.1

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Vicars Hill at Shell Road

4737_1904

5.1

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ellerdale Street

4737_1701

5.2

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ellerdale Street

4737_1703

5.2

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ellerdale Street

4737_1704

5.2

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ellerdale Street

4737_1706

5.2

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ellerdale Street

4737_1705

5.2

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ladywell Station Bridge

4737_0201

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ladywell Station Bridge

4737_0203

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ladywell Station Bridge

4737_0204

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Mountsfield Park

4737_0211

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Mountsfield Park

4737_0213

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Mountsfield Park

4737_0214

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Courthill Road

4737_0231

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Courthill Road

4737_0233

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Courthill Road

4737_0234

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Courthill Road

4737_0236

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Courthill Road

4737_0235

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Stephen’s (Cressingham Road)

4737_2501

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Stephen’s (Cressingham Road)

4737_2503

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Stephen’s (Cressingham Road)

4737_2504

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Stephen’s (Cressingham Road)

4737_2506

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Stephen’s (Cressingham Road)

4737_2505

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham High Street

4737_0261

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham High Street

4737_0263

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham High Street

4737_0264

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham High Street

4737_0266

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham High Street

4737_0265

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hyde Vale (Blackheath)

4737_2701

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hyde Vale (Blackheath)

4737_2703

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hyde Vale (Blackheath)

4737_2704

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hyde Vale (Blackheath) | winter

4737_2751

11w

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hyde Vale (Blackheath) | winter

4737_2753

11w

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hyde Vale (Blackheath) | winter

4737_2754

11w

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road

4737_4801

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road

4737_4803

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road

4737_4804

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road | winter

4737_4851

12w

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road | winter

4737_4853

12w

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road | winter

4737_4854

12w

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park

4737_6001

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park

4737_6003

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park

4737_6004

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park | winter

4737_6051

13w

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park | winter

4737_6053

13w

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park | winter

4737_6054

13w

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park | winter

4737_6056

13w

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park | winter

4737_6055

13w

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Island Gardens

4737_7601

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Island Gardens

4737_7603

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Island Gardens

4737_7604

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Belmont Hill / Cedars Grove

4737_0351

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Belmont Hill / Cedars Grove

4737_0353

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Belmont Hill / Cedars Grove

4737_0354

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Belmont Hill

4737_0361

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Belmont Hill

4737_0363

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Belmont Hill

4737_0364

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Belmont Hill

4737_0366

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Belmont Hill

4737_0365

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Mary the Virgin

4737_0371

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Mary the Virgin

4737_0373

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Mary the Virgin

4737_0374

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chudleigh Road

4737_0401

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chudleigh Road

4737_0403

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chudleigh Road

4737_0404

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

All Saints’ Church

4737_5701

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

All Saints’ Church

4737_5703

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

All Saints’ Church

4737_5704

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

All Saints’ Church | winter

4737_5751

19w

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

All Saints’ Church | winter

4737_5753

19w

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

All Saints’ Church | winter

4737_5754

19w

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Goffers Road

4737_0491

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Goffers Road

4737_0493

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Goffers Road

4737_0494

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Goffers Road | winter

4737_4951

20w

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Goffers Road | winter

4737_4953

20w

N1 + N2 + Parameters

100

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Goffers Road | winter

4737_4954

20w

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

101

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Telegraph Hill

4737_0421

Existing

102

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Telegraph Hill

4737_0423

N1 + N2 + Parameters

103

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Telegraph Hill

4737_0424

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

104

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Loampit Hill

4737_4401

Existing

105

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Loampit Hill

4737_4403

N1 + N2 + Parameters

106

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Loampit Hill

4737_4404

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

107

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lee High Road

4737_0451

Existing

108

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lee High Road

4737_0453

N1 + N2 + Parameters

109

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lee High Road

4737_0454

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

110

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Honor Oak Road / Honor Oak Park

4737_0671

Existing

111

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Honor Oak Road / Honor Oak Park

4737_0673

N1 + N2 + Parameters

112

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Honor Oak Road / Honor Oak Park

4737_0674

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

113

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham Park

4737_0641

Existing

114

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham Park

4737_0643

N1 + N2 + Parameters

115

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham Park

4737_0644

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

116

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Sunninghill Roads / Lewisham Way

4737_0681

Existing

117

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Sunninghill Roads / Lewisham Way

4737_0683

N1 + N2 + Parameters

118

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Sunninghill Roads / Lewisham Way

4737_0684

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

119

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Sunninghill Roads / Lewisham Way

4737_0686

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

120

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Sunninghill Roads / Lewisham Way

4737_0685

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

121

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Halesworth Road

4737_7001

Existing

122

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Halesworth Road

4737_7003

N1 + N2 + Parameters

123

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Halesworth Road

4737_7004

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

124

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Silk Mills Path

4737_0991

Existing

125

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Silk Mills Path

4737_0993

N1 + N2 + Parameters

126

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Silk Mills Path

4737_0994

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

127

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham Clock Tower

4737_0911

Existing

128

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham Clock Tower

4737_0913

N1 + N2 + Parameters

129

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham Clock Tower

4737_0914

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

130

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham Clock Tower

4737_0916

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

131

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham Clock Tower

4737_0915

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

132

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Mercia Grove

4737_0721

Existing

133

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Mercia Grove

4737_0723

N1 + N2 + Parameters

134

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Mercia Grove

4737_0724

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

135

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Mercia Grove

4737_0726

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

136

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Mercia Grove

4737_0725

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

137

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Marischal Road

4737_0731

Existing

138

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Marischal Road

4737_0733

N1 + N2 + Parameters

139

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Marischal Road

4737_0734

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

140

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Marischal Road

4737_0736

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

141

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Marischal Road

4737_0735

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

142

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

King John’s Walk/Eltham Palace

4737_0611

Existing

143

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

King John’s Walk/Eltham Palace

4737_0613

N1 + N2 + Parameters

144

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

King John’s Walk/Eltham Palace

4737_0614

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

145

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Outside Prendergast Vale School

4737_0741

Existing

146

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Outside Prendergast Vale School

4737_0743

N1 + N2 + Parameters

147

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Outside Prendergast Vale School

4737_0744

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

148

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Outside Prendergast Vale School

4737_0746

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

149

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Outside Prendergast Vale School

4737_0745

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

150

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Waterway Avenue (Waterlink Way)

4737_0751

Existing

151

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Waterway Avenue (Waterlink Way)

4737_0753

N1 + N2 + Parameters

152

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Waterway Avenue (Waterlink Way)

4737_0754

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

153

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ryecroft Road

4737_0591

Existing

154

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ryecroft Road

4737_0593

N1 + N2 + Parameters

155

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ryecroft Road

4737_0594

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

156

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Millennium Circle

4737_3001

Existing

157

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Millennium Circle

4737_3003

N1 + N2 + Parameters

158

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Millennium Circle

4737_3004

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

159

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Millennium Circle | winter

4737_3051

36w

Existing

160

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Millennium Circle | winter

4737_3053

36w

N1 + N2 + Parameters

161

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Millennium Circle | winter

4737_3054

36w

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

162

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Millennium Circle | winter

4737_3056

36w

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

163

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Millennium Circle | winter

4737_3055

36w

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

164

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

The Queens House gardens

4737_2071

Existing

165

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

The Queens House gardens

4737_2073

N1 + N2 + Parameters

166

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

The Queens House gardens

4737_2074

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

167

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Johns Park | Option 1

4737_2101

Existing

168

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Johns Park | Option 1

4737_2103

N1 + N2 + Parameters

169

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Johns Park | Option 1

4737_2104

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

170

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Greenwich Local View 5: Eltham Park (North) to Central London

4737_2351

Existing

171

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Greenwich Local View 5: Eltham Park (North) to Central London

4737_2353

N1 + N2 + Parameters

172

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Greenwich Local View 5: Eltham Park (North) to Central London

4737_2354

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

173

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Appendices A1

Technical notes Scope

A1.1

A1.2

A1.3

A1.4

174

on 35mm film camera). LVMF views in addition have been shown with their wider setting

This study tests the visual impact of the Proposed Development by Land Securities Properties Limited at Lewisham Shopping Centre. It consists of a series of accurately prepared photomontage images or Accurate Visual Representations (AVR) which are designed to show the visibility and appearance of the Proposed Development from a range of publicly accessible locations around the site. The views have been prepared by Miller Hare Limited. The views included in the study were selected by the project team and they include, where relevant, standard assessment points defined by the Mayor of London and the Local Planning Authority. Where requested, view locations have been refined and additional views added. The full list of views is shown in thumbnail foazrm on the preceeding pages, together with a map showing their location. Detailed co-ordinates for the views, together with information about the source photography are shown in Appendix A2 “View Locations”. In preparing each AVR a consistent methodology and approach to rendering has been followed. General notes on the AVRs are given in Appendix A6 “Accurate Visual Representations”, and the detailed methodology used is described in Appendix A7 “Methodology for the production of Accurate Visual Representations”. From each viewpoint a large format photograph has been taken as the basis of the study image. The composition of this photograph has been selected to allow the Proposed Development to be assessed in a meaningful way in relation to relevant elements of the surrounding context. Typically, photographs have been composed with a horizontal axis of view in order to allow vertical elements of the proposals to be shown vertically in the resulting image. If required in order to show the full extent of the proposals in an natural way the horizon line of the image has been allowed to fall above or below the centre of the image. This has been achieved by applying vertical rise at source using a large format camera or by subsequent cropping of the image. In a limited number of cases the source photograph has been extended vertically to ensure that the full height of the proposals are shown in the images of the future condition. In all cases the horizon line and location of the optical axis are clearly shown by red arrow markers at the edges of the image.

• Mid-distance views – horizontal Field of View approximately 74 degrees (equivalent to a 24mm lens on 35mm film camera)

A1.7

For each AVR image, the precise Field of View, after any cropping or extension has been applied is shown clearly using indexed markings running around the edges of the image. These indicate increments of 1, 5 and 10 degrees marked away from Optical Axis. Using this peripheral annotation it is possible to detect optical distortions in parts of the image away from the Optical Axis . It is also possible to simulate a different field of view by masking off an appropriate area of the image. More detailed information on the border annotation is contained in Appendix A6 “Accurate Visual Representations”. Conditions

A1.8

From each selected viewpoint a set of accurate images have been created comparing the future view with the current conditions represented by a carefully taken large format photograph. In this study the following conditions are compared: • Existing – the appearance today as recorded on the specified date and time • Proposed – the future appearance were the Proposed Development to be constructed • Cumulative – the Proposed Development is shown in the context of other significant schemes considered relevant by the project team Styles

A1.9

For each viewpoint, the Proposed Development is shown in a defined graphical style. These styles comply with the definitions of AVR style defined by the London View Management Framework. The styles used in this study are:

The lenses chosen for the source photography have been selected to provide a useful Field of View given the distance of the viewpoint from the site location. The lenses used for each view are listed in Appendix A2 “View Locations”.

• AVR 1 – a wireline representation showing the silhouette of the proposals. Where a part of the silhouette would be visible in the view it is shown in blue, where it would be invisible, as a result of being occluded by existing structures or dense vegetation, it is shown dotted.

A1.6

In this study the following groups of views have been defined:

• AVR 2 – a simple white rendered representation showing the silhouette and architectural form of the proposals.

• Distant views – typically with a horizontal Field of View approximately 48 degrees (equivalent to a 35mm lens

• AVR 3 – a fully rendered representation of the building showing the likely appearance of the proposed materials

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Schemes A1.10

• Local views – horizontal Field of View approximately 74 degrees (equivalent to a 24mm lens on 35mm film camera)

A1.5

Lewisham Shopping Centre

under the lighting conditions obtaining in the selected photograph.

In the Cumulative view, the Proposed Development has been shown in the context of other schemes shown in silhouette form (AVR 1) using an orange line. Where parts of these schemes would not be visible they are shown as a dotted line. The details of the additional schemes included in the Cumulative view are given in the schedule and overview map included in Appendix A3 “Details of schemes”, these include: • Lewisham Retail Park

A1.11

The Proposed Development shown in the study has been defined by drawings and specifications prepared by the client’s design team issued to Millerhare in August 2024. Computer models reflecting the Proposed Development have been assembled and refined by Millerhare and images from these models have been supplied to the project team to be checked for accuracy against the design intent. An overview of the study model annotated with key heights is illustrated in Appendix A3 “Details of schemes”.

Appendices (continued) A2

175

View Locations

1 | Lewisham DLR 2023

2 | Albion Way

3 | Hilly Fields

4 | Blythe Hill Fields

5.1 | Vicars Hill at Shell Road

5.2 | Ellerdale Street

Camera Location National Grid Reference 538143.2E 175837.0N Camera height 9.39m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 167.4°, distance 0.3km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 09/10/2023 Time of photograph 15:43 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 538483.6E 175372.9N Camera height 14.06m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 301.8°, distance 0.3km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 10/10/2023 Time of photograph 07:47 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 537365.8E 175344.0N Camera height 51.99m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 65.4°, distance 0.9km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 09/10/2023 Time of photograph 14:44 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 536606.6E 173870.8N Camera height 54.82m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 40.8°, distance 2.3km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 09/10/2023 Time of photograph 13:57 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 537548.6E 175453.0N Camera height 30.58m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 71.8°, distance 0.7km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 09/10/2023 Time of photograph 14:56 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 537746.1E 175511.0N Camera height 15.22m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 90.1°, distance 0.5km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 09/10/2023 Time of photograph 15:07 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Lewisham Shopping Centre, Molesworth Street, London SE13 Visual Impact Study

August 2024

Appendices (continued)

176

6 | Ladywell Station Bridge

7 | Mountsfield Park

8 | Courthill Road

9 | St Stephen’s (Cressingham Road)

10 | Lewisham High Street

11 | Hyde Vale (Blackheath)

Camera Location National Grid Reference 537739.5E 174936.2N Camera height 18.53m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 27.3°, distance 0.8km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 01/11/2021 Time of photograph 15:08 Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 538393.1E 173937.4N Camera height 34.69m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 351.5°, distance 1.6km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 28/10/2021 Time of photograph 14:47 Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 538422.3E 174876.2N Camera height 24.99m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 322.5°, distance 0.7km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 28/10/2021 Time of photograph 14:23 Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 538292.9E 175809.9N Camera height 9.60m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 197.9°, distance 0.3km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 10/10/2023 Time of photograph 06:35 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 538154.8E 175127.3N Camera height 12.04m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 16.5°, distance 0.4km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 01/11/2021 Time of photograph 13:49 Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 538631.9E 176733.4N Camera height 46.56m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 203.8°, distance 1.3km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 10/10/2023 Time of photograph 07:17 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Lewisham Shopping Centre, Molesworth Street, London SE13 Visual Impact Study

August 2024

Appendices (continued)

177

11w | Hyde Vale (Blackheath) | winter

12 | Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road

12w | Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road | winter

13 | Chalton Way/Greenwich Park

13w | Chalton Way/Greenwich Park | winter

14 | Island Gardens

Camera Location National Grid Reference 538632.0E 176733.4N Camera height 46.52m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 203.9°, distance 1.3km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 16/02/2024 Time of photograph 09:31 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 538870.8E 176824.8N Camera height 48.50m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 223.7°, distance 1.4km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 10/10/2023 Time of photograph 07:07 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 538870.8E 176824.7N Camera height 48.41m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 223.9°, distance 1.4km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 16/02/2024 Time of photograph 10:30 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 539713.8E 177058.4N Camera height 42.91m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 228.7°, distance 2.1km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 08/10/2023 Time of photograph 11:34 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 539713.7E 177058.4N Camera height 42.90m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 229.0°, distance 2.1km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 16/02/2024 Time of photograph 11:27 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 538341.5E 178276.1N Camera height 6.74m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 184.8°, distance 2.7km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 10/10/2023 Time of photograph 06:35 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Lewisham Shopping Centre, Molesworth Street, London SE13 Visual Impact Study

August 2024

Appendices (continued)

178

15 | Belmont Hill / Cedars Grove

16 | Belmont Hill

17 | St Mary the Virgin

18 | Chudleigh Road

19 | All Saints’ Church

19w | All Saints’ Church | winter

Camera Location National Grid Reference 538919.6E 175608.8N Camera height 30.86m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 277.1°, distance 0.7km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 28/10/2021 Time of photograph 12:08 Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 538578.6E 175687.8N Camera height 20.50m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 256.9°, distance 0.4km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 28/10/2021 Time of photograph 12:22 Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 537949.8E 174766.4N Camera height 13.72m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 21.9°, distance 0.8km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 01/11/2021 Time of photograph 13:22 Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 537273.3E 174638.8N Camera height 18.39m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 45.0°, distance 1.3km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 28/10/2021 Time of photograph 16:16 Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 539643.3E 176273.5N Camera height 37.43m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 246.0°, distance 1.6km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 08/10/2023 Time of photograph 12:17 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 539643.3E 176273.5N Camera height 37.44m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 245.9°, distance 1.6km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 16/02/2024 Time of photograph 11:46 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Lewisham Shopping Centre, Molesworth Street, London SE13 Visual Impact Study

August 2024

Appendices (continued)

179

20 | Goffers Road

20w | Goffers Road | winter

21 | Telegraph Hill

22 | Loampit Hill

23 | Lee High Road

24 | Honor Oak Road / Honor Oak Park

Camera Location National Grid Reference 539029.5E 176491.5N Camera height 46.98m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 227.8°, distance 1.2km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 28/10/2021 Time of photograph 11:05 Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 539029.5E 176491.5N Camera height 46.98m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 228.0°, distance 1.2km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 16/02/2024 Time of photograph 11:01 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 535816.0E 176066.5N Camera height 48.88m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 96.9°, distance 2.5km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 28/10/2021 Time of photograph 16:49 Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 537469.3E 176091.3N Camera height 20.01m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 126.5°, distance 0.9km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 09/10/2023 Time of photograph 15:30 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 539265.1E 175190.6N Camera height 17.78m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 293.4°, distance 1.1km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 28/10/2021 Time of photograph 12:43 Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 535322.2E 173974.5N Camera height 71.45m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 54.5°, distance 3.3km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 10/10/2023 Time of photograph 14:44 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Lewisham Shopping Centre, Molesworth Street, London SE13 Visual Impact Study

August 2024

Appendices (continued)

180

25 | Lewisham Park

26 | Sunninghill Roads / Lewisham Way

27 | Halesworth Road

28 | Silk Mills Path

29 | Lewisham Clock Tower

30 | Mercia Grove

Camera Location National Grid Reference 538125.5E 174477.9N Camera height 16.47m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 349.6°, distance 1.1km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 08/03/2022 Time of photograph 14:13 NIKON Z 7 DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 537620.0E 176002.6N Camera height 12.06m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 127.0°, distance 0.8km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 15/07/2022 Time of photograph 16:38 NIKON Z 7 DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 537546.4E 175818.7N Camera height 28.01m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 101.8°, distance 0.7km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 09/10/2023 Time of photograph 15:19 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 538253.0E 175992.7N Camera height 11.59m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 182.1°, distance 0.4km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 22/10/2023 Time of photograph 09:12 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 538351.3E 175592.2N Camera height 9.99m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 281.8°, distance 0.1km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 15/07/2022 Time of photograph 10:48 NIKON Z 7 DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 538432.1E 175473.8N Camera height 11.89m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 288.7°, distance 0.2km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 15/07/2022 Time of photograph 10:26 NIKON Z 7 DSLR Lens 24mm

Lewisham Shopping Centre, Molesworth Street, London SE13 Visual Impact Study

August 2024

Appendices (continued)

181

31 | Marischal Road

32 | King John’s Walk/Eltham Palace

33 | Outside Prendergast Vale School

34 | Waterway Avenue (Waterlink Way)

35 | Ryecroft Road

36 | Millennium Circle

Camera Location National Grid Reference 538573.8E 175570.7N Camera height 14.14m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 272.0°, distance 0.4km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 15/07/2022 Time of photograph 10:11 NIKON Z 7 DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 542264.3E 173914.0N Camera height 53.92m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 292.0°, distance 4.4km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 20/01/2022 Time of photograph 11:42 NIKON Z 7 DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 537978.5E 175732.5N Camera height 9.40m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 120.9°, distance 0.3km Photography Details Height of camera 0.00m above ground Date of photograph 15/07/2022 Time of photograph 15:44 NIKON Z 7 DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 538026.1E 175642.5N Camera height 10.28m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 85.4°, distance 0.2km Photography Details Height of camera 0.00m above ground Date of photograph 15/07/2022 Time of photograph 15:57 NIKON Z 7 DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 538376.4E 174836.2N Camera height 22.22m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 350.9°, distance 0.7km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 01/11/2021 Time of photograph 13:51 NIKON Z 7 DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 539340.1E 176602.0N Camera height 45.46m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 239.7°, distance 1.5km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 08/10/2023 Time of photograph 11:57 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Lewisham Shopping Centre, Molesworth Street, London SE13 Visual Impact Study

August 2024

Appendices (continued)

182

36w | Millennium Circle | winter

37 | The Queens House gardens

38 | St Johns Park | Option 1

39 | Greenwich Local View 5: Eltham Park (North) to Central London

Camera Location National Grid Reference 539340.0E 176602.0N Camera height 45.41m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 239.9°, distance 1.5km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 16/02/2024 Time of photograph 11:13 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 538722.1E 177838.9N Camera height 9.52m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 193.2°, distance 2.3km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 14/07/2024 Time of photograph 08:07 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 540282.4E 177156.5N Camera height 42.67m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 231.5°, distance 2.6km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 04/07/2024 Time of photograph 10:31 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 24mm

Camera Location National Grid Reference 543733.1E 175409.5N Camera height 75.53m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 268.5°, distance 5.5km Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 14/07/2024 Time of photograph 11:36 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Lens 50mm

Lewisham Shopping Centre, Molesworth Street, London SE13 Visual Impact Study

August 2024

Appendices (continued) Details of schemes

index

scheme name

address

reference

status

source of model data

positioning method

MH reference

colour

Lewisham Shopping Centre - N1

Lewisham Shopping Centre

n/a

Lewisham

Proposed

Paper planning application drawings from local authority

Best fit to Ordnance Survey

lews0078.detail240919-mae-proposed

Blue

Lewisham Shopping Centre - N2

Lewisham Shopping Centre

n/a

Lewisham

Proposed

Paper planning application drawings from local authority

Best fit to Ordnance Survey

lews0078.detail241008-archio-proposed-n2

Blue

Lewisham Shopping Centre Maximum Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

n/a

Lewisham

Proposed

Paper planning application drawings from local authority

Best fit to Ordnance Survey

lews0078.mass240731-sew-proposed- Purple parameter

Lewisham Retail Park

Lewisham Retail Park, Loampit Vale, London, SE13 7SN

DC/16/097629

Lewisham

Legal Consent granted

Paper planning application drawings from local authority

Best fit to Ordnance Survey

lews0091.surface211126-dp-proposed

Lewisham Covered Market

DC/24/136236

Lewisham

Legal Consent granted

Paper planning application drawings from local authority

Best fit to Ordnance Survey

Aerial diagram showing location of schemes

183

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Orange Orange

Appendices (continued) A4

Model Overview (Plots N1, N2 and Maximum Parameters)

Plot N1 E 538225.07m N 175689.27m 89.15m AOD

Maximum Parameter E 538181.21m N 175690.96m 124.25m AOD

Plot N1 E 538235.73m N 175658.37m 89.15m AOD

Plot N2 E 538245.95m N 175605.16m 61.70m AOD

Plot N2 E 538257.68m N 175570.19m 61.70m AOD

Maximum Parameter E 538210.19m N 175282.38m 29.73m AOD

Millerhare reference: lews0078\+detail240919-mae-proposed - lews0078\+detail241008-archio-proposed-n2 - lews0078\+mass240731-sew-proposed-parameter 184

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Appendices (continued) A5

Model Overview (Plots N1, N2 and Illustrative)

Plot N1 E 538225.07m N 175689.27m 89.15m AOD

Illustrative E 538183.26m N 175691.70m 119.25m AOD

Plot N1 E 538235.73m N 175658.37m 89.15m AOD

Plot N2 E 538245.95m N 175605.16m 61.70m AOD

Plot N2 E 538257.68m N 175570.19m 61.70m AOD

llustrative E 538210.25m N 175282.31m 25.07m AOD

Millerhare reference: lews0078\+detail240919-mae-proposed - lews0078\+detail241008-archio-proposed-n2 - lews0078\+mass241022-sew-proposed-illustrative 185

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Appendices (continued) A6

A6.1

Accurate Visual Representations Each of the views in this study has been prepared as an Accurate Visual Representation (AVR) following a consistent methodology and approach to rendering. Appendix C of the London View Management Framework: Supplementary Planning Guidance (March 2012) defines an AVR as: “An AVR is a static or moving image which shows the location of a proposed development as accurately as possible; it may also illustrate the degree to which the development will be visible, its detailed form or the proposed use of materials. An AVR must be prepared following a well-defined and verifiable procedure and can therefore be relied upon by assessors to represent fairly the selected visual properties of a proposed development. AVRs are produced by accurately combining images of the proposed building (typically created from a threedimensional computer model) with a representation of its context; this usually being a photograph, a video sequence, or an image created from a second computer model built from survey data. AVRs can be presented in a number of different ways, as either still or moving images, in a variety of digital or printed formats.”

A6.2

The Landscape Institute Technical Guidance Note 06/19 “Visual Representation of Development Proposals” notes that the production of technical visualisations: “should allow competent authorities to understand the likely effects of the proposals on the character of an area and on views from specific points.”

A6.3

Paragraph 2.2 highlights that the baseline photography should: “be sufficiently up-to-date to reflect the current baseline situation” “include the extent of the site and sufficient context;” “be based on good quality imagery, secured in good, clear weather conditions wherever reasonably possible;”

A6.4

In this study the baseline condition is provided by carefully taken large format photography. The proposed condition is represented as an accurate photomontage, which combines a computer generated image with the photographic context. In preparing AVRs of this type certain several key attributes need to be determined, including: • the Field of View • the representation of the Proposed Development • documentation accompanying the AVR

186

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Selection of Field of View

A6.8

A6.5

The choice of telephoto, standard or wide-angle lens, and consequently the Field of View, is made on the basis of the requirements for assessment which will vary from view to view.

A6.6

In the simple case the lens selection will be that which provides a comfortable Viewing Distance. This would normally entail the use of what most photographers would refer to as a “standard” or “normal” lens, which in practice means the use of a lens with a 35mm equivalent focal length of between about 40 and 58 mm.

A6.7

However in a visual assessment there are three scenarios where constraining the study to this single fixed lens combination would not provide the assessor with the relevant information to properly assess the Proposed Development in its context.

A6.9

Secondly, where the wider context of the view must be considered and in making the assessment a viewer would naturally make use of peripheral vision in order to understand the whole. A print has a fixed extent which constrains the angle of view available to the viewer and hence it is logical to use a wide angle lens in these situations in order to include additional context in the print.

A6.10

Thirdly where the viewing point is studied at rest and the eye is free to roam over a very wide field of view and the whole setting of the view can be examined by turning the head. In these situations it is appropriate to provide a panorama comprising of a number of photographs placed side by side.

A6.11

The Landscape Institute Technical Guidance Note 06/19 Appendix 1 suggests that where a standard lens in landscape or portrait orientation cannot capture the view then the use of wider-angled prime lenses should be considered. Appendix 13 further notes:

Field Of View The term ‘Field Of View’ (FOV) or more specifically Horizontal Field of View (HFOV), refers to the horizontal angle of view visible in a photograph or printed image and is expressed in degrees. It is often generally referred to as ‘angle of view’, ‘included angle’ or ‘view cone angle’. Using this measure it becomes practical to make a comparison between photographs taken using lens of various focal lengths captured on to photographic film or digital camera sensors of various size and proportions. It is also possible to compare computer renderings with photographic images. Studies of this type use a range of camera equipment; in recent times digital cameras have largely superseded the traditional film formats of 35mm, medium format (6cm x 6cm) and large format (5in x 4in). Comparing digital and film formats may be achieved using either the HFOV or the 35mm equivalent lens calculation, however quoting the lens focal length (in mm) is not as consistently applicable as using the HFOV when comparing AVRs. 35mm Lens

HFOV degrees

Lens focal length (mm)

Wide angle lens

74.0

Medium wide lens

54.4

Standard lens

39.6

Telephoto lens

28.8

Telephoto lens

20.4

100

Telephoto lens

10.3

200

Telephoto lens

6.9

300

The FOV of digital cameras is dependent on the physical dimensions of the CCD used in the camera. These depend on the make and model of the camera. The comparison table uses the specifications for a Canon EOS-5D Mark II which has CCD dimensions of 36.0mm x 22.0mm.

Firstly, where the relationship being assessed is distant, the observer would tend naturally to focus closely on it. At this point the observer might be studying as little as 5 to 10 degrees in plan. The printing technology and image resolution of a print limit the amount of detail that can be resolved on paper when compared to the real world, hence in this situation it is appropriate to make use of a telephoto lens.

A6.14

AVR 3 – Photoreal

Example of AVR 3 – confirming the use of materials (in this case using a ‘photo-realistic’ rendering technique) A6.15

The purpose of a Level 3 AVR is to represent the likely appearance of the Proposed Development under the lighting conditions found in the photograph. All aspects of the images that are able to be objectively defined have been created directly from a single detailed description of the building. These include the geometry of the building and the size and shape of shadows cast by the sun.

A6.16

Beyond this it is necessary to move into a somewhat more subjective arena where the judgement of the delineator must be used in order to define the final appearance of the building under the specific conditions captured by the photographic and subsequent printing processes. In this area the delineator is primarily guided by the appearance of similar types of buildings at similar distances in the selected photograph. In large scope studies photography is necessarily executed over a long period of time and sometimes at short notice. This will produce a range of lighting conditions and photographic exposures. The treatment of lighting and materials within these images will respond according to those in the photograph.

A6.17

Where the Proposed Development is shown at night-time, the lightness of the scheme and the treatment of the materials was the best judgment of the visualiser as to the likely appearance of the scheme given the intended lighting strategy and the ambient lighting conditions in the background photograph. In particular the exact lighting levels are not based on photometric calculations and therefore the resulting image is assessed by the Architect and Lighting Designer as being a reasonable interpretation of the concept lighting strategy.

“The 24mm tilt shift is typically used for visualisation work where viewpoints are located close to a development and the normal range of prime lenses will not capture the proposed site” A6.12

For some views two of these scenarios might be appropriate, and hence the study will include two versions of the same view with different fields of view. Representation of the Proposed Development and cumulative schemes

A6.13

Classification of AVRs AVRs are classified according to their purpose using Levels 0 to 3. These are defined in detail in Appendix C of the London View Management Framework: Supplementary Planning Guidance (July 2007). The following table is a summary. AVR level

showing

purpose

AVR 0

Location and size of proposal

Showing Location and size

AVR 1

Location, size and degree of visibility of proposal

Confirming degree of visibility

AVR 2

As level 1 + description of architectural form

Explaining form

AVR 3

As level 2 + use of materials

Confirming the use of materials

In practice the majority of photography based AVRs are either AVR 3 (commonly referred to as “fully rendered” or “photoreal”) or AVR 1 (commonly referred to as “wire-line”). Model based AVRs are generally AVR 1.

Appendices (continued)

AVR 1 – Outline

the proportion of immediate foreground visible in the photograph. Horizontal shift will not be used. Where the prospect is framed by existing buildings, portrait format photographs may be used if this will result in the proposal being wholly visible in the AVR, and will not entirely exclude any relevant existing buildings. A6.23

A6.30

Where the Proposed Development would extend off the top of the photograph, the image may be extended vertically to ensure that the full height of the Proposed Development is show. Typically images will be extended only where this can be achieved by the addition of sky and no built structures are amended. Where it is necessary to extend built elements of the view, the method used to check the accuracy of this will be noted in the text.

Sample graticule showing optical axis markers

Documenting the AVR Example of AVR 1 confirming degree of visibility (in this case as an occluded ‘wire-line’ image) A6.24 A6.18

The purpose of a wire-line view is to accurately indicate the location and degree of visibility of the Proposed Development in the context of the existing condition and potentially in the context of other proposed schemes.

A6.19

In AVR1 representation each scheme is represented by a single line profile, sometimes with key edges lines to help understand the massing. The width of the profile line is selected to ensure that the diagram is clear, and is always drawn inside the true profile. The colour of the line is selected to contrast with the background. Different coloured lines may be used in order to distinguish between proposed and consented status, or between different schemes.

A6.20

A6.21

A6.22

187

Where more than one scheme is represented in outline form the outlines will obscure each other as if the schemes where opaque. Trees or other foliage will not obscure the outline of schemes behind them. This is because the transparency of trees varies with the seasons, and the practical difficulties of representing a solid line behind a filigree of branches. Elements of a temporary nature (e.g. cars, tower cranes, people) will similarly not obscure the outlines.

A6.25

A6.26

A6.27

The vertical and horizontal field of view of the final image is declared using a graticule consisting of thick lines at ten degree increments and intermediate lines every degree, measured away from the optical axis. Using this graticule it is possible to read off the resultant horizontal and vertical field of view, and thereby to compare the image with others taken using specific lens and camera combinations. Alternatively it can be used to apply precise crops during subsequent analysis

A6.28

A6.29

The blue marks on the left and right indicate the calculated location of the horizon line i.e. a plane running horizontally from the location of the camera. Where this line is above or below the optical axis, this indicates that the camera has been tilted; where it is not parallel with the horizontal marking of the optical axis, this indicates that the camera was not exactly horizontal, i.e. that “roll” is present. Note that a small amount of tilt and roll is nearly always present in a photograph, due to the practical limitations of the levelling devices used to align the camera in the field.

Border annotation A Millerhare AVR image has an annotated border or ‘graticule’ which indicates the field of view, the optical axis and the horizon line. This annotation helps the user to understand the characteristics of the lens used for the source photograph, whether the photographer applied tilt, vertical rise or horizontal shift during the taking of the shot and if the final image has been cropped on one or more sides. The four red arrows mark the horizontal and vertical location of the ‘optical axis’. The optical axis is a line passing through the eye point normal to the projection plane. In photography this line passes through the centre of the lens, assuming that the film plane has not been tilted relative to the lens mount. In computer rendering it is the viewing vector, i.e the line from the eye point to the target point. If the point indicated by these marks lies above or below the centre of the image, this indicates either that vertical rise was used when taking the photograph or that the image has subsequently been cropped from the top or bottom edge. If it lies to the left or right of the centre of the image then cropping has been applied to one side or the other, or more unusually that horizontal shift was applied to the photograph.

Framing the view Typically AVRs are composed with the camera looking horizontally i.e. with a horizontal Optical Axis. This is in order to avoid converging verticals which, although perspectively correct, appear to many viewers as unnatural in print form. The camera is levelled using mechanical levelling devices to ensure the verticality of the Picture Plane, being the plane on to which the image is projected; the film in the case of large format photography or the CCD in the case of digital photography. For a typical townscape view, a Landscape camera format is usually the most appropriate, giving the maximum horizontal angle of view. Vertical rise may be used in order to reduce

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Sample graticule showing horizon line markers

Comparing AVRs with different FOVs A key benefit of the index markings is that it becomes practical to crop out a rectangle in order to simulate the effect of an image with a narrower field of view. In order to understand the effect of using a longer lens it is simply necessary to cover up portions of the images using the graticule as a guide.

Appendices (continued) A7

Methodology for the production of Accurate Visual Representations Overview of Methodology

A7.1

A7.2

A7.3

A7.4

A7.8

The study was carried out by Millerhare (the Visualiser) by combining computer generated images of the Proposed Development with large format photographs at key strategic locations around the site as agreed with the project team. Surveying was executed by Absolute Survey (the Surveyor). The methodology employed by Millerhare is compliant with Appendix C of the London View Management Framework: Supplementary Planning Guidance (March 2012) and Landscape Institute Technical Guidance Note 06/19. The project team defined a series of locations in London where the proposed buildings might have a significant visual effect. At each of these locations Millerhare carried out a preliminary study to identify specific Assessment Points from which a representative and informative view could be taken. Once the exact location had been agreed by the project team, a photograph was taken which formed the basis of the study. The precise location of the camera was established by the Surveyor using a combination of differential GPS techniques and conventional observations. For views where a photographic context was to be used additional surveying was carried out. A number of features on existing structures visible from the camera location were surveyed. Using these points, Millerhare has determined the appropriate parameters to permit a view of the computer model to be generated which exactly overlays the appropriate photograph. Each photograph has then been divided into foreground and background elements to determine which parts of the current context should be shown in front of the Proposed Development and which behind. When combined with the computer-generated image these give an accurate impression of the impact of the Proposed Development on the selected view in terms of scale, location and use of materials (AVR Level 3). Spatial framework and reference database

A7.5

A7.6

A7.7

188

All data was assembled into a consistent spatial framework, expressed in a grid coordinate system with a local plan origin. The vertical datum of this framework is equivalent to Ordnance Survey (OS) Newlyn Datum. By using a transformation between this framework and the OSGB36 (National Grid) reference framework, Millerhare have been able to use other data sets (such as OS land line maps and ortho-corrected aerial photography) to test and document the resulting photomontages. In addition, surveyed observation points and line work from Millerhare’s London Model database are used in conjunction with new data in order to ensure consistency and reliability.

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

The models used to represent consented schemes have been assembled from a variety of sources. Some have been supplied by the original project team, the remainder have been built by Millerhare from available drawings, generally paper copies of the submitted planning application. While these models have not been checked for detailed accuracy by the relevant architects, Millerhare has used its best endeavours to ensure that the models are positioned accurately both in plan and in overall height.

A7.16

Using differential GPS techniques the Surveyor established the location of at least two intervisible stations in the vicinity of the camera location. A photograph of the GPS antenna in situ was taken as confirmation of the position.

A7.17

From these the local survey stations, the requested alignment points were surveyed using conventional observation.

A7.18

The resulting survey points were amalgamated into a single data set by the Surveyor. This data set was supplied as a spreadsheet with a set of coordinates transformed and re-projected into OSGB36 (National Grid) coordinates, and with additional interpreted lines to improve the clarity of the surveyed data.

A7.19

From the point set, the Visualiser created a three dimensional alignment model in the visualisation system by placing inverted cones at each surveyed point.

Process – photographic context

A7.9

A7.10

A7.11

A7.12

Reconnaissance At each Study Location the Visualiser conducted a photographic reconnaissance to identify potential Assessment Points. From each candidate position, a digital photograph was taken looking in the direction of the Proposed Development using a wide angle lens. Its position was noted with field observations onto an OS map and recorded by a second digital photograph looking at a marker placed at the Assessment Point. In the situation where, in order to allow the appreciation of the wider setting of the proposal, the assessor requires more context than is practical to capture using a wide angle lens, multiple photographs may be combined to create a panorama, typically as a diptych or triptych. This will be prepared by treating each panel as a separate AVR and then combining in to a single panorama as a final process.

Final Photography From each selected Assessment Point a series of large format photographs were taken with a camera height of approximately 1.6m. The camera, lens, format and direction of view are determined in accordance with the policies set out above Where a panoramic view is specified the camera/tripod head is rotated through increments of 40 degrees to add additional panels to the left and/or right of the main view.

A7.14

The centre point of the tripod was marked and a digital photograph showing the camera and tripod in situ was taken to allow the Surveyor to return to its location. Measurements and field notes were also taken to record the camera location, lens used, target point and time of day. Surveying the Assessment Points For each selected Assessment Point a survey brief was prepared, consisting of the Assessment Point study sheet and a marked up photograph indicating alignment points to be surveyed. Care was taken to ensure that a good spread of alignment points was selected, including points close to the camera and close to the target.

Example of alignment model overlaid on the photograph A7.27

A7.28 A7.21

The selected photograph was copied into a template image file of predetermined dimensions. The resulting image was then examined and any artefacts related to the digital image capture process were rectified.

A7.22

Where vertical rise has been used the image is analysed and compensation is applied to ensure that the centre of the image corresponds to the location of the camera’s optical axis.

The Visualiser assigned a unique reference to each Assessment Point and Photograph.

A7.13

A7.15

A7.20

Photo preparation From the set of photographs taken from each Assessment Point, one single photograph was selected for use in the study. This choice was made on the combination of sharpness, exposure and appropriate lighting.

alignment model as a record of the match. This was annotated to show the extents of the final views to be used in the study.

A7.23

Calculating the photographic alignment A preliminary view definition was created within the visualisation system using the surveyed camera location, recorded target point and FOV based on the camera and lens combination selected for the shot

A7.24

A lower resolution version of the annotated photograph was attached as a background to this view, to assist the operator to interpret on-screen displays of the alignment model and other relevant datasets.

A7.25

Using this preliminary view definition, a rendering was created of the alignment model at a resolution to match the scanned photograph. This was overlaid onto the background image to compare the image created by the actual camera and its computer equivalent. Based on the results of this process adjustments were made to the camera definition. When using a wide angle lens observations outside the circle of distortion are given less weighting.

A7.26

This process was iterated until a match had been achieved between the photograph and alignment model. At this stage, a second member of staff verified the judgements made. An A3 print was made of the resulting photograph overlaid with the

A7.29

Preparing models of the Proposed Development A CAD model of the Proposed Development was created from 3D CAD models and 2D drawings supplied by the Architect. The level of detail applied to the model is appropriate to the AVR type of the final images. Models of the Proposed Development and other schemes are located within the spatial framework using reference information supplied by the Architect or, when not available, by best fit to other data from the spatial framework reference database . Study renders of the model are supplied back to the Architect for confirmation of the form and the overall height of the Proposed Development. The method used to locate each model is recorded. Each distinct model is assigned a unique reference code by the Visualiser. Determining occlusion and creating simple renderings A further rendering was created using the aligned camera, which combined the Proposed Development with a computergenerated context. This was used to assist the operator to determine which parts of the source image should appear in front of the Proposed Development and which behind it. Using this image and additional site photography for information, the source file is divided into layers representing foreground and background elements.

A7.30

In cases where the Proposed Development is to be represented in silhouette or massing form (AVR1 or AVR2), final renderings of an accurate massing model were generated and inserted into the background image file between the foreground and background layers.

A7.31

Final graphical treatments were applied to the resulting image as agreed with the Architect and environmental and planning consultants. These included the application of coloured outlines to clarify the reading of the images or the addition of tones to indicate occluded areas.

Appendices (continued)

A7.32

A7.33

A7.34

For each final view, lighting was set in the visualisation system to match the theoretical sunlight conditions at the time the source photograph was taken, and additional model lighting placed as required to best approximate the recorded lighting conditions and the representation of its proposed materials. By creating high resolution renderings of the detailed model, using the calculated camera specification and approximated lighting scenario, the operator prepared an image of the building that was indicative of its likely appearance when viewed under the conditions of the study photograph. This rendering was combined with the background and foreground components of the source image to create the final study images.

A7.35

A single CAD model of the Proposed Development has been used for all distant and local views, in which the architectural detail is therefore consistently shown. Similarly a single palette of materials has been applied. In each case the sun angles used for each view are transferred directly from the photography records.

A7.36

Material definitions have been applied to the models assembled as described. The definitions of these materials have been informed by technical notes on the planning drawings and other available visual material, primarily renderings created by others. These resulting models have then been rendered using the lighting conditions of the photographs.

A7.37

A7.38

Where a panoramic view is specified each panel is prepared by treating each photograph as an individual AVR following the process described in the previous paragraphs. The panels are then arranged side by side to construct the panorama. Vertical dividers are added to mark the edge of each panel in order to make clear that the final image has been constructed from more than one photograph.

A7.39

189

Creating more sophisticated renderings Where more sophisticated representations of the Proposed Developments were required (AVR3) the initial model is developed to show the building envelope in greater detail. In addition, definitions were applied to the model to illustrate transparency, indicative material properties and inter-reflection with the surrounding buildings.

Documenting the study For each Assessment Point a CAD location plan was prepared, onto which a symbol was placed using the coordinates of the camera supplied by the Surveyor. Two images of this symbol

Lewisham Shopping Centre

Visual Impact Study

October 2024

were created cross-referencing background mapping supplied by Ordnance Survey. A7.40

The final report on the Study Location was created which shows side by side, the existing and proposed prospect. These were supplemented by images of the location map, a record of the camera location and descriptive text. The AVR level is described.

A7.41

Peripheral annotation was added to the image to clearly indicate the final FOV used in the image, any tilt or rise, and whether any cropping has been applied.

A7.42

Any exceptions to the applied policies or deviations from the methodology were clearly described.

A7.43

Where appropriate, additional images were included in the study report, showing the Proposed Development in the context of other consented schemes.

APPENDIX 2: ASSET PLANS (INCLUDING ZONE OF THEORETICAL VISBILITY) Lewisham Shopping Centre, Lewisham

HERITAGE ASSET PLAN

MARITIME GREENWICH WORLD HERITAGE SITE

ii 52

Application Site

World Heritage Site A. Greenwich WHS Registered Park and Gardens i) Greenwich Park (Grade I) ii) Island Gardens (Grade II) Listed Buildings Grade I Grade II*

Q 51

Grade II

Conservation Areas C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K.

M L

B. Greenwich WHS Buffer

St. Stephen’s CA Belmont CA Mercia Grove CA Ladywell Blackheath CA (Lewisham) St Mary’s CA Lewisham Park CA Somerset Gardens CA Brockley CA

L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. S.

St Johns CA Brookmill Road CA West Greenwich CA Ashburnham Triangle CA Deptford High Street & St Paul's Church CA Greenwich Park CA Blackheath CA (Greenwich) Lee Manor CA

The Ranger's House

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

22 Dartmouth Row Stone House Lee Public Library Manna Mead Point House The Manor House Roman Catholic Church of Our Ladye Star of The Sea including its Forecourt Wall and Gate Piers The Presbytery

Listed Buildings Grade I

Grade II*

C 46 48

3. 4. 5.

SCALE: 25,000 @ A3

45 47

7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

E 50

Boone's Chapel (with short abutting Wall to East)

19.

Grade II 20. 21.

22.

23. 24.

25. 26. 27. 28.

29.

750 m

30. 31.

32.

42. 43. 44.

48. 49. 50.

90-100 Lewisham High Street 143-149 Lewisham High Street 180-190 Lewisham High Street

52.

Anglo-Saxon cemetery in Greenwich Park

54.

Manor House Gardens (Grade II)

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

Locally Listed Buildings 45. 46. 47.

65-85 Lewisham High Street 66 Lewisham High Street 85-95 Lewisham High Street

Scheduled Monuments 51.

West Grove, Conduit House, Blackheath

Registered Park and Gardens 53. 1.5 km

Greenwich Park (Grade I)

Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2024

MONTAGU EVANS

LOCATION:

Lewisham Shopping Centre

DATE:

October 2024

SCALE:

1:15,000 @ A3

FIGURE:

▲ NORTH

CHARTERED SURVEYORS 70 ST MARY AXE, LONDON, EC3A 8BE T: +44 (0)20 7493 4002 WWW.MONTAGU-EVANS.CO.UK

VIEW 14: ISLAND GARDENS

VIEW 38: GREENWICH PARK

VIEW LOCATION PLAN Application Site

13 38

Lewisham DLR station

Albion Way

Hilly Fields

Blythe Hill Fields

5.1.

Vicars Hill at Shell Road

5.2. Ellerdale Street 11

12 36

VIEW 39: ST JOHN’S PARK

20 19

26 28

5.1

31 30

5.2

VIEW 37: GREENWICH LOCAL VIEW 5

3 23

6 4

8 17

VIEW A: HONOR OAK ROAD/HONOR OAK PARK

750 m

VIEW 32: KING JOHN’S WALK/ELTHAM PALACE

Ladywell Station Bridge

Mountsfield Park

Courthill Road

St Stephen's (Cressingham Road)

10.

Lewisham High Street

11.

Hyde Vale (Blackheath)

12.

Shooters Hill/General Woolfe Road

13.

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park

14.

Island Gardens

15.

Belmont Hill/Cedars Grove

16.

Belmont Hill

17.

St Mary the Virgin

18.

Chudleigh Road

19.

All Saints' Church

20.

Goffers Road

21.

Telegraph Hill

22.

Loampit Hill

23.

Lee High Road

24.

Honor Oak Road/Honor Oak Park

25.

Lewisham Park

26.

Sunninghill Roads/Lewisham Way

27.

Halesworth Road

28.

Silk Mills Path

29.

Lewisham Clock Tower

30.

Mercia Grove

31.

Marischal Road

32.

Greenwich Local View 10: King John’s Walk/Eltham Palace

33.

Outside Prendergast Vale School

34.

Waterway Avenue (Waterlink Way)

35.

Ryecroft Road

36.

Millennium Circle

37.

Greenwich Local View 5: Eltham Park (North) to Central London

38.

Greenwich Park

39.

Blackheath CA St John’s Park, the road to the north of St John’s Church before the junction with Stratheden Road.

32 7

1.5 km

Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2024 Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2024

MONTAGU EVANS

LOCATION:

Lewisham Shopping Centre

DATE:

October 2024

SCALE:

1:15,000 @ A3

FIGURE:

▲ NORTH

CHARTERED SURVEYORS 70 ST MARY AXE, LONDON, EC3A 8BE T: +44 (0)20 7493 4002 WWW.MONTAGU-EVANS.CO.UK

TOWNSCAPE CHARACTER AREA PLAN Application Site

❶

TCA1: Lewisham town centre

❷

TCA2: Residential Zone

❸

TCA3: Deptford

❹

TCA4: Greenwich Park (a) and Blackheath (b)

❺

TCA5: Parks and open green space

3 4b 5f

2a 2c 1

5b 5e

1.5 km

Contains Contains OS OS data data © © Crown Crown copyright copyright and and database database right right 2024 2024

MONTAGU EVANS

LOCATION:

Lewisham Shopping Centre

DATE:

October 2024

SCALE:

1:15,000 @ A3

FIGURE:

▲ NORTH

CHARTERED SURVEYORS 70 ST MARY AXE, LONDON, EC3A 8BE T: +44 (0)20 7493 4002 WWW.MONTAGU-EVANS.CO.UK

HERITAGE ASSET PLAN OVERLAY WITH ZTV

MARITIME GREENWICH WORLD HERITAGE SITE

ii 52

Application Site

World Heritage Site A. Greenwich WHS Registered Park and Gardens i) Greenwich Park (Grade I) ii) Island Gardens (Grade II) Listed Buildings Grade I Grade II*

Q 51

Grade II

Conservation Areas C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K.

M L

B. Greenwich WHS Buffer

St. Stephen’s CA Belmont CA Mercia Grove CA Ladywell Blackheath CA (Lewisham) St Mary’s CA Lewisham Park CA Somerset Gardens CA Brockley CA

L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. S.

St Johns CA Brookmill Road CA West Greenwich CA Ashburnham Triangle CA Deptford High Street & St Paul's Church CA Greenwich Park CA Blackheath CA (Greenwich) Lee Manor CA

The Ranger's House

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

22 Dartmouth Row Stone House Lee Public Library Manna Mead Point House The Manor House Roman Catholic Church of Our Ladye Star of The Sea including its Forecourt Wall and Gate Piers The Presbytery

Listed Buildings Grade I

Grade II*

C 46 48

3. 4. 5.

SCALE: 25,000 @ A3

45 47

7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

E 50

Boone's Chapel (with short abutting Wall to East)

19.

Grade II 20. 21.

22.

23. 24.

25. 26. 27. 28.

29.

750 m

30. 31.

32.

42. 43. 44.

48. 49. 50.

90-100 Lewisham High Street 143-149 Lewisham High Street 180-190 Lewisham High Street

52.

Anglo-Saxon cemetery in Greenwich Park

54.

Manor House Gardens (Grade II)

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

Locally Listed Buildings 45. 46. 47.

65-85 Lewisham High Street 66 Lewisham High Street 85-95 Lewisham High Street

Scheduled Monuments 51.

West Grove, Conduit House, Blackheath

Registered Park and Gardens 53. 1.5 km

Greenwich Park (Grade I)

Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2024

MONTAGU EVANS

LOCATION:

Lewisham Shopping Centre

DATE:

October 2024

SCALE:

1:15,000 @ A3

FIGURE:

▲ NORTH

CHARTERED SURVEYORS 70 ST MARY AXE, LONDON, EC3A 8BE T: +44 (0)20 7493 4002 WWW.MONTAGU-EVANS.CO.UK

VIEW 14: ISLAND GARDENS

VIEW 38: GREENWICH PARK

VIEW LOCATION PLAN Application Site

13 38

Lewisham DLR station

Albion Way

Hilly Fields

Blythe Hill Fields

5.1.

Vicars Hill at Shell Road

5.2. Ellerdale Street 11

12 36

VIEW 39: ST JOHN’S PARK

20 19

26 28

5.1

31 30

5.2

VIEW 37: GREENWICH LOCAL VIEW 5

3 23

6 4

8 17

VIEW A: HONOR OAK ROAD/HONOR OAK PARK

750 m

VIEW H: KING JOHN’S WALK/ELTHAM PALACE

Ladywell Station Bridge

Mountsfield Park

Courthill Road

St Stephen's (Cressingham Road)

10.

Lewisham High Street

11.

Hyde Vale (Blackheath)

12.

Shooters Hill/General Woolfe Road

13.

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park

14.

Island Gardens

15.

Belmont Hill/Cedars Grove

16.

Belmont Hill

17.

St Mary the Virgin

18.

Chudleigh Road

19.

All Saints' Church

20.

Goffers Road

21.

Telegraph Hill

22.

Loampit Hill

23.

Lee High Road

24.

Honor Oak Road/Honor Oak Park

25.

Lewisham Park

26.

Sunninghill Roads/Lewisham Way

27.

Halesworth Road

28.

Silk Mills Path

29.

Lewisham Clock Tower

30.

Mercia Grove

31.

Marischal Road

32.

King John’s Walk/Eltham Palace

33.

Outside Prendergast Vale School

34.

Waterway Avenue (Waterlink Way)

35.

Ryecroft Road

36.

Millennium Circle

37.

Greenwich Local View 5: Eltham Park (North) to Central London

38.

Greenwich Park

39.

Blackheath CA St John’s Park, the road to the north of St John’s Church before the junction with Stratheden Road.

32 7

1.5 km

Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2024 Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2024

MONTAGU EVANS

LOCATION:

Lewisham Shopping Centre

DATE:

October 2024

SCALE:

1:15,000 @ A3

FIGURE:

▲ NORTH

CHARTERED SURVEYORS 70 ST MARY AXE, LONDON, EC3A 8BE T: +44 (0)20 7493 4002 WWW.MONTAGU-EVANS.CO.UK

APPENDIX 3: NON-VERIFIED VIEWS STUDY – PREPARED USING VUCITY Lewisham Shopping Centre, Lewisham

NON-VERIFIED VIEWS STUDY – PREPARED USING VUCITY

APPENDIX 4: HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT RECORD (HER) SEARCH Lewisham Shopping Centre, Lewisham

GLHER REPORT Application Site Activity Geometry Activity - Point Activity - Line Events - Region Monument Geometry Monument - Point Monument - Region Rapid HLC Geometry HLC - Region Area Geometry Area Geometry

750 m

Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2024

MONTAGU EVANS

LOCATION:

Lewisham Shopping Centre

DATE:

April 2024

SCALE:

1: ,10,000 @ A3

FIGURE:

▲ NORTH

CHARTERED SURVEYORS 70 ST MARY AXE, LONDON, EC3A 8BE T: +44 (0)20 7493 4002 WWW.MONTAGU-EVANS.CO.UK

APPENDIX 5: HERITAGE STATEMENT PREPARED BY MONTAGU EVANS Lewisham Shopping Centre, Lewisham

LEWISHAM SHOPPING CENTRE LSC.28

BUILT HERITAGE STATEMENT

LEWISHAM SHOPPING CENTRE

OCTOBER 2024

BUILT HERITAGE STATEMENT OCTOBER 2024

CONTENTS 1.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................3

2.0

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................5

3.0

METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................11

4.0

LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY .......................................................................15

5.0

HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................................20

6.0

BUILT HERITAGE SIGNIFIANCE ....................................................................................34

7.0

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVEOPMENT AND CONSULTATION .............56

8.0

IMPACT OF PROPOSD DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................61

9.0

CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................77

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1

The Heritage Statement provides an assessment of likely impacts of proposals to redevelop Lewisham Shopping Centre on the significance of heritage assets. It describes the significance of any heritage assets affected by the proposed development, including any contribution made by their setting. The assessment satisfies the requirements set out under paragraph 200 of the 2023 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

1.2

The Site does not comprise any statutorily listed buildings, nor is it situated within a conservation area. There are a number of non-designated heritage assets located within the Site boundary, including the locally designated 6585 Lewisham High Street, 90-100 Lewisham High Street and 180-190 Lewisham High Street, as well as part of an area of local special character.

1.3

The proposals comprise a hybrid application, including outline and detailed components. The assessment is based upon the impact of the maximum parameters of the outline component, plus other control documents such as the Development Specification and Framework and Design Code. Due consideration is also given to the design information for the detailed plots N1 and N2.

1.4

The assessment is informed by visual tools, including 39 accurate visual representations (AVRs) prepared by Miller Hare. The location of the viewpoints has been agreed with the London Borough of Lewisham during the pre-application process. The AVRs are provided within the BHTVIA which forms Volume 2 of the Environmental Statement submitted with this application.

1.5

A further non-verified view, prepared using VUCTIY software, is provided at Appendix 3.0 of the BHTVIA. A Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) has been produced by Miller Hare to understand the geographical extent of visibility and inform the study area (see Section 3.0).

1.6

From the outset the design team has sought to retain much of the historic fabric along the high Street frontage. The number of buildings to be retained has grown during design development, in consultation with officers at the Lonon Borough of Lewisham. No heritage assets identified by the London Borough of Lewisham would be demolished as part of the final proposed development, with the exception of Nos.156-160 Lewisham High Street, a Building of Townscape Merit.

1.7

1.8

The town centre itself has a history of continual evolution. The main High Street epitomises this, evidenced by a range of architectural periods and styles. The centre was devastated by bomb damage during the Second World War which necessitated more wholesale interventions. The postwar property boom and a change in both social and economic outlook, saw the realisation of the Lewisham shopping centre in 1977 – originally named Riverdale Centre. In more recent years the wider area has seen high density development, including tall buildings, in accordance with the vision set out in the development plan.

1.9

The proposed development will further intensity the land use. The proposed scale, form, massing and layout has been subject to detailed discussions with stakeholders, including officers at the London Borough of Lewisham and members of the design review panel. As a consequence, whilst there are contrasts in scale, the overall form and composition of the town centre following implementation of the proposed development would be balanced, and congruent to the historic evolution of the town centre.

1.10

Of the 61 heritage assets, 59 would not experience change to their setting that would impact significance i.e. their special interest would be preserved. For non-designated heritage assets, 122-126 and 142-148 Lewisham High Street, direct works undertaken during the operational phase of the Proposed Development will involve beneficial refurbishment and upgrading works to their principal facades, better revealing their historic and architectural significance.

1.11

The assessment has identified an adverse effect to one non-designated heritage asset, 156-60 Lewisham High Street, which is to undergo wholesale demolition during the demolition and construction stage of development. In accordance with Paragraph 209 of the NPPF: the effect of an application on the significance of a nondesignated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. This will need to be considered by the decision maker in the wider planning balance.

1.12

The proposed development would provide a heritage benefit, comprising the improvement of the immediate setting of a number of locally listed buildings along Lewisham High Street, as well as the Grade II listed Clock Tower. The proposals would replace the existing shopping centre building with a number of buildings of a high architectural quality, as well as substantial public realm and landscaping enhancements. The improvements would be secured through the submitted Design Code.

2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1

Montagu Evans has been instructed by Landsec Lewisham Limited (‘Landsec’) (hereafter referred to as the ‘Applicant’) to provide consultancy services and produce this Built Heritage Statement in support of proposals which are subject to a hybrid planning application for the redevelopment of Lewisham Shopping Centre and adjacent land, Lewisham, London (the ‘Site’). The Site is located in the London Borough of Lewisham (the ‘Council’). The Site boundary is illustrated at Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2.

2.2

The hybrid planning application would be implemented in phases. Detailed planning permission is sought for parts of Phase 1a (Plots N1 and N2 and surrounding spaces) as well as the shopping centre interface and highway access works. Outline planning permission is sought for the remainder of the scheme (Phases 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b).

2.3

The outline part of the planning application is supported and informed by Parameter Plans, a Development Specification and a Design Code (collectively referred to as the ‘Control Documents’). An Illustrative Scheme is provided to demonstrate how proposals may come forward in the reserved matters stage in accordance with the Control Documents and this will be secured by condition. The Illustrative Scheme is submitted for information purposes only and does not form the basis of assessment.

2.4

The description of development (the ‘Proposed Development’) is as follows: “Full planning application (within Phase 1a) comprising the demolition of existing buildings, structures and associated works to provide a mixed-use development including the erection of a Co-Living building (Sui Generis) up to 23 storeys in height (Plot N1), and a residential building (Class C3) up to 15 storeys in height (Plot N2), associated residential ancillary spaces as well as town centre uses (Class E (a, b, c, d, e, f, g (i, ii); and Sui Generis) together with public open space, public realm, amenity space and landscaping, car and cycle parking, highway works and the formation of new pedestrian and vehicle accesses, existing shopping centre interface works (the ‘Phase 1a Finish Works’), service deck modifications, servicing arrangements, site preparation works, supporting infrastructure works and other associated works. Outline planning application (all matters reserved) for a comprehensive, phased redevelopment, comprising demolition of existing buildings, structures and associated works to provide a mixed-use development including:

2.5

The following uses: Living Uses, comprising residential (Class C3) and student accommodation (Sui Generis); Town Centre Uses (Class E (a, b, c, d, e, f, g (i, ii) and Sui Generis); and Community and Cultural uses (Class F1; F2; and Sui Generis).

Public open space, public realm, amenity space and landscaping works;

Car and cycle parking;

Highway works;

Formation of new pedestrian and vehicular accesses, permanent and temporary vehicular access ramps, service deck, servicing arrangements and means of access and circulation within the site;

Site preparation works;

Supporting infrastructure works;

Associated interim works;

Meanwhile and interim uses and

Other associated works.”

A full description of the Proposed Development is provided within the submitted Design and Access Statement (the ‘DAS’) prepared by Studio Egret West Architects. Separate Design and Access Statements are provided for detailed Plot N1 by Mae Architects and for Plot N2 by Archio Architects.

THE SITE

Figure 2.2 – Aerial View. Source: Google (base map). 2.6

The Site is approximately 6.93 ha in size and currently comprises Lewisham Shopping Centre, including a Sainsbury’s, multi-storey carpark, a number of retail units, the leisure box, Lewisham House and a number of properties on Lewisham High Street. The Site also encapsulates the 18-storey vacant former office building – Lewisham House – the vacant leisure box and Riverdale Hall. It is bound to the west and south by Molesworth Street (A21), to the east by Lewisham High Street and to the north by Rennell Street (A20).

2.7

The existing Lewisham Shopping Centre was constructed in 1977, originally as the Riverdale Centre and retained a number of historic terraced style plots on the High Street frontage. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.8

Figure 2.1 – Site Plan – grey hatching denotes existing buildings excluded from the Application Boundary. Source: SEW Architects. 2.9

The Proposed Development has been broken down into six main spatial phases: x

Phase 1a (Detail Application) – Located to the northeast of the Site;

Phase 1b (Outline Application) – Located to the northwest of the Site;

Phase 2a (Outline Application) – Located to the southwest of the Site;

Phase 2b (Outline Application) – Located to the southeast of the Site;

Phase 3a (Outline Application) – The middle section of the Site, fronting Lewisham High Street to the east; and

Phase 3b (Outline Application) – The middle section of the Site, fronting Lewisham High Street to the west.

The Proposed Development is described in detail within the submitted DAS and planning statement. It includes the demolition, partial demolition as well as repurposing of some of the buildings on Site.

Figure 2.3 – Parameter Plan, with the pink hatching showing the Detailed Planning Application, the blue dotted line showing the outline of the Illustrative Scheme and the grey showing the maximum horizontal extents of the Proposed Development plot, with the red showing the zone for Building Maintenance Units (BMUs) and specified AOD. Source: SEW Architects.

Figure 2.4 Plot Plan. Source: SEW Architects. PURPOSE OF THE HERITAGE STATEMENT 2.10

The Heritage Statement provides an assessment of likely impacts of the Proposed Development on heritage assets. It describes the significance of any heritage assets affected by the Proposed Development, including any contribution made by their setting. The assessment satisfies the requirements set out under paragraph 200 of the 2023 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

2.11

2.12

3.0 METHODOLOGY 3.1

The Site also lies within close proximity to several statutorily listed assets, including the Grade II Lewisham Clock Tower. There are a number of non-designated heritage assets located within the Site boundary, including the locally designated 65-85 Lewisham High Street, 90-100 Lewisham High Street and 180-190 Lewisham High Street, as well as part of an area of local special character.

2.13

The assessment is informed by visual tools, including 39 accurate visual representations (AVRs) prepared by Miller Hare. The location of the viewpoints has been agreed with the Council during the pre-application process. The AVRs are provided within the BHTVIA which forms Volume 2 of the Environmental Statement submitted with this application.

2.14

SCOPING AND BASELINE ASSIMILIATION 3.2

3.3

Feld surveys of the baseline situation were undertaken by Montagu Evans during 2022 and 2023. STUDY AREA

This Heritage Statement considers the impact of the Proposed Development set out in the Control Documents for the outline component, and the detailed design information for plots N1 and N2. In relation to the outline component, the Maximum Parameter Plans provide the upper (maximum) building limited and establish a 3dimensional building envelope. The parameters represent the tallest and broadest mass of the Proposed Development and are therefore considered to be the reasonable worst-case scenario (shown with a wireline in the verified views); however, the detailed design at future reserved matters applications would need to confirm to the wider suite of control documents, including the Proposed Development Specification and Framework and Design Code. The qualitative assessment of the Proposed Development carried out in this Heritage Statement uses all of the Control Documents.

2.16

This assessment is based on the Scoping Report submitted to the Council in January 2024 (ref. 46730) and agreed in the Scoping Opinion dated 14 June 2024 (ref. DC/24/134490). The Scoping process identified the heritage assets which would be assessed. Where the design has evolved or material changes to the baseline occur to an extent that the scope has changed, reasoned justification is provided. SITE VISITS

BASIS OF ASSESSMENT 2.15

This section describes the framework for assessment in the Heritage Statement. The method is the product of legislation, policy and best practice guidance set out in Section 4.0. The assessment is proportionate and no longer than is necessary to assess properly the potential likely significant effects of the Proposed Development. All impacts deemed relevant or material to planning are identified and the consequent effects appraised.

All AVRs of the Proposed Development show the Maximum Parameter Plans of the outline component. In some selected AVRs an Illustrative Scheme is also provided that demonstrates how the reserved matters could come forward in accordance with the other Control Documents. This Illustrative Scheme is submitted for information only and does not form the basis of any assessment.

3.4

A ZTV has been produced by Miller Hare to outline the potential areas where the Proposed Development may be visible, up to a minimum 2km distance from the Site (Figure 3.1). The ZTV has been produced according to their methodology using topographically referenced three-dimensional models. It is a tool for a high-level understanding of the extent of visibility, which was further interrogated through review of individual viewpoints using field surveys and digital software.

3.5

3.6

The study area identifies all heritage assets (designated and non-designated) up to 1.5km from the Site. Heritage assets across longer distances were also considered where the ZTV demonstrated greater visibility, although all were scoped out due to there being no potential for the Proposed Development to impact their significance given either the nature of the asset or the considerable separating distance from the Site. The ZTV was also used to identify at baseline stage if there were any heritage assets which could be scoped out from further assessment because there would be no intervisibility with the Proposed Development, or where there would be no change to their setting or heritage significance by any other means, including historical associations. This approach was agreed in the Council’s Scoping Opinion dated 14 June 2024.

3.10

Changes to visual amenity should not be judged in relation to static views (which are abstractions and not real) but in relation to the overall experience of an area and dependent upon the particular experiences and expectations of different assets. The modelled viewpoints are often selected to show schemes at their maximum impact and not capture their typical impact in a receiving area or location. The impact assessment considers both the particular impact illustrated and the overall impact to come to a net assessment which more accurately reflects the overall experience than a single view. HERITAGE

3.11

The term ‘heritage asset’ is used within this assessment to describe a designated or non-designated heritage asset, as defined by the NPPF. The assessment does not consider below-ground archaeological assets, including scheduled monuments, unless the archaeological feature has been scoped into the assessment. This occurs in some cases where the understanding of an archaeological feature with no upstanding remains is affected by perceptions of its setting.

3.12

Paragraph 200 of the NPPF states: In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposed on their significance.

3.13

3.14

In accordance with paragraph 200 of the NPPF the relevant historic environment record has been consulted as part of this assessment (HER search reference: 18391). The GLHER data is reproduced at Appendix 5.0 of the BHTVIA. The HER search results have not identified any further relevant heritage assets beyond what is set out in the baseline section of this Heritage Statement. Planning policy requires an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected by a proposed development, including any contribution made by their setting. ‘Significance’ (for heritage policy) is defined in the NPPF Annex 2 as: “the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.”

Figure 3.1 – ZTV of the Proposed Development prepared by Miller Hare (maximum parameters). 3.15 ACCURATE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND VISUAL AIDS 3.7

reference to their historical or architectural value identified in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the '1990 PLBCA Act’), or the other values set out in the NPPF: archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic.

The AVRs contained in Appendix 1.0 of the BHTVIA are provided in the following scenarios: x

Existing = baseline photography;

Proposed = ‘Existing’ plus a wire line of both the outline maximum parameters and detailed components of the Proposed Development;

Cumulative = ‘Proposed’ plus schemes in the surrounding area that are subject to an extant consent; and

Illustrative Proposed = to assist the reader a further scenario is provided for selected views, comprising a render of the detailed components alongside the Illustrative Scheme. This scenario is provided for information only, mindful that the Illustrative Scheme may come forward in a different form at reserved matters stage. It is intended to assist the reader in understanding how a scheme compliant with the submitted Design Code would appear.

3.8

The AVRs are independently prepared by Miller Hare according to an industry standard method. The method is provided at Appendix 2.0 of the BHTVIA.

3.9

Following discussions with The Council in April 2022, a further non-verified view from Blackheath Point (LVMF 6A.1), prepared in VuCity, is provided at Appendix 3.0 of the BHTVIA to demonstrate there is no intervisibility between assets and the Site.

This is reaffirmed by Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment (2015). The significance of heritage assets may be expressed with

3.16

It is commonly agreed that Grade I and II* buildings are of “exceptional” and “particularly important” interest; therefore these are generally afforded a higher heritage significance. This differentiation is best summarised by the drafting of paragraph 200 of the NPPF, which states that the “level of detail (to describe the significance of heritage assets) should be proportionate to the assets’ importance”; thus, a grading is appropriate. We have given due and proportionate regard to all heritage assets assessed.

3.17

Where a proposal may have an effect on the surroundings in which the heritage asset is experienced, a qualitative assessment is made of whether, how and to what degree setting contributes to the significance of heritage assets. Setting is defined in the NPPF as: The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.

3.18

The assessment of setting is informed by the check-list of potential attributes outlined by the Historic England guidance document Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage 13

Assets (2017) (hereafter “GPA3: Setting”). GPA3: Setting identifies five steps towards assessing the implications of development proposals which may affect the setting of heritage assets (it is consistent with other guidance):

3.19

4.0 LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY 4.1

Identify the assets affected;

Assessing the contribution setting makes to significance;

Assessing the effect of the proposed development;

Maximising enhancement and minimising harm;

Making and documenting the decision and monitoring outcomes; and

Part e is incumbent on the decision maker, through the provision of conditions.

The heritage baseline articulates the contribution made by relevant aspects of setting towards significance. Again, the level of detail is proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal to their significance; however, each heritage asset’s susceptibility to change derives from the particular nature of its heritage significance, the existing character of its setting and the type of development proposed. The baseline assessment therefore describes what is sensitive about each heritage asset and its setting.

LEGISLATION PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS ACT) 1990 4.2

3.21

The cumulative schemes for assessment were agreed with the Council during the pre-application process. They comprise: x

Carpetright, Loampit Vale, SE13 7SN, Lewisham Exchange & Tide Construction Ltd (planning ref: DC/20/118766);

1 Silver Road, London, SE13 7BQ, London Square Development Ltd (planning ref: DC/18/109972); and

Lewisham Retail Park, Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd (planning ref: DC/16/097629).

Following a site visit in September 2024, it was noted that the Lewisham Gateway scheme (planning ref: DC/18/105218 and DC/23/130564) on the adjoining site to the north is nearing completion and is considered to form part of the baseline condition. The 34-storey building at the former car park of the Tesco store at Connington Road has recently been completed (planning ref: DC/21/121768) and also forms part of the baseline.

3.22

It was also noted that the Carpetright and 1 Silver Road schemes were also nearing completion and therefore now form part of the baseline. There is only one scheme, Lewisham Retail Park to consider in the cumulative assessment which is located approximately 280m away from the northwestern boundary of the Site and comprises a tall building of 24 storeys.

3.23

Paragraph 36 of GPA3 states: “Cumulative assessment is required under the EU Directive on EIA. Its purpose is to identify impacts that are the result of introducing the development into the view in combination with other existing and proposed developments. The combined impact may not simply be the sum of the impacts of individual developments; it may be more, or less.”

3.24

The word ‘cumulative’ in this context should be taken to mean incremental and the practical effect of this would generally be to increase the degree of harmful impact in specific cases, judged on a qualitative basis. Instances of incremental harm have as matters of practice normally come about when previous development is recognised to have created a harmful condition, to which a specific proposal adds, so potentially augmenting the pre-existing harm. In all cases, however, a freestanding assessment is required.

The Site does not comprise any statutorily listed buildings and nor is it located in a conservation area. There are statutorily listed buildings which have been identified in the study area which may experience a change to their heritage significance as a result of change to their setting from the Proposed Development. As a result, the relevant statutory provision is at Section 66(1) of the 1990 Act which states that: “In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural and historical interest which it possesses.”

CUMULATIVE 3.20

The following section sets out the planning policy context for the Site and for the context of the assessment process.

4.3

The Proposed Development does not comprise any buildings or other land in a conservation area and, therefore, section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is not engaged. We are mindful that the impact on the setting of a CA, as a designated heritage asset, is enshrined in policy (see the NPPF). DEVELOPMENT PLAN

4.4

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 stipulates that where in making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination must be made in accordance with that plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The statutory development plan and the policies relevant to the assessment of heritage considerations are set out at Table 4.1 and 4.2 below. DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

KEY PROVISIONS

Policy SD1 (Opportunity Areas) Policy D1 (London’s form character and capacity for growth) Policy D3 (Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach) Policy D4 (Delivering good design) London Plan Policy D5 (Inclusive design) (2021) Policy D8 (Public realm) Policy D9 (Tall Buildings) Policy HC1 (Heritage conservation and growth) Policy HC3 (Strategic and Local Views) Spatial Policy 1: Lewisham Spatial Strategy Spatial Policy 2: Regeneration and Growth Areas Core Strategy Policy 15: High quality design for Lewisham Lewisham Core Core Strategy Policy 16: Conservation areas, heritage assets and the historic Strategy (2011) environment x Core Strategy Policy 17: The protected vistas, the London panorama and local views, landmarks and panoramas x Core Strategy Policy 18: The location and design of tall buildings x DM Policy 1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) x DM Policy 30 (Urban Design and Local Character) x DM Policy 32 (Housing design, layout and space standards) Development x DM Policy 33 (Development on infill sites, backland sites, back gardens and Management amenity areas) Local Plan (2014) x DM Policy 35 (Public Realm) x DM Policy 36 (Designated Heritage Assets) x DM Policy 37 (Non-Designated Heritage Assets) x Policy LTC8: Lewisham Central Policy Area Lewisham Town x Policy LCT18: Public Realm Centre Local Plan x Policy LTC19: Tall Buildings x Policy LTC23: Heritage Assets Table 4.1 – Statutory Development Plan relevant to Heritage Statement. x x x x x x x x x x x x x

NATIONAL POLICY DEVELOPMENT POLICY

x PLAN

KEY PROVISIONS

x Paragraph 200 x Paragraph 201 x Paragraph 203 National Planning Policy x Paragraph 205 Framework (2023) x Paragraph 206-208 x Paragraph 209 x Paragraph 212 Table 4.2 – National Policy relevant to Heritage Statement. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.5

In addition to legislation and policy, the assessment will take into consideration relevant planning guidance and any material considerations, including: x

National Planning Practice Guidance (online);

TGN 06/19 Visual Representation of Development Proposals Technical Guidance Note (2019) prepared

Historic England, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment (2015);

Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (2017); Tall Buildings: Historic England Advice Note 4 (2022);

IEMA, CIfA and IHBC (2021) Principles for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment;

Greater London Authority, Planning Practice Note: Heritage Impact Assessments and the Setting of

Policy QD10: Infill and backland sites, garden land and amenity areas;

Policy HE1: Lewisham’s historic environment;

Policy HE2: Designated heritage assets;

Policy HE3: Non-designated heritage assets;

Policy EC11: Town centres at the heart of our communities;

Policy EC12 Town centre network and hierarchy;

Policy EC13: Optimising the use of town centre land and floorspace;

Policy EC4: Major and District Centres;

Policy GR5: Urban greening and trees;

Policy S2: Sustainable design and retrofitting;

Policy LCA1: Lewisham Central Area; and

Site Allocation 2 (Lewisham Shopping Centre).

POLICY DISCUSSION 4.8

by Landscape Institute;

Policy QD8: High quality housing design;

LBL Core Strategy Policy 16 states that: ‘The Council will ensure that the value and significance of the borough’s heritage assets and their settings, which include the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site, conservation areas, listed buildings, archaeological remains, registered historic parks and gardens and other non-designated assets such as locally listed buildings, will continue to be monitored, reviewed, enhanced and conserved according to the requirements of government planning policy guidance, the London Plan policies, local policy and English Heritage best practice.:

4.9

Part A of Policy 36 of the Development Management Plan states that:

Heritage Assets (2023); x

St Stephen’s Conservation Area Appraisal (2022);

Belmont Conservation Area Appraisal (2020);

Mercia Grove Conservation Area Appraisal (2019);

“For development proposals affecting heritage assets the Council will require a statement that describes the significance of the asset and its setting, and an assessment of the impact on that significance.

Blackheath Conservation Area Appraisal (2022);

Where the significance of an asset may be harmed or lost through physical alteration or destruction, or

St Mary’s Conservation Area Appraisal (2019);

Lewisham Park Conservation Area Appraisal (2020);

Somerset Gardens Conservation Area Appraisal (2019);

development within its setting, the Council will require clear and convincing justification. The Council will consider the wider public benefits which may flow from the development where these are fully justified in the impact assessment.”

Brockley Conservation Area Appraisal (2019);

Brookmill Road Conservation Area Appraisal (2019);

LB Lewisham Characterisation Study (2019);

Draft Lewisham Tall Buildings Study (2021); and

LB Lewisham Tall Building Study Addendum (2022).

4.10

EMERGING POLICY 4.11

LEWISHAM LOCAL PLAN 2040 4.6

The new Local Plan will set out a long-term strategy for Lewisham for the next 20 years, from 2020 to 2040. The Regulation 19 Draft Lewisham Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State in November 2023 for independent examination. The examination took June-July 2024.

4.7

The draft policies pertinent to the Proposed Development and the HTVIA ES chapter are outlined below: x

Policy OL1: Delivering an Open Lewisham (spatial strategy);

Policy QD1: Delivering high quality design in Lewisham;

Policy QD2: Inclusive and safe design;

Policy QD3: Public realm and connecting places;

Policy QD4: Building Heights;

Policy QD5: Views management; 16

The extant development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF. Paragraph 200 of the NPPF requires an applicant to ‘describe the significance of any heritage assets affected by a proposed development, including ay contribution made by their setting.’ The definition of significance is provided within Section 3.0 of this Heritage Statement. SETTING

4.12

Setting is defined in the NPPF as: ’the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.’

4.13

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that for development which affects a listed building or its setting the decision maker shall have ‘special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.’ 17

The effect of that provision is that the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building must be treated as a matter of ‘considerable importance and weight’,1 with such a duty presenting a ‘strong presumption’ against a grant of planning permission where harm to a designated heritage asset is identified. 2 4.14

The drafting of the NPPF makes clear that some aspects of setting may be neutral. A change to setting, even a major one, may also be neutral, beneficial or harmful depending on the particular facts of any case. Case law has made clear that ‘an impact is not to be equated with harm: there can be an impact which is neutral (or indeed positive).’3

4.15

Setting is not, however, an asset in its own right. ‘Its importance lies in what it contributes to the significance of

4.20

Any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should require ‘clear and convincing justification’, as per NPPF paragraph 206. A clear and convincing justification does not create a freestanding test requiring the demonstration of less damaging alternatives. To the extent that there is a test, it is to be found in paragraphs 205 to 208.

the heritage asset or to the ability to appreciate that significance.’4 The guidance provided by Historic England in its Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (“GPA3”) provides information on assessing the significance of heritage assets and on how one assesses the effects of development in the setting of an asset on its significance or cultural value. GPA3 is clear that visual perception matters a great deal. It is, after all, an objective measure. Historical and functional associations may be important on the facts of any case. It is clear from policy and guidance, however, and confirmed by the Courts, that impact on setting itself is not the consideration. Setting is important only to the extent it enables an appreciation of significance or contributes directly to it. Equally, visibility of a proposal does not in itself equate to a harmful impact, and it is the contribution setting makes to the importance (significance) of a heritage asset which is the appropriate consideration, including how that aspect of setting (that which contributes to significance) is affected by a proposed development.5 4.16

The guidance also recognises that changes to the setting of a heritage asset can enhance one’s appreciation of significance, through better presentation, for example, or the creation of new views. Providing better public appreciation of a designated heritage asset, or some aspect of its significance is recognised to be desirable and an enhancement which can attract great weight in the planning balance. Equally, a setting improvement can arise if the experience of moving toward or from an asset is enhanced. HARM

4.17

If a proposed development is held to cause harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the NPPF stipulates it be categorised as either ‘less than substantial’ or ‘substantial’. 6 The NPPF does not define ‘substantial’, and national guidance simply states it is a ‘high test.’7 Lord Justice Lindblom, in the Court of Appeal, stated: ‘what amounts to "substantial harm" or "less than substantial harm" in a particular case will always depend on the circumstances’, based on ‘matters of fact and planning judgment.’ 8

4.18

A separate Court of Appeal judgement confirmed that where a development would affect a listed building or its setting in different ways, some positive and some negative, the decision maker may conclude that although each of the effects has an impact, taken together there is no overall adverse effect on the listed building.9 This approach was upheld by Lord Justice Lindblom who stated that the NPPF policies ‘do not preclude a balancing exercise as part of the decision-making process.’10 Where public benefits - including heritage benefits - outweigh the identified harm, then permission may be granted subject to a proportionate assessment being undertaken.

4.19

The NPPF stipulates that ‘great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.’ The great importance and weight is consistent with the provisions set out under the 1990 Act.

1 Barnwell v East Northamptonshire District Council [2014] EWCA Civ 137

2 South Lakeland District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another [1992] 2 AC 141

Pagham Parish Council v Arun District Council [2019] EWHC 1721 (Admin) (04 July 2019), as per Andrews, J DBE. Historic England, The Setting of Heritage Assets, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3, 2nd edn (Swindon: Historic England, 2017) 5 Edith Summerskill House Decision: 20/01283/FUL (Planning Application ref.) & APP/H.5390/V/21/3277137 (Appeal / Planning Inspector’s Report ref.) 6 MHCLG and DLUHC, National Planning Policy Framework, rev. edn (London: HMSO, 2023) 7 DLUHC and MHCLG, National Planning Policy Guidance: Historic Environment <https://www.gov.uk/guidance/conserving-andenhancing-the-historic-environment> [3 May 2023] 8 Bramshill v SSHCLG [2021] EWCA Civ 320 9 Palmer v Herefordshire Council & ANOR [2016] EWCA Civ 1061 10 Bramshill v SSHCLG [2021] EWCA Civ 320 3 4

5.0 HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 5.1

This section provides a description of the historical development of the Site and that of the surrounding area. This section and the heritage baseline at Section 5.0 have been informed by secondary sources, including: x

Historic OS Maps, Promap. [accessed 12 March 2024];

British Library, Rocque’s Map of London, Bomb Damage Maps. [accessed 12 September 2022];

A Biography; Pevsner, N. and Bridget, C. (1998). The Buildings of England: London 2: South;

Daniel Lysons, 'Lewisham', in The Environs of London: Volume 4, Counties of Herts, Essex and Kent (London, 1796), pp. 514-536. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/londonenvirons/vol4/pp514-536 [accessed 12 March 2024];

London Borough of Lewisham (2008) Info Byte Sheet No.19: History of Lewisham [accessed 12 March 2024];

Hidden London, Lewisham;

Mills, A.D., A Dictionary of British Place Names (2011);

http://www.lewishamcard.co.uk/latest/2016/4/6/a-brief-history-of-lewisham-borough;

London Borough of Lewisham: Local History and Archives Centre: Info Byte Sheet No.19 History of Lewisham; and

London Borough of Lewisham, St Mary’s Conservation Area Character Appraisal (2006).

Figure 5.1 – Rocque’s Map of 1746. Source: British Library.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF LEWISHAM: AN OVERVIEW. 5.2

Lewisham is located on the River Ravensbourne to the south of Greenwich. Lewisham was first mentioned in a charter that dates from 862 AD as Liofshema and goes back to a Saxon settlement. In 1086, it was recorded in The Domesday Book. It developed into an important place near the confluence of the River Quaggy and Ravensbourne. The settlement was located to the south of today’s town centre around the parish church of St Mary.

5.3

From the Middle Ages, water mills have been recorded at Lewisham. Tanning leather and silk weaving were concentrated along the River Ravensbourne.

5.4

Lewisham began to experience further growth in the mid eighteenth century as wealthy City merchants settled in the area to take advantage of the healthy air away from the busy capital. St Mary’s Church was rebuilt from 17741777 to accommodate the growing congregation. Roque’s map of 1746 (Figure 5.1) shows Lewisham as a small linear village with a number of mills along the river. The surrounding landscape is principally rural and characterised by farmland.

5.5

5.6

Figure 5.2 – 1870-1872 OS map. Source: Promap.

Figure 5.3 – Lewisham Clock Tower, 1870. 5.7

Lewisham continued to evolve. Many of the residential areas were built for the upper middle class with adjoining small areas of more affordable housing. The 1896 OS map demonstrates how Lewisham changed over the course of the late nineteenth century as terraced housing and detached housing with large gardens and wider streets became the prevalent feature across the town (Figure 5.4). Many of the residential areas were being demolished and rebuilt for the upper middle class with small pockets of more affordable housing available.

Figure 5.4 – 1896 OS map. Source: Promap. 5.8

Figure 5.5 – Lewisham High Street, 1915. 5.9

The strategic location of Lewisham during World War II meant that the area was targeted by German bombers with a total of 1,128 high explosive bombs dropped there between 1940 and 1941 alone. The 1945 Bomb Damage Map (Figure 5.6) shows the extent of damage in Lewisham throughout WWII as well as highlighted areas of clearance following the destructions. Homes has been built to replace prefab housing that stood on stretches of land that had been left as bombsites since the 1940s. The 1951 OS map (Figure 5.7) shows the early evolution of the urban form that exists in Lewisham today.

Figure 5.6 – 1945 bomb damage map. Source: British Library.

Figure 5.8 – Lewisham High Street, 1966. 5.11

The OS map from 1967-1971 (Figure 5.9) shows further growth in Lewisham, more vacant plots have been filled with new residential developments. The residential terraces on Molesworth Street were cleared and redeveloped in 1977 to create the ‘Riverdale Shopping Centre’, latterly recognised as ‘Lewisham Shopping Centre.’ This shows a shift in demand from new residential developments to new commercial developments. Much of the surrounding urban setting is residential with the exception of the town centre which envelops the Site.

Figure 5.7 – 1951 OS map. Source: Promap. 5.10

Figure 5.9 – 1967-1971 OS map. Source: Promap. 5.12

Figure 5.10 – 1981 OS Map. Source: Promap.

Following the construction of Lewisham Shopping Centre in the 1970s, the town centre has increased in density and has undergone extensive redevelopment.

5.17

5.18

5.19

Figure 5.11 – 1995 OS Map. Source: Promap. RECENT YEARS 5.13

Over recent years, the urban landscape of Lewisham has undergone further change with the emergence of tall buildings as part of the redevelopment of Lewisham Gateway and the station area. HISTORY OF THE SITE

5.14

The OS map of 1870-72 (Figure 5.2) illustrates that Molewsworth Street, to the immediate west of the Site, standing between it and the railway line; had been constructed by this time. On the opposing, eastern side, Lewisham Road (later becoming Lewisham High Street) had also been established.

5.15

5.16

Figure 5.12 – Lewisham Shopping Centre, during construction. Source: Studio Egret West/LB Lewisham.

larger detached houses remained undeveloped at this time. Further south, beyond Avenue Road, which had also formerly comprised larger properties, had seen the emergence of the industrialisation of the Ravensbourne River and surrounding ponds with a number of mills including that of Riverdale Mill. 30

Figure 5.13 – Lewisham Shopping Centre, during construction. Source: Studio Egret West/LB Lewisham.

Figure 5.15 – Lewisham Shopping Centre, during construction. Source: Studio Egret West/LB Lewisham.

Figure 5.16 – Lewisham Shopping Centre, during construction. Source: Studio Egret West/LB Lewisham. Figure 5.14 – Lewisham Shopping Centre, during construction. Source: Studio Egret West/LB Lewisham.

6.0 BUILT HERITAGE SIGNIFIANCE 6.1

This section identifies the significance of heritage assets in the baseline that may be affected by the Proposed Development.

6.2

The location of the built heritage assets identified in this assessment are shown at Figure 6.1. The ZTV with an overlay of the heritage assets identified in the 1km study area is provided at Figure 6.2. Larger versions of the same images are provided in the BHTVIA.

6.3

The built heritage baseline is summarised below, including assets scoped in and out of the full assessment. The ZTV was used to identify at the baseline stage if there were any heritage assets which could be scoped out from further assessment because there would be no or limited intervisibility with the Proposed Development, or where there would be no change to their setting or heritage significance by any other means, including historical associations. In some cases, where assets fall into a conservation area, these individual assets will be listed as part of the conservation area. On this basis, the following assets have been scoped out at this stage of the assessment:

6.4

St Johns Conservation Area (Map Ref: L);

West Greenwich Conservation Area (Map Ref: N);

Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area (Map Ref: O);

Deptford High Street and St Paul’s Church Conservation Area (Map Ref: P);

Lee Manor Conservation Area (Map Ref: S);

Stone House (Map Ref: 13);

Lee Public Library (Map Ref: 14);

Manna Mead (Map Ref: 15);

Point House (Map Ref: 16);

Former Church of Transfiguration (Map Ref: 31);

Telephone Exchange (Map Ref: 33);

14 Monuments in Lee Old Churchyard (Map Ref: 41); and

Manor House Gardens RPG (Map Ref: 54).

Figure 6.2 – Heritage Asset Plan with overlay of the ZTV. Source: Montagu Evans.

A qualitative assessment of the heritage significance of the remaining assets is provided below, including the contribution made by setting.

Figure 6.1 – Heritage Asset Plan. 34

6.5

WORLD HERITAGE SITES

6.15

Hawksmoor also designed the Church of St Alfege in the town centre nearby.

MARITIME GREENWICH WHS (MAP REF. A) WHS BUFFER ZONE (MAP REF: B), GREENWICH PARK CA (MAP REF: Q), GREENWICH PARK RPG (MAP REF: 53)

6.16

The Royal Naval College was established in the buildings in 1873 after the hospital had closed in 1869. The college departed in 1998 when the buildings were opened to the public; they are now occupied by various organisations such as the University of Greenwich.

The Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1997. The World Heritage Site (MGWHS) is located approximately 1.2 km northeast of the Site at the nearest point. The central ensemble of buildings within the WHS is located approximately 1.7 km northeast of the Site.

SIGNIFICANCE (OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE) 6.17

6.6

The MGWHS Buffer Zone broadly comprises an area within a 750m radius around the WHS. The boundary of the Buffer Zone varies, however, and the entirety of the green open space at Blackheath is included, preserving the landscape setting to the south. At the nearest point, the Buffer Zone is located approximately 600m northeast of the Site at Eliot Hill. It is important to note that the Buffer Zone is a component of setting to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS and is not an asset in its own right nor an extension of the WHS boundary.

6.7

The MGWHS is also a Conservation Area and a Grade I Registered Park and Garden. These three heritage designations share a similar boundary line within the study area and therefore are considered together in this assessment.

The Statement of OUV identifies the MGWHS as the most outstanding group of Baroque buildings in England, symmetrically arranged overlooking the River Thames. The MGWHS encompasses the following highly graded buildings: Old Royal Naval College (Grade I), The Queen’s House (Grade I) and Observatory (Grade I) as well as the Royal Park (Grade I Registered) and other designated structures.

6.18

The historical interest of the MGWHS relates to the long history of this site, from the royal palace to the naval hospital and later naval college. The construction of the Royal Observatory at Greenwich is also of high historical interest for the scientists and discoveries associated with the institution.

6.19

The MGWHS is of exceptional architectural interest as a result of the notable buildings and their composition and exquisite interiors, including the Queen’s House, associated with Palladianism and Inigo Jones, Greenwich Hospital/Royal Naval College and the Royal Observatory, associated with Wren, Hawksmoor and Vanbrugh.

6.8

6.9

There are a number of listed buildings within the WHS that fall within the study area. The ZTV at Figure 2.1 indicates limited intervisibility between the Proposed Development and the below assets: x

The Manor House II* (Map ref: 17);

Roman Catholic Church of Our Ladye Star of The Sea II* (Map Ref: 18);

6.20

The architectural ensemble, including the Queen’s House, the Royal Observatory, the Royal Hospital and The Royal Park;

The Presbytery II* (Map Ref: 19);

The masterplan of buildings and designed landscape;

West Grove, Conduit House, Blackheath – scheduled monument (Map Ref: 51); and

The Grand Axis;

Anglo-Saxon Cemetery in Greenwich Park – scheduled monument (Map Ref: 52).

The Royal Observatory;

Greenwich Town Centre and St Alfege Church;

These assets are discussed as part of the MGWHS. The Ranger House, listed at grade I (Map Ref:2), is discussed separately below. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

6.10

6.11

The MGWHS designation recognises the historical development of the royal palaces at Greenwich and maritime institutions which emerged since the 15th century, when Henry VII and Henry VIII remodelled the Palace of Placentia into the Palace of Greenwich. Greenwich remained the main site of the royal court until the English Civil War in the 1640s. At the beginning of the 17th century, Inigo Jones was commissioned to design Queen's House. It was the first building in Britain to introduce the new classical style that had emerged on the continent. The Royal Park was influenced by designs by André Le Nôtre, the court gardener of King Louis XIV of France.

6.12

In 1675, Charles II commissioned the Royal Observatory to investigate astronomy with the intention of improving navigation and establishing ways to determine longitude when at sea. Sir Christopher Wren designed the first part of the facilities.

6.13

By 1770, the Observatory had been influential in progress in the ‘longitudinal problem’ and the Hospital had set up a school and large naval orphanage. From 1851 the modern Greenwich Meridian was fixed here and later became home of world time.

6.14

The OUV attributes are:

The Palace of Greenwich was remodelled by Wren from the mid-1690s as the hospital for sea men, a national charitable home for injured seamen. Greenwich Hospital eventually comprised a series of quadrants with four main buildings (the "Courts"), arranged along the central axis from the Queen’s House to the river. Wren, Nicholas Hawksmoor and John Vanbrugh drew up the designs for the buildings, which were completed in the current form in the late 18th century, following rebuilding after a devastating fire. 36

Royal Patronage;

Relationship with the River Thames; and

Silhouettes.

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE 6.21

6.22

The setting of the MGWHS covers an expansive area including Greenwich to the west, Blackheath to the south and Vanbrugh Park to the east. Due to the topography of the land, the setting of also includes the north side of the River Thames and panoramic views are provided across the city to the north, including the Isle of Dogs, Canary Wharf and Blackwall and beyond. The MGWHS is also enjoyed from views looking across the Thames towards Greenwich. Island Gardens is located in the Isle of Dogs on the north side of the Thames. The principal setting relationship of Island Gardens is the view south from the park towards the Royal Naval College, which was once painted by Canaletto in the 18th century. The wider setting is marked by large-scale modern development, particularly the tall buildings of the Isle of Dogs, Canary Wharf, Blackwall and Greenwich Peninsula on the opposite side of the river. This part of the capital has been identified as a major growth area since the 1980s when the regeneration of the docks and industrial land along the River Thames began. CONSERVATION AREAS ST STEPHEN’S CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: C)

6.23

The St Stephen’s Conservation Area was designated in 1972. It is located approximately 30m to the immediate east of the Site.

6.24

St Stephen’s CA covers the area between Cressingham Road, St Stephen’s Grove and Glanville Grove. It is

6.37

largely made up of late Victorian residential terraced properties which are centred on Cressingham Road. It is, therefore, largely inward looking. The west part of the street contains St Stephen’s Church, listed at grade II and discussed below, which is the centre of a group with the vicarage. The predominant materials in the area are London stock brick, slate roofs and stuccoed door and window cases.

The significance of the conservation area is derived from its homogenous and consistent architectural character which comprises high-quality Edwardian houses; many of which were designed by local architect Reginald Fry. CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

6.38

The Belmont Conservation Area is bordered by the St Stephen’s CA to the immediate north, which comprises an attractive enclave of Victorian residential architecture. To the immediate east is the Blackheath Conservation Area, with its high-quality building stock. The presence of both conservation areas positively contribute to an understanding of the asset’s placement in the wider historical development of the area.

6.39

To the west, the character of built form becomes distinctively more urban with the presence of the major road network around Lewisham High Street, as well as the emergence of a tall building cluster around the station. The various buildings, including poor-quality infill development that make up Lewisham High Street characterise the conservation area’s setting to the immediate southwest.

The north, east and south of the conservation area comprises low-scale residential development dating from the 19th and 20th centuries, which reinforce the residential character of the wider area. On the southeastern boundary of the conservation area, is the Bemont Conservation Area which comprise an enclosed, high-quality area of Edwardian housing.

6.40

The Site is not located within a part of the conservation area’s setting that contributes to an understanding of its significance.

6.28

To the immediate west, the setting of the conservation area becomes distinctively more urban with a network of major roads including Lewisham High Street and the busy A20. Within this, include the tall buildings centred around Lewisham station, which form a contrast to the low-scale, residential character of the conservation area.

6.41

The Mercia Grove Conservation Areas was designated in 1975. It is located approximately 65m to the immediate east of the Site, at the nearest point; separated from it by Lewisham High Street and Lewis Grove.

6.42 6.29

6.30

The Site forms part of the conservation area’s setting to the southwest, comprising Lewisham centre, with a mix of commercial and retail uses.

6.25

The Conservation Area has largely enclosed views with the exception of the view from Cressingham Road where there is an open view from the street to the west. From here, the tall buildings centred around Lewisham station are visible.

6.26

The significance of the Conservation Area lies with the historic character and appearance of the residential terraces, and the architectural interest of the Church. CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

6.27

MERCIA GROVE CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: E)

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE 6.43

The setting of the conservation area comprises Lewisham High Street and centre to the immediate south and west, forming predominantly 20th century development as a result of World War II bombing. Much of this infill development is in a poor, deteriorating condition and forms a detracting feature within the immediate setting of the conservation area. The existing Lewisham Shopping Centre buildings are visible from within the conservation area.

6.44

Further north, around Lewisham station, the emergence of residential tall buildings of considerable height, contrasts with the low scale character of the conservation area. To the southeast of the conservation area is a mix of Victorian and 20th century low-rise residential developments.

BELMONT CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: D) 6.31

The Belmont Conservation Area was designated in 2001. It is located approximately 160m to the immediate east of the eastern boundary of the Site.

6.32

The following listed buildings are located within the Belmont Conservation Area and are considered within this assessment:

6.33

10-18 Belmont Hill II (Map Ref: 25); and

The Priory II (Map Ref: 27).

LADYWELL CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: F)

This area is an example of an Edwardian housing development, built from 1907 to 1909. Architect Reginald C. Fry designed the houses in the area. There are a variety of typologies including Old English, Arts and Crafts, Neo-

6.45

Georgian and Queen Anne style.

church of the same name that lies only 250 m further east

6.34

Development is aligned along three east to west orientated streets. The consistency in the development establishes a sense of visual enclosure in views north to south. Yet the undulating topography of the conservation area to the east allows for views towards the tall building cluster emerging around Lewisham station.

6.35

10-18 Belmont Hill (map ref.: 25) is located within the Belmont Conservation Area and was designated in 1973 at Grade II. The site comprises a row of detached villas dating from the early-mid nineteenth century. The row is

6.46

The Priory (map ref.: 27) is located at 24 Belmont Hill and was listed in 1973 at Grade II. The site comprises a two storey Gothic villa from the early-mid nineteenth century. Constructed from polychromatic stock brick. 38

The buildings in the conservation area are large and display rich architectural detailing. They were built by a local developer, Samual J. Jerrard, whose other houses survive nearby in the Brockley Conservation Area. The conservation area comprises the centre of Ladywell, located at the grade II listed station (Map Ref: 38), which comprises shops and pubs from the Edwardian era. CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

predominantly constructed from polychromatic stock brick. 6.36

6.47

From the station, Vicars Hill and Algernon Road run northwards, Algiers Road runs west. From the end of Algernon Road at the junction with Ellerdale Street, outside of the conservation area, views across Lewisham town centre are possible. 39

6.48

To the west, the conservation area abuts the Brockley Conservation Area (map ref.: K) and to the east the St

6.58

Mary Conservation Area (map ref. H). 6.49

The conservation area is embedded into the late Victorian, suburban landscape of Lewisham. The main thoroughfares lead towards Lewisham town centre, whose presence and focal point for activities, shops and other facilities is tangible across the study area.

6.59

BLACKHEATH CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REFS: G AND R) 6.50

6.52

There are a number of listed buildings within the conservation area. As demonstrated by the ZTV at Figure 2.1, there is no or limited visibility between the proposals and some of the below assets (Map Refs: 8,9,11,13) within the conservation area: x

The Fludyer Tomb, Lee Old Churchyard II* (Map ref: 5);

Monument of Sir John Call Bart, Lee Old Churchyard II* (Map Ref: 6);

Church of St Margaret II* (Map Ref: 7);

The Pagoda II* (Map Ref: 8);

Church of The Ascension II* (Map Ref: 9);

Perceval House and Spencer House II* (Map Ref: 11);

22 Dartmouth Row II* (Map Ref: 12);

91 and 91a Belmont Hill II (Map Ref: 30);

Old Tower of Former Church of St Margaret II (Map Ref: 39); and

1-6 Aberdeen Terrace II (Map Ref: 43).

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE 6.60

The setting of the conservation area is characterised by residential development to the south, and Greenwich Park to the north.

6.61

The topography of the conservation area affords 360-degree views from within the conservation area towards the surrounding area. The Conservation Area Appraisal identifies such views as falling within three categories: local, strategic and London wide. The views also highlight the importance of the built form which surrounds the heath. Fine grain development and trees line the perimeter of the heath, marking its extent. Beyond, tall buildings are discernible at Canary Wharf and Lewisham centre.

6.62

6.54

6.55

6.56

6.63

St Mary’s Conservation Area was designated in 1976 and extended in 2006. It is located approximately 265m to the south of the Site.

6.64

There are a number of listed buildings within the conservation area which are considered as part of the conservation area assessment:

The area is characterised by the informal open land of the heath which juxtaposes with the neighbouring formality

The conservation area is divided into sub-areas, and the Site is located nearest to Character Area 2: Lewisham Hill, Blackheath Rise, Princes Rise and Morden Hill at the west edge of the conservation area. This area is included in the conservation area to recognise the redevelopment of the St John’s Hospital Site, where Brandon House is the only surviving building. Otherwise, this part of the conservation area has relatively less architectural merit. The primary contribution of this sub-area is the pleasant approach to the heath from the west, and the survival of Brandon House. The opening of the railway station at Blackheath in 1849 led to the development of high-quality Victorian houses in the area. There are a number of heritage assets including listed buildings and locally listed buildings such as:

6.65 6.66

91 and 91a Belmont Hill is a detached villa, located within Blackheath Conservation Area and was listed in 1991

Garden Walls to South and West II (Map Ref: 32);

340 Lewisham High Street II (Map Ref: 34);

Old Swimming Baths II (Map Ref: 35);

Walls Surrounding Churchyard II (Map Ref: 37);

School Treatment Centre II (Map Ref: 40); and

Lewisham Public Library II (Map Ref: 42).

St Mary’s Church, discussed in further detail below, is believed to be the oldest building in the borough. The walls surrounding the Churchyard of St Mary’s Church was first listed in 1954 at Grade II, also discussed above. The garden walls to the south and west of St Mary’s Vicarage, Police Station and Coroner’s Court, were designated in 1954 at Grade II and are located on Lewisham High Street.

6.67

There are a number of Edwardian civic buildings in the area, including Lewisham Public Library which was designated in 1973 at Grade II. It is located on Lewisham Way. The one storey building was designed by H. Brumwell Thomas in 1914 in Edwardian Baroque. Notable features include four pairs of tall ionic columns, a pulvinated frieze and ornamental pilasters. The staircase has a stone balustrade and there is a Venetian window on the half-landing.

6.68

The special interest of St Mary’s Conservation Area is derived from its orientation around St Mary’s Church which

1-6 Aberdeen Terrace, listed in 1973 at Grade II, comprises a set of six grand Italianate three-storey semidetached houses from the mid-nineteenth century with basements and paired entrances. Constructed from greyyellow stock brick, they have stucco decorations and a parapet with cutwork panels.

at Grade II. The building has two storeys with basement and attic. It dates from c.1840 and is designed in an Italianate style. Details include stucco with rusticated quoins and four tall, stuccoed chimney stacks. It is understood that the interiors survive remarkably well. 6.57

The Site is not located within a part of the conservation area’s setting that contributes to its significance. ST MARY’S CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: H)

of Greenwich Park. The area also contains pockets of suburban development to the south and north with clusters of listed buildings. Residential development began in the late 17th century, and accelerating during the 19th century was largely completed by the early 20th century. 6.53

The significance of the conservation area is derived from the architectural quality of its buildings which, according to the Conservation Area Appraisal, present a “rich and varied mixture of buildings of different periods”. The buildings come together to create an attractive and distinctive townscape. The heath also makes a primary contribution to the significance of the conservation area for it historical value as an area of largely untouched heathland.

The Blackheath Conservation Area was jointly designated by Lewisham and Greenwich in 1968 and is subsequently split into two parts on the heritage asset plan at Figure 5.1. It was the first Conservation Area to be designated in London. It was extended in 2001. At its nearest point, the Conservation Area is approximately 400m to the east of the Site. Much of this Conservation Area falls within the MGWHS Buffer Zone, although the Conservation Area designation and the WHS are not themselves contiguous.

6.51

The listed buildings on Dartmouth Row fall into Character Area 5 which comprises fine 17th to 18th century buildings, including Perceval House and Spencer House and the Church of the Ascension which are all grade II8 listed and go back to 1690, and later Arts and Crafts houses.

is considered to be where Lewisham town was originally located. The conservation area also contains several buildings of special interest that collectively demonstrate the evolution of the area and its evidential value. The conservation area has archaeological, architectural, historic, and artistic interest.

Built as a palatial Italianate house, the Sacred Heart Convent on Belmont Hill (map ref.: 36) was designated in 1985 at Grade II. The building, which comprises some earlier features, dates from 1856 and has three storeys.

University Hospital Lewisham nearby. There is no consistency to much of this development, and a coarse, loose

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

grain which contrasts with the fine, tight grain of the built form within the conservation area. 6.69

The area comprises a number of listed and locally listed buildings which contribute to the understanding of the area’s significance.

6.82

6.70

To the southeast, the conservation area is bordered by the Lewisham Park Conservation Area, which is orientated around the green open space of Lewisham Park, providing an attractive recreational space within the conservation area’s immediate setting. This is further reinforced by Ladywell Fields to the south of the conservation area and the natural feature of the River Ravensbourne.

6.71

To the west the CA is bound by Ladywell Conservation Area, comprising a secondary high street serving the residents of Ladywell, and also the linear streets of Victorian speculative housing which form attractive townscape features.

6.83

To the south and east, the streets formed of semi-detached houses represent contemporary or slightly later residential development, and therefore provide historical context which reflects the continued intensification of this part of the Borough in the 20th century.

6.72

To the north, the setting of the conservation area comprises the modern townscape of Lewisham town centre. With development from the Victorian era to 21st century buildings, this part of the setting is of mixed architectural quality. There are several deteriorating and detracting buildings within the conservation area’s setting, including poor quality inter-war terraces with shop units at ground floor. The emerging skyline of tall buildings at the town centre forms part of the conservation area’s setting.

6.84

The Site makes no contribution to the character and appearance, or the appreciation of the conservation area.

6.73

To the east of the conservation area are various late 20th century onwards residential buildings.

6.74

The setting of the conservation area therefore makes a limited contribution to its overall significance, whilst it reflects the various phases of development that Lewisham has undergone. Overall, the townscape is fragmented and includes detracting features.

6.75

SOMERSET GARDENS CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: J) 6.85

Somerset Gardens Conservation Area was designated in 1972. It is located approximately 750m to the northwest of the Site and comprises two rows of two storey mid-19th century houses which are all listed at grade II (Map Ref:44). The houses which front onto an oval-shaped green.

6.86

The significance of Somerset Gardens is derived from the architectural quality of the houses, and the street layout.

6.87 The Site makes no contribution to the character and appearance, or the appreciation of the conservation area.

Contribution of Setting to Heritage Significance The setting of the Somerset Gardens Conservation Area is defined by St John’s Conservation Area to the north, residential development to the south. To the north, the setting is defined and limited by railway lines. The

LEWISHAM PARK CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: I)

conservation area is embedded in the high quality residential townscape of this part of Lewisham, close to the town centre with its modern facilities and the emerging tall building cluster next to the Lewisham station.

6.76

Lewisham Park Conservation Area was designated in 2014. The conservation area is located 620m to the north of the Site. The conservation area mainly comprises a park and several Victorian and Edwardian houses on the southern and eastern periphery of the park.

6.77

6.88

The Site is not located within part of the conservation area’s setting that contributes to an understanding of its significance BROCKLEY CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: K)

6.89

became a designated public amenity space. The trees and planting contribute positively to its character and appearance

The Brockley Conservation Area was designated in 1973 and extended in 1991, 1993, and 2005. The conservation area is located approximately 600m to the west of the Site.

6.90

The conservation area includes a large area of suburban development, and a large open space called Hilly Fields. The special character of the Conservation Area is attributed to the layout and architecture of this suburban development. Building began in the area in the 1830s although the majority of the houses were built in the latter C19. The southern part dates from c. 1900. The residential development is characterised by distinctive detailing which include stucco capitals and window surrounds, tile paths, terracotta details and spacious front gardens. Many of the houses are set in wide, tree-lined avenues with large front and rear gardens which creates a spacious, green environment.

6.78

Bomb damage during World War II devastated much of the original development in the area. However, some of the Victorian and Edwardian houses remain to the east and south of the park. The surviving houses have architectural heritage significance and create a degree of enclosure to the open green space. The houses along the southern and eastern boundary of the conservation area are the earlier Victorian properties. They are larger and more imposing buildings than the Edwardian houses which feature warmer brickwork and a variety of architectural detailing which is not present on the Victorian houses.

6.79

The conservation area has a calm character, the buildings surrounding the southern boundary of the park have generous front gardens which creates a picturesque atmosphere.

6.91

Hilly Fields was laid out as parkland in 1896 with areas of land around the periphery reserved for particular development which would have views over the park.

6.80

There is a Memorial Garden to the west end of the park which connects the park to Lewisham High Street.

6.92

Hillyfields Sixth Form Centre, the former Brockley County School, is a grade II* listed building (Map Ref:10) within Hilly Fields. The outstanding element of the building, and the reason for its listing, is a series of mural paintings in the assembly hall. The school’s setting does not relate to this internal feature. For this reason, the building has not been assessed further.

6.93

The primary significance of the conservation area lies in the historic and architectural interest of the residential development, and the planned relationship to Hilly Fields.

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE 6.81

Since the laying out of the grounds and construction of the houses, the setting of the conservation area has been subject to continuous change due to redevelopment and regeneration along the High Street and its connecting routes. To Lewisham High Street and Bromley Road, and to the north of the conservation area, this has primarily taken the form of large residential, commercial and institutional development, including the expansion of the 42

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE 6.94

The immediate setting of the conservation area comprises residential development of a similar age and scale, although with later infill. The setting is broadly defined and enclosed by the railway lines to the west and east, and the roads to the north and south. These physical boundaries separate the conservation area from different types of development further afield. The setting makes neither a positive or negative contribution to the significance of the conservation area, which is primarily concerned with the architecture and layout within it.

6.105

There are views to the south-east from Brookmill Park and Road from the northern part of the Conservation Area. Otherwise, the conservation area has largely enclosed views within the conservation area between the Victorian terraces.

6.106

Lewisham House is visible, but the Site makes no contribution to the character and appearance, or the appreciation of the conservation area. LISTED BUILDINGS

6.95

The Site makes no contribution to the character and appearance, or the appreciation of the conservation area. RANGER’S HOUSE I (MAP REF: 2) ST JOHN’S CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF.: L) 6.107

6.96

The St John’s Conservation Area is a relatively small conservation area, located approximately 800 m to the north of the Site between the Brockley Conservation Area and the Brockmill Road Conservation Area.

6.97

The conservation area was designated in 1976 and shows many similarities with the Brookmill Road Conservation Area, discussed below. The area is centred around St John’s Church, a grade II listed mid-19th century church designed by Philp Hardwick, that falls outside the 500 m study area.

6.98

The Stone House is a grade II* listed villa (Map ref.: 13) on Lewisham Way. George Gibson, the architect of St Mary Church in Lewisham, built the Stone House as his own dwelling from 1771 to 1773 with three full height projecting curved bays and a grand portico on the north elevation.

6.108

6.100

Lord Chesterfield, statesman, diplomat and man of letters, bought the house in 1748 and added the bow windowed wing to south which contained a suite of ball rooms; shortly afterwards, a similar wing was added to the north front.

6.109

From 1816 onwards, the house became the residence of the Ranger of Greenwich Park and was then known as Ranger’s House. Later, Field Marshall Lord Wolseley lived her at the request of Queen Victoria. The building then housed various art collections.

The conservation area is embedded in the high-quality residential townscape that was developed on the land to the northwest of Lewisham town centre. The quality of the architecture is reflected by the conservation area

6.110

The interiors, including an early 18th century staircase, panelled hall and original marble fireplaces survive.

designation by much of the land. Due to the sloping nature of the land, most streets afford good views over the town centre.

6.111

Ranger’s House has architectural and historic interest as a fine example of a late 17th century mansion, that is both exquisitely designed and well-preserved, and because of the connections to Stuart court life and several significant personalities. The property has group value with the adjacent Greenwich Park and the buildings within.

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE 6.99

Ranger’s House was added to the heritage list in 1973. It was built at the end of the 17th century to designs by Andrew Snape for a captain, later vice-admiral, of the Royal Navy. Located just outside the enclosure of Greenwich Park, the original house is a two storey mansion in red brick with Portland stone banding and a balustraded parapet. The central portion of the west elevation, where the entrance is positioned, is elaborately decorated with Ionic columns and pilasters on pedestals, a dentil cornice and pediment. The first floor has a round arched central window with moulded architrave, flanked by small windows with entablatures.

Lewisham House is visible, but the Site makes no contribution to the character and appearance, or the appreciation of the conservation area.

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE BROOKMILL ROAD CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: M) 6.112 6.101

Brookmill Road Conservation Area was designated in 1972. It is located approximately 760m to the northwest of the Site at the nearest point. The conservation area contains no other designated heritage assets.

6.102

6.103

Brookmill Road Conservation Area is focussed on Brookmill which was developed as part of the later southern development of Deptford New Town in the mid C19. Alongside the residential development, there is Brookmill Park to the west of the conservation area. The Park was formerly part of Kent Water Works and there was a small public recreation ground here from c.1880. During the 20th century, the Park was enlarged and re-landscaped for public use.

6.113

The special interest lies in the cohesive character of the groups of buildings most of which date from the 1850-

6.115

6.114

70s. Brookmill Park also contributes to the significance of the conservation area, as a historic area of open public space.

buildings within the Blackheath Conservation Area and the West Greenwich Conservation Area. The horizon is formed by the trees around the edges of Blackheath, above which the taller buildings of Lewisham are visible. The A2 runs at a distance of only 150 m to the south, motor traffic, noise and pollution notably impact on the experience of the heritage asset. Nevertheless, the setting relationship with the parkland makes a significant contribution to significance of the house. Through its use as a film set for a successful TV series, the house and its surrounds were experienced by a broad international audience, which adds to the contribution to significance.

6.116

6.104

Ranger’s House abuts the enclosure wall of Greenwich Park and is embedded into the park and adjoining Blackheath Common. The west elevation and drive overlook the expanse of open grassland, framed by the

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

The Site is located at some distance (approximately 1.3 km) to the south of the heritage asset. The current buildings on Site share no historic or functional relationship with the asset and as such, the Site is not considered to contribute to the significance of the asset.

The setting of the conservation area is defined by primarily residential urban development, some of which also dates from the 19th century, but there is later infill. On the other side of the Ravensbourne River to the west of the conservation area there is tall 20th century residential and commercial development, marking the Lewisham

ST MARY’S VICARAGE II* (MAP REF: 3)

centre.

6.117

Listed in 1954, the vicarage is located on Lewisham High Street. It was constructed from 1692 to 1693 for the Vicar of Lewisham, George Stanhope. The first extension was added from 1879 to 1881. Following the demolition of the neighbouring Lewisham House, a further extension was added using bricks from Lewisham House from 1894 to 1895. 45

6.118

The Vicarage was later renovated by the Legge family. While most of the building was altered with new cornices,

there is a monument to John Thackeray by E. H. Baily showing an inscription next to a seated woman being

room divisions, doors, windows, and staircases; some original features remained including three original iron cross windows, original panelling in the entrance hall, six fireplaces and the brick cellar with the original brick flooring.

revealed by a curtain drawn by an angel. 6.133

The churchyard is surrounded by 18th century walls of London stock brick, which are intersected by a wrought iron gate at the north east and south east. Walls to the southwest and west are taller, with sloped brick openings.

6.134

The church derives architectural and historic interest by virtue of the multi-phase work from the late 15th century to the late 20th century, notably the incorporation of a late medieval base tower, rebuilding of the nave and the addition of a portico in the mid 18th century. There are numerous 18th and 19th century monuments of interest including that of Margaret Petrie by Thomas Banks.

Classical style. The asset derives local historic interesting owing to its association with the Vicar of Lewisham, George Stanhope.

6.135

The church also draws historic interest from its association with prominent architects George Gibson Junior and Arthur Blomfield.

The Grade II listed garden walls have group value with the Vicarage, as a 17th century vicarage and later 18th century landscaping structures.

6.136

The church derives group value with the associated churchyard walls which mark the boundary of the church.

6.119

Surrounding the vicarage on its southern and western boundaries are brown brick walls dating to the 18th century.

6.120

The building is now used as office space.

6.121

The Vicarage derives architectural and historic interest as a mid-17th century example of a Vicarage in the Neo-

6.122

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE 6.123

The Vicarage is situated on the junction between Lewisham High Street and Ladywell Road. This contributes

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE 6.137

positively to an understanding of the asset’s significance by virtue of its location on the main throughfare from which Lewisham evolved. The asset’s prominent location on the historical centre of Lewisham reinforces the status of the building. 6.124

6.125

The Church of St Mary the Virgin is located in close proximity to the vicarage, but is separated by interposing development which limits any visual relationship between the two.

The church is located on the historic throughfare of Lewisham High Street, the borough’s main north-south corridor. While the understanding of the church’s significance as one of the oldest buildings in Lewisham, located on the historic arterial route from which the town subsequently evolved around, is important, the intense motor traffic along this route compromises the viewer’s ability to appreciate the heritage asset.

6.138

The presence of gravestones and tombs within the churchyard is reflective of its function. The retainment of the churchyard positively contributes to an understanding of the church’s significance by virtue of the shared historic and functional relationship. Its enclosed nature separates the church from its wider, urban setting of Lewisham High Street.

6.139

The wider setting of the church comprises the buildings located along Lewisham High Street, which is one of a fragmented townscape, comprising development from the Victorian era onwards.

6.140

CHURCH OF ST MARY THE VIRGIN II* (MAP REF: 4)

Listed in 1954, located on Lewisham High Street. The church was constructed on the remains of a much older,

CLOCK TOWER, GRADE II (MAP REF: 20)

The asset’s location on Lewisham High Street (A21) which is the borough’s main north-south thoroughfare at the junction with Ladywell Road compromises the appreciation of the heritage asset.

6.126

6.127

medieval church. The tower which dates from 1498 to 1512 was retained and integrated into the Georgian church by George Gibson Junior which was built from 1774 to 1777.

6.141

The Clock Tower was Grade II listed in 1973. It is located on Lewisham High Street opposite the Site.

6.128

The church is primarily constructed from coursed Kentish ragstone with freestone dressings.

6.142

6.129

The Clock Tower was erected in 1897 to celebrate Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee. It is constructed in Portland stone and formed of three stages and topped with a squat stone spire flanked by flying buttresses. A crown sits on top of the structure.

6.143

The Clock Tower has historical interest due to its commemorative function. It is also a fine example of its type and forms a key landmark in Lewisham’s town centre.

6.144

The structure was moved slightly from its original location to accommodate road layout changes in the 1990s.

6.130

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE 6.131

6.132

The tower was altered in the eighteenth century to be taller, and two clock stages were created. On the south wall of the church there is a brick chimney, believed to have been the original heating system. The church has a number of notable monuments including a wall monument on the west wall of the nave north of the tower dedicated to Anne Petrie by Van Pook. It depicts an allegorical headed woman reclining with children surrounding her. There is also a framed monument to Margaret Petrie south of the tower by Thomas Banks which complements Van Pook’s monument. Banks depicted a reclining dying woman with a number of allegorical people surrounding her in Greek-style attire. The north wall has a monument to Mary Lushington by John Flaxman. Lastly, 46

6.145

blocks, Lewisham House and the bland retail frontages of the late 20th century have compromised the setting of

6.158

the clock tower. 6.146

6.147

CHURCH OF STEPHEN, GRADE II (MAP REF: 24)

CHURCH OF ST SAVIOUR, ST JOHN BAPTIST AND EVANGELISTS (MAP REF. 21) AND PRESBYTERY (MAP REF. 22), BOTH GRADE II

6.159

St Stephen’s Church was Grade II listed in 1954. It is located approximately 50m to the immediate northeast of the Site at the nearest point.

The Church of St Saviour, St John Baptist and Evangelists was Grade II listed in 1973. It is located on Lewisham

6.160

St Stephen’s is a parish church of 1856 by Sir George Gilbert Scott in an early English style, built in random rubble

High Street approximately 25m to the immediate east of the Site, at the nearest point. 6.148

6.149

The Church was built in 1909 by John Kelly. The south aisle and presbytery were added later. It is a red brick building over two storeys in an Italianate style. The interior is decorated in richly coloured marbles.

with freestone dressings. To the interior is a three bay marble lined chancel, and stained glass windows by Clayton and Bell. 6.161

The church is significant due to its strong Italian architectural style, and its early 20th century construction. It has historical value derived from the association of the front elevation with the First World War. CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

6.150

The church and presbytery are located on the eastern side of Lewisham High Street which comprises predominantly 20th century or later development, a result of the extensive World War II bomb damage and subsequent rebuilding efforts. The area is mixed in character, some of the later development is in poor condition and requires uplift.

6.151

The historic location of the asset on Lewisham’s principal historic thoroughfare contributes to an understanding of its historic function and significance as an early 20th century Roman Catholic church.

6.152

The Site is located immediately opposite the asset, and currently forms a detracting element. The amalgamation of poor quality buildings does no contribute to an understanding of the building’s significance. FORMER PRUDENTIAL BUILDING, GRADE II (MAP REF: 23)

6.153

The Former Prudential Building was Grade II listed in 2001. It is located opposite the southern tip of the Site.

6.154

The asset comprises former insurance offices, purpose built for the Prudential Assurance Company, built in 1909 by Paul Waterhouse, the son of Alfred who took over the family business after his death. The building has a palatial design with notable interiors. The exterior has red brick walls with terracotta dressings and a stone plinth, with an L shaped plan form over seven bays fronting to Lewisham High Street. There is a plaque reading ‘Prudential Buildings’ in Arts and Crafts style lettering.

6.156

6.157

The significance of the church results from its construction by noted Victorian church architect Sir George Gilbert Scott. It has architectural interest due to its unaltered façade and notable historic presence in the streetscape. CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

6.162

The setting of the Church of St Stephen includes the later commercial development at Lewisham town centre, as well as a more historic area to the north. The north setting contributes most to the significance of the listed building, which is recognised and managed through the designation of the St Stephen’s Conservation Area. The historic setting to the south has been substantially diminished and makes no contribution to the significance of the listed Church.

6.163

6.155

The Site extends to immediately opposite the asset. The amalgamation of buildings of varying styles and eras on its frontage, including some which are in a deteriorating condition, forms a detracting element within the setting of the church.

The Site extends to immediately opposite the asset. The amalgamation of building of varying styles and eras on its frontage, including some which are in a deteriorating condition, forms a detracting element within the setting of the church. LEWISHAM BRIDGE PRIMARY SCHOOL, GRADE II (MAP REF.: 26)

6.164

The Lewisham Bridge Primary School was Grade II listed in 2009. It is located approximately 200m to the immediate west of the Site.

6.165

The school was designed in 1912 and built in 1914 by the school division of the LCC Architects Department which was at that time headed by J Rogers Stark. It has later minor alterations, and the other buildings on site lack architectural interest.

6.166

The significance of the school is derived from its historic interest as one of the first LCC schools to incorporate cross-ventilation and light into design, which was a key idea in education and healthcare reform in the period. This also gives the school its architectural interest, including its plan form and well-lit and ventilated rooms. The front elevation is of high architectural quality, with a symmetrical central range and picturesque massing at the end blocks.

The significance of the building lies in its architectural quality as a formal composition with good detailing, materials and craftsmanship, and the well preserved, high quality interiors. The building also has social value in connection with Prudential. Prudential is a rare example of a Victorian company with commercial prowess and national reach, enabling it to develop a distinctive house style for its offices throughout the UK.

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

6.167

The school is located within a residential area that is within close proximity to the urban centre of Lewisham. The historic setting has been completely eroded owing to the area’s extensive bomb damage during World War Two.

The asset is located to the south of Lewisham High Street, just before the intersection with Molesworth Street. It has a prominent corner plot on Lewisham’s historic thoroughfare, which positively contributes to an understanding of its original function as an early 20th century office building.

6.168

The surrounding development comprises a mix of low scale, late 20th and early 21st century residential developments, as well as the emerging tall building cluster located around Lewisham Gateway and Station. As such, beyond the asset’s historic location on this residential street, the setting makes no contribution to an understanding of its significance.

6.169

The Site is not located within a part of the asset’s setting that contributes to an understanding of its significance.

The surrounding development comprises a range of architectural styles and eras, predominantly from the 20th century or later, owing to the extensive bomb damage this area of Lewisham underwent during World War II. As a result, the area is mixed in character, some of the later development is in poor condition and requires uplift.

RILEY’S (FORMER TEMPERANCE BILLIARD HALL) (MAP REF. 28) 6.170

The building was listed in February 2008 and is located approximately 230m to the south of the Site.

6.171

Built from 1909 to 1910 as Temperance Billiard Hall, the building originally comprised a café, lounge, and shops. It is an unusual type of building, listed due to its unique quality. Only very few examples of this building type survive, such as the listed hall at Fulham High Street, which is more altered externally. It is currently being redeveloped and converted into a church after being vacant for many years.

6.172

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE 6.184

The adjacent United Reform Church positively contributes to an understanding of the building’s historic function as an associated Sunday school and derives group value with the church.

6.185

Surrounding the Sunday School to the east and the north is residential development dating to the inter-war period onwards, which bears no functional relationship with the buildings.

6.186

The wider setting of the asset comprises the fragmented and varied development along Lewisham High Street, which has evolved since the Victorian era.

6.187

The building is located on Courthill Road, to the south of the Site. The visual relationship between the asset and the Site is limited owing to the extent of interposing development and the railway. Where visible, the current buildings on Site are not considered to contribute to an understanding of the asset’s significance.

The building derives historic and architectural interest as a well-preserved example of an early 20th century, purpose-built billiards hall, an uncommon building type.

6.173

Architectural interest is also drawn from the building’s existence as an attractive early 20th century commercial building with an innovative building plan, eclectic detailing, good compositional qualities and strong streetscape presence.

6.174

Historic interest is also derived from the building’s association with the temperance movement; as providing an alternative to a public house.

NON-DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS

6.175

The building is currently in a deteriorating condition which has eroded its architectural and historic significance. It is partially boarded up at ground floor level which limits one’s ability to appreciate the full architectural composition of the building. CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

6.176

6.188

There are a number of non-designated heritage assets (both locally listed buildings and buildings of townscape merit) as well as an area of special local character, located along Lewisham High Street and within the Site. These are detailed in the plan at Figure 5.3.

6.189

Applying professional judgment, we have also identified No. 142-149 Lewisham High Street (Woolworths) as a non-designated heritage asset. It does not appear on the map at Figure 5.3 as it has not been identified as such by The Council, however we consider it as a building of townscape merit within this assessment.

The building has a prominent location on the corner plot between Courthill Road and Lewisham High Street. The building’s location on this historic thoroughfare positively contributes to an understanding of its historic function and status.

6.177

The nearby presence of the Grade II listed Sunday School, locally listed church and contemporaneous housing are indicative of the building’s role at the heart of the local community, which further contributes to an understanding of the building’s significance and placement.

6.178

The Site is located further north along Lewisham High Street, separated from the asset by the railway viaduct. The Site shares no historic or functional relationship with the asset and as such, the Site is not considered to contribute to the significance of the asset. UNITED REFORMED CHURCH SUNDAY SCHOOL (MAP REF: 29)

6.179

The United Reformed Church Sunday School was listed in August 1995, it is located approximately 250m to the south of the Site. Built between 1880 to 1881 by George Sherrin, comprising two-storeys in ragstone with a slate roof in Gothic style. It has an ‘L’ shaped plan. At the west and south ends of the building there are three-sided apses.

6.180

It was built as a Sunday School for the Lewisham United Reformed Church (formerly Lewisham Congregational Church) which is located directly adjacent.

6.181

The interior houses a double height gallery with apse and timber roof galleries supported by square columns.

6.182

The Sunday School derives historic interest as a reflection of the increase in popularity of non-conformist religions following a series of religious revivals in the mid-19th century.

6.183

Figure 6.3 – Map of designated and non-designated heritage assets along Lewisham High Street (within and outside the red line boundary). Source: Montagu Evans.

The asset draws architectural interest as a well-preserved example of late 19th century Non-Conformist Sunday school in the Neo-Gothic style.

6.195

The surrounding built form comprises an amalgamation of architectural styles and eras, with many of the buildings located further south along the High Street dating to the 20th century or later. Many of the buildings are in a deteriorating condition and require repair and investment. The Site forms part of development along the High Street, but shares no historic or functional relationship with the assets. 66 LEWISHAM HIGH STREET (MAP REF: 46) AND 99-100 LEWISHAM HIGH STREET (MAP REF: 48)

6.196

66 Lewisham High Street is located within the Site boundary and comprises the Joiners Arms pub. There has been a pub on this site since 1881. It is constructed of red brick with a Dutch gable and has a traditional curved timber panelled pub frontage. It derives significance as contributing to the historic streetscape within an area that predominantly comprises modern shopfronts.

6.197

99-100 Lewisham High Street is located within the Site boundary and comprises a three-storey building with shop at the ground floor. It is the former Burton’s menswear shop with the typical Burton frontage of the 1930s by Harry Wilson, combining Neo-Classical references and Art Deco motifs. The façade has six central columns, with classical motifs above, constructed of cream ceramic tiles.

6.198

The assets derive historic and architectural interest as attractive late 19th/early 20th century buildings that play a role in one’s understanding of the historic development of Lewisham. CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

Figure 6.4 – Map of assigned heritage significance (as per Section 2.0. methodology) for heritage assets along Lewisham High Street. Source: Montagu Evans.

6.199

The buildings have a prominent location at the northern end of Lewisham High Street, facing onto the market and central clock tower. This historical location contributes to an understanding of their original retail and commercial functions.

LOCALLY LISTED BUILDINGS 6.200

6.190

6.191

65-85 Lewisham High Street is located approximately 75m to the immediate east of the Site. Numbers 65-71 comprise a four storey Art Deco building constructed of red brick with carved stone details including low relief plaques depicting a steam train, lorry and steam ships with the dates 1868-1933 in the tower. It was built as a department store named ‘Tower House’ in 1932-33 for the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society. The design by Samuel Ackroyd derives historic and architectural interest as a good example of a 1930s purpose-built department store for local company Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society.

6.192

6.193

143-149 LEWISHAM HIGH STREET (MAP REF: 49) AND 180-190 LEWISHAM HIGH STREET (MAP REF: 50) 6.201

85-87 Lewisham High Street Is located approximately 30m to the immediate east of the Site. Built in 1901, it comprises a generous corner block and is a building of three storeys plus attic, constructed in red brick with limestone detailing. It derives historic and architectural interest as an early 20th century Neo-Classical building. 93-95 Lewisham High Street comprises an attractive three storey curved corner building constructed of yellow stock brick. It faces onto Lewisham High Street and the market. Sharing the same address is the adjacent property, a four storey stone temple style building with giant order of fluted ionic columns over the upper three storeys. The original black metal windows are still in situ and are an essential element of this design. This building is both attractive in its own right but also provides a necessary vertical emphasis that harmoniously links the neighbouring buildings. The assets derive historic and architectural interest as attractive late 19th/early 20th century buildings that play a role in one’s understanding of the historic development of Lewisham. They also group value with 85 – 87 Lewisham High Street.

The surrounding built form comprises an amalgamation of architectural styles and eras, with many of the buildings located further south along the High Street dating to the 20th century or later. Many of the buildings are in a deteriorating condition and require repair and investment. The Site forms part of development along the High Street, but shares no historic or functional relationship with the assets.

65-71 LEWISHAM HIGH STREET (MAP REF: 45) AND 85-95 LEWISHAM HIGH STREET (MAP REF: 47)

143-149 Lewisham High Street comprises a commercial building with large faience blockwork and vertical fenestration. It derives historic and architectural interest as a fine example of early 20th century architecture expressed in large scale. In particular, the unusual use of faience on a building of this size and in this location where the surrounding vernacular is predominantly brick, gives this property positive townscape qualities.

6.202

180-190 Lewisham High Street comprises four storey commercial building dating to the 1920s, constructed of red brick. It derives historic and architectural interest as a good quality Art Deco inspired building which positively contributes to the immediate townscape. CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

6.203

The buildings have a prominent location at the southern end of Lewisham High Street. This historical location contributes to an understanding of their original retail and commercial functions.

6.204

The surrounding built form comprises an amalgamation of architectural styles and eras, with many of the buildings located further south along the High Street dating to the 20th century or later. Many of the buildings are in a deteriorating condition and require repair and investment. The Site forms part of the Proposed Development along the High Street, but shares no historic or functional relationship with the assets.

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE BUILDINGS OF TOWNSCAPE MERIT AND AREA OF SPECIAL LOCAL CHARACTER 6.194

The buildings have a prominent location at the northern end of Lewisham High Street, a number of which are highly visible in their corner plot positions. This historical location contributes to an understanding of their original retail and commercial functions. 52

6.205

LBL published the A21 Development Framework Baseline Study in 2022 which sets out development opportunities along the A21, “the central arterial road in Lewisham - an historic north to south ‘spine’ that runs through most of the Borough linking several centres.” This study identifies buildings of townscape merit along 53

Lewisham High Street within and around the Site (Figure: 5.3), which have been complemented by buildings

CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

identified as having some heritage significance by Montagu Evans during the pre-application process. 6.206

During consultations with officers during the pre-application process, the historic and architectural significance of the post-World War II buildings was discussed. It was agreed that the shopping centre buildings, including the ramps, entrance buildings and Lewisham House have no historic significance.

6.207

The buildings of townscape merit within or near the Site are:

6.208

Lewisham High Street: western elevation:

6.209

6.210

198-206 Lewisham High Street;

156-160 Lewisham High Street;

122-126 Lewisham High Street;

116-118 Lewisham High Street;

86-88 Lewisham High Street;

68-70 Lewisham High Street; and

50-64 Lewisham High Street.

6.217

The buildings are integrated into the eastern elevation of Lewisham High Street at a central location in Lewisham town centre. This location contributes to an understanding of their original retail and commercial functions.

6.218

The buildings in this group comprise commercial properties, including Victorian buildings (nos. 206-198 and nos. 70-68 and 64-50), that can be found on many high streets in southeast London. Nos. 118-116 has a Victorian brick elevation with white banding and large dormers. A number of mid-20th century buildings constructed following the destructions of World War II are of some interest. They date from the early phase of Lewisham’s post-war regeneration and show various Festival of Britain inspired design features, such as the Marks & Spencer façade (no. 126-122). Nos. 86-88 is a post-war building with setback roof storey, red brick and white render.

6.211

No 156-1690 is currently overclad with modern fabric, to facilitate its use as a retail outlet and has been in this condition for several decades. It is understood that the modern frontage of Nos. 160-156 potentially screens a curved Art Deco corner; the quality or state of deterioration of the building is unknown and has not been exposed, nor appreciated for several decades.

6.212

In our professional opinion, No 142-148 should be added to the list of buildings of townscape merit. It comprises the former Woolworth building, which retains its vertical fins and Art Deco appearance.

6.213

6.214

Contribution of Setting to Heritage Significance The buildings are integrated into the western elevation of Lewisham High Street at a central location in Lewisham town centre. This location contributes to an understanding of their original retail and commercial functions. The surrounding built form comprises an amalgamation of architectural styles and eras, including those of the shopping centre dating to the late 20th century or later. Many of the buildings are in a deteriorating condition and require repair and investment. The Site forms part of the Proposed Development along the High Street, but shares no historic or functional relationship with the assets.

6.215

Lewisham High Street: eastern elevation x

6.216

157-173 Lewisham High Street.

Nos. 157-173 is comprised of a six late 19th or early 20th century properties with flats above shops. Gables, chimney and dormers give the three-storey terrace a varied appearance. No. 155 is a tall building of similar age in red brick with strongly articulated bay windows across the entire height of the building.

7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVEOPMENT AND CONSULTATION 7.1

x The retention of the following buildings: Woolworths, M&S (no.112-126) is supported.

The Applicant has engaged in pre-application discussion with the Council and relevant stakeholders. Of relevance to the assessment of heritage matters are the following consultees: SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION CONSULTEE SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND FORM / DATE OF CONSULTATION ENGAGEMENT WITH LBL Pre-App Design x Regarding heritage, the conservation officer pointed out Masterplan 11th that the heritage asset plan should take into account the November 2021 following designations: x Clock Tower on Lewisham High Street – Grade II listed x 73 – 83 Lewisham High Street – locally listed x 85 & 87 Lewisham High Street – locally listed x The draft A21 Development Framework identifies a potential Area of Special Local Character / Conservation Area focused around the Clock Tower. LBL Site x Discrepancy as to the assessment of which buildings are Walkaround of heritage/townscape value. 12th January x Request to submit a revised annotated plan identifying 2022 buildings of heritage value on Site.

Pre-App 04: Townscape dated 22nd March 2022

March 2022 – June 2022 Email correspondence with LBL Lewisham to agree viewpoint locations. Pre-App 06: High Street Heritage dated 20th April 2022

x The conservation officer referred to views of the site from Blackheath and made reference to the inclusion of a view from where General Wolfe Road and Shooters Hill Road met. x A number of other viewpoints were discussed, including views from the NW of the scheme, a view from Ladywell Station. x ME to liaise with the conservation officer to update and agree a viewpoint list. x Discussion around which buildings on the High Street would be retained, views from the High Street into the scheme would help determine this. x The relationship of buildings on the site with the general scale of buildings on the x The east side of the High Street, in particular with listed buildings in the vicinity (e.g. southern end), and the transition in height needs further consideration. x Refinement of views selection, with clarity on the locations of views 11, 14, 15, 25 and 28. x Requested the following additional views to be included as part of the assessment: Blythe Hill Fields which is a protected view in the Development Management Local Plan (Site Ref LV2) and the Draft Local Plan. Junction of Hither Green Lane and Ryecroft Road. x Agreement of location and selection of all other views. x Officers agreed with the proposed wireline/render split. x Focused on Lewisham Shopping Centre buildings fronting the High Street. x Officers were critical of the methodology used to identify the architectural and historic value of buildings facing onto Lewisham High Street, x The proposed loss of such a substantial number of buildings would significantly erode the sense of place and history that the High Street currently embodies. x The extent of proposed demolition is not supported.

WHERE IN THIS VOLUME COMMENTS ARE ADDRESSED x This has been incorporated into the High Street designation plan produced by Montagu Evans and has been incorporated into the heritage baseline section of this report. x This was produced as part of a separate historic fabric study that was submitted to LBL in 2022 and in June 2024, the conclusions of which have been incorporated into the heritage baseline section of this report. x The views assessed as part of this ES HTVIA have been formally agreed with the LBL through the scoping process. This includes View 11 from Hyde ale (Blackheath) and View 12 (Shooters Hill/General Woolfe Road).

x Officers comments on the location of views and wireline/render split were incorporated into the selection of views which have been used to assess the visual impact of the scheme. x A comprehensive fabric study has been undertaken in order to identify the degree of heritage and townscape value each building along Lewisham High Street has. This also included an annotated map of those buildings

Pre-App: Townscape Heritage and Retention dated 22nd April 2024

x Comments from the conservation officer on the heritage value map of buildings along Lewisham High Street; x Conservation officer agreed that No.68 Lewisham High Street should not be a building of townscape merit; x Confirmed which buildings along the High Street have townscape value; x Requested inclusion of some designated and nondesignated heritage assets onto this map, including the Grade II listed Clock Tower and the non-designated mill building. x Requested an ownership boundary map be overlaid to this map. x Conservation officer requested further survey information to justify extent of retention/demolition; x Key views of concern are: from the Clock Tower, from Lee Road looking west and one from St Stephens looking south, N4 where it meetings the High Street. x Conservation officer expressed support re scale of buildings on Southern element of the Site. Pre-App Heritage x Heritage and townscape value of designated and non10th May 2024 designated buildings along the High Street was agreed with conservation officers. x Officers note that it would be useful to include in this document some of the many historic photos that exist of the High Street buildings. The context of some of these has changed (e.g. Woolworth’s and M&S) and historic images will be useful in informing the proposals where their context will change again. x Fig 4 significance map - the street numbers aren’t legible when zoomed in which makes cross reference to Table 1 difficult – could this be improved please? There appears to be inconsistencies between this and Table 1 (e.g. value of Woolworth’s) x Appendix 2 – Historic Maps – was not included in the pack - Officers require this to be provided. ENGAGEMENT WITH THE GLA GLA Pre-App x In addition, it should also be noted that views from beyond dated 17th March the site boundary and of the towers in particular (as they 2022: Townscape will have a wide ranging impact on the surroundings) should endeavour to complement the local historic townscape, respecting the recent social history, as well as the designated and non-designated heritage assets. It is noted that proposals should avoid harm to the significance of nearby heritage assets. GLA Pre-App x Views from beyond the site boundary should endeavour to dated 10th complement the local historic townscape – respecting October 2022 recent social history as well as statutory historic designations; ENGAGEMENT WITH HISTORIC ENGLAND Historic England x . No comments, accepts that many tall building proposals Meeting 17th have been consented at Lewisham town centre without January 2024 HE raising any objections or commenting on heritage impacts. Formal advice letter in due course. Historic England x Spread of tall building development further south in Lewisham town centre could visually encroach upon the 57

which are statutorily listed, locally listed and identified as buildings of townscape merit. This was discussed and circulated to the conservation officer at a later stage in the pre-application process. x This fabric study has been incorporated as part of the heritage baseline at Section 6.0 of this report. x Updates incorporated to fabric study and associated maps, which were circulated back to the conservation officer for agreement; x Incorporation of the historic into the heritage baseline section of this report.

x The Historic Fabric Study has been updated and the baseline section in this report has been updated to reflect the outcome of those discussions.

x The proposals were amended accordingly.

x No action required.

x Views from Blackheath are included within the

Consultation Response letter dated 28 February 2024

modest suburban character of both Ladywell and St Mary’s, Lewisham CAs. x Highlighted particularly sensitive views as those from Blackheath (11, 12, 13, 19, 20 and 36). The proposals would cause cumulative harm to the historic open character of Blackheath Common within the Blackheath CA. Clarify that this harm would be relatively low. x Recognise that the Proposed Development presents an opportunity to enhance Lewisham High Street through the retention and refurbishment of its historic buildings and the introduction of high-quality and contextual infill development. x Further site investigations, in consultation with Lewisham Council’s Conservation Officer will be required to determine the extent of fabric to be retained. x While none of the buildings on site are included on the National Heritage List for England, we suggest you pursue HE’s screening for potential listing service. DESIGN REVIEW PANEL Lewisham DRP x The initial project concept was presented to the DRP. The 18th October DRP encouraged the team to consider a greater retention 2022 of buildings. 5th December x It was agreed with the DRP that through discussions with 2023 the Council, most buildings within the Lewisham High Street frontage which are of heritage value or make a positive contribution to the local streetscape are proposed for retention within the current scheme. x Better definition is needed concerning the extent of work to the retained frontage buildings and the mechanisms for enhancements to the retained buildings within the detailed section of the application. Additional design information should be provided for buildings in close proximity to other heritage sensitive buildings within the outline section of the application. x The heritage consultants have inputted into the scheme although the work is ongoing. The proposals do not affect the LVMF prescribed views. The effect of the project on the designated and non-designated assets is being assessed with Council Officers. There is potential for the development to retain more elements in the southern portion of the site. x As the project progressed the designs need to be analysed and assessed in terms of their impact on key cherished views (HTVIA). x In terms of heritage and preservation of the historic assets, the strategy is much improved, and the Panel were greatly encouraged to see many more of the existing buildings facing Lewisham High Street to be either retained in full or their most important aspects preserved and the buildings rejuvenated. The Panel felt that there was further work to do in this regard in the southern sector in that there are some interesting buildings which could be retained/repurposed, in order to allow preservation of as much of its existing high street character as possible. Lewisham DRP x The panel requested that a presentation was made 14th April 2024 regarding the heritage strategy and approach towards assessment. x The impacts of the proposals on the protected views, local views and the settings of heritage assets have been and continue to be tested. The local and distant views have been agreed with the LBL and tested with Historic England who have accepted the views as proposed and do not want to engage further with regard to the detail of the scheme. x The Panel noted the Applicant Team’s evaluation that the proposals will not impact on the LVMF and commented that the reduction in the number of buildings over the course of the design’s evolution has helped reduce both local and distant impact. x The Panel observed that the scheme will have a significant impact on the protected and local views since the project proposes a dense group of tall buildings. In 58

visual impact assessment in Section 11.0. of the report.

x The retention strategy was reviewed by the design team. x A full analysis of views was undertaken and is included within this assessment. x The applicant has sought, where possible, to retain buildings along the High Street, where they have heritage merit and can be purposefully reused without undermining the wider regeneration strategy. A full analysis of this is provided in the assessment section below.

Lewisham DRP 8th July 2024

Lewisham DRP August 2024

x The applicant presented the demolition strategy, which seeks to retain buildings along the High Street, where they have heritage merit and can be purposefully reused without undermining the wider regeneration strategy. The stepped massing strategy was also discussed, which seeks to integrate low rise development along the High Street and gradually

particular, further distant views from Blackheath should be provided as the project designs and massing strategies become more refined. x Based on the information seen to date it is expected the proposals will cause a medium level of harm and the Applicant Team will need to demonstrate that the public benefits of the scheme, which should be considerable, are sufficient to outweigh the harm caused by the Proposed Development.. x It was recommended that a simpler and more coherent narrative for the organising the building mass, form and scale on the site is developing but there is further work to do to generate a cohesive and convincing approach across all aspects of the site. x The Panel identified LH, the north wing of N4, W2 and E4.2 as the most likely locations for landmark structures, and the proposed buildings should exhibit a greater coherence of form, massing and architectural approach, recognising the difference between signature and supporting buildings. x The team are recommended to think of this project’s massing as a series of layers running east to west from Lewisham High Street rising ins scale toward Molesworth Street. The high street edge is formed by a crust of finer grain architecture of different periods but with a relatively consistent scale. The work undertaken to maximise the retention of the existing buildings was fully supported. x The scale, texture, grain and varied low scale architecture of the high street is extremely important in defining the character of the town centre, and a better balance has to be found between the scale of the proposals, and their negative impact notably N4 but also N2. The east wing of N4 is not acceptable as currently proposed and must be radically set back from the high street. x The design team presented a refined massing strategy, which sought to reinforce the principles of stepping back from the High Street and building height towards Molesworth Street. This was explained with concept diagrams and also visualised using verified views. x Detailed consideration was given to Block N1 and N2, including significant changes to the massing to align with the high street frontage and setback some of the taller elements. Detailed design amendments have also been undertaken to ensure the materiality, architectural detail and colouration of these buildings is contextual and a positive design response. x A more focussed presentation was provided by the design team, focussing on detailed design elements and landscaping proposals.

SCOPING OPINION Scoping Opinion x Agreed with EIA methodology used for heritage; dated 14 June x All cumulative schemes identified for assessment should 2024 be clearly identified on a plan showing their location relative to the Proposed Development and for each viewpoint by an AVR illustration where they would be in view. x The approach to the determination of significance is considered acceptable. x It is agreed that assets will be identified through the use of ZTV testing and the modelling process outlined within the ES. x The ES must be supported by a figure which clearly identifies all built heritage assets that have been assessed. x In accordance with NPPF Paragraph 200, the built heritage assessment should include a GLHER. x Requirements for the inclusion of reference to the Historic England Advice Note 12, Principles of Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (July 2021). x It should be noted that each separate discipline (heritage, townscape and visual) should be clearly defined and dealt 59

increase scale westward towards Molesworth Street. x A ZTV was presented to outline the geographical extent from which the proposed development would be visible, and the potential assets impacted. A set of verified views was also provided to understand the visual impact from selected locations.

x The updated design has been integrated into the final proposals.

x The refinements to the design were integrated into the final proposals.

with its own methodology and effects identified. The assessment of built heritage should be informed by the townscape and views assessment and provide clear cross-reference as appropriate.

8.0 IMPACT OF PROPOSD DEVELOPMENT 8.1

This section assesses the effect of the Proposed Development on the built heritage assets identified in the baseline section of this report. A qualitative assessment is provided below. The assessment has been informed by visual material, including a ZTV, verified views and non-verified massing studies.

8.2

The ZTV has been overlaid onto the Heritage Asset Plan and reproduced at Figure 8.1. The ZTV is indicative of likely intervisibility and is used as a tool only. It does not allow for visual gradation, i.e. it does not indicate the extent of visibility which will vary throughout the surrounding area. Further interrogation of individual heritage assets has been informed by the verified views and non-verified massing studies contained in the BHTVIA.

Figure 8.1. Heritage Asset Plan/ ZTV Overlay. DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION 8.3

The demolition and construction phase will occur as both part of the Outline Application (during phases 1a 1b, 2a, 2b and 3a) and the Detailed elements of the application. ES Volume 1 Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction sets out the anticipated programme of works and the key activities that would be undertaken on the Site during demolition and construction necessary to facilitate the Proposed Development. The likely effect of these activities on the significance of the heritage assets identified in the baseline is assessed below.

50-64 Lewisham High Street (partial demolition of southerly and westerly party walls and subsequent integration with new building which is subject to a detailed planning application);

8.5

66 Lewisham High Street (partial demolition of southerly and westerly party walls and subsequent integration with new building which is subject to a detailed planning application);

68-70 Lewisham High Street (partial demolition of southerly and westerly party walls and subsequent integration with new building which is subject to a detailed planning application);

86-88 Lewisham High Street (partial demolition of northerly and easterly party wall and integration with new building which is subject to a detailed planning application and outline planning application);

116-118 Lewisham High Street (partial demolition of southerly and westerly party walls and integration with new building that is subject to an outline planning application); and

180-190 Lewisham High Street (partial demolition of westerly partly wall and integration with new building that is subject to an outline planning application).

These buildings would experience various degrees of change including loss of neighbouring party wall and partial demolition. The assets have a high ability to accommodate the proposed change, given that the existing shopping centre is an allocated Site and future development is anticipated to come forward. The magnitude of impact to these buildings will be Low during this phase of the Proposed Development, given that the heritage significance of each of the buildings, derived principally from their elevations fronting the High Street, remains unchanged. This results in a likely effect of Minor Adverse nature of effect. The nature of effect is judged to be Adverse brought by the environmental and visual effects of demolition and construction in the immediate vicinity of the listed building.

8.6

Buildings 122-126 Lewisham High Street (Marks and Spencer’s Building) and 142-148 Lewisham High Street (Woolworths Building) are to undergo partial demolition, with the principal (easterly) façade of these buildings being retained. They too have a high ability to accommodate the proposed change, given that construction activity is to come forward on the allocated Site. The magnitude of impact to the buildings is Medium, given the extent that is to be demolished during this stage, however, the aspects of the building that derive heritage significance (the principal façades) are to be retained. This results in a Minor/Moderate Adverse effect.

8.7

No designated heritage asset would be fully demolished. No non-designated heritage assets will be fully demolished with the exception of Nos.156-160 Lewisham High Street, which is identified as a Building of Townscape Merit, discussed below.

8.8

All other buildings proposed for comprehensive demolition are not formally identified as heritage assets. Due consideration has been given to their potential heritage value (see Figure 6.4), and no building that has been assessed to have heritage value is to be wholly demolished, with the exception of Nos.156-160 Lewisham High Street. The remaining buildings proposed for demolition are constructed in the twentieth century, including Nos. 72-78 High Street designed by the Boots’ chief architect, Colin St Clair Oakes.

8.9

For building Number 156-160 Lewisham High Street the magnitude of impact will be High, resulting in an effect of Moderate Adverse. An adverse nature of effect is identified given the historic and architectural significance of this building has been lost as a result of the wholesale demolition which is a permanent and long-term effect. As per Paragraph 209 of the NPPF, which considers harm to, or loss of non-designated heritage assets, the decision maker will need to consider that harm in the overall planning balance, which takes into account the Proposed Development as a whole.

8.10

The decision maker needs to consider the Proposed Development as a whole, including the operational phase which is discussed below. Works during this phase include cleaning, maintenance, repair and internal improvements.

8.11

This phase of the Proposed Development could also introduce new environmental conditions into the setting (and experience) of the heritage assets: there will be increased noise, vibration, dust and traffic in the surrounding area, which could affect a heritage asset’s significance.

8.12

There will also be visual impacts during this phase of the Proposed Development, comprising equipment associated with construction such as cranes and hoarding.

Figure 8.2 – Figure 9.1 Demolition Plan, red showing wholesale demolition, teal showing retention without works (building structure), light blue sowing retention of high street facing façades as a minimum, light green showing retention with significant alteration building structure). Source: SEW Architects. 8.4

The Demolition and Construction phase will involve the demolition of the existing shopping centre building on Site (see demolition plan at Figure 9.1). Given the location of non-designated heritage assets directly adjacent to the existing shopping centre, this will have a direct effect on the following buildings:

8.13

8.14

Views of construction equipment from the wider area is likely to have a limited impact due to the temporal nature of the works, the concentrated area of development and the limited visibility of works which will take place at lower levels. This is generally limited to the heritage assets within closest proximity to the Site: x

65-85 Lewisham High Street;

85-95 Lewisham High Street;

90-98 Lewisham High Street;

100-104 Lewisham High Street;

143-149 Lewisham High Street;

157-173 Lewisham High Street;

198-206 Lewisham High Street;

Clock Tower;

St Saviour’s Church and adjoining Presbytery;

Former Prudential Building;

Church of Stephen and Stephen’s Church War Memorial;

10-18 Belmont Hill;

Lewisham Bridge Primary School;

The Priory;

Rileys (Former Temperance Billiard Hall);

United Reform Church Sunday School;

St Stephen’s CA;

Belmont CA; and

Mercia Grove CA.

These assets have a high ability to accommodate the proposed change, given the existing nature of the Site and the significant intervention of Lewisham Shopping Centre, constructed in the latter half of the 20 th century. We consider the magnitude of impact to these buildings to be Low during this phase of the Proposed Development, having a resultant minor effect on the assets. The nature of effect is beneficial given the refurbishment to the exterior and interior of the building to better reveal its architectural and historic significance.

8.19

Numbers 122-126 and 142-148 Lewisham High Street, also have a high ability to accommodate the operational phase of development, given the extent of change that their immediate setting has undergone over the latter half of the twentieth century. The direct works to these buildings undertaken during the operational phase will comprise the partial rebuilding of both Nos 122-126 and 142-148, as well as their integration into the new buildings on Site. As a result, the magnitude of impact is Medium, resulting in an effect of Minor to Moderate effect. The nature of effect is beneficial given the refurbishment and upgrade works to the principal facades of the building, from which their historic and architectural significance is derived.

WORLD HERITAGE SITE MARITIME GREENWICH WORLD HERITAGE SITE AND BUFFER ZONE (MAP REF: A AND B) 8.20

The assets have a high ability to accommodate the proposed change, given that the nature of the existing shopping centre, and future development anticipated to come forward. We consider the magnitude of impact to 8.21

The Site is located approximately 900 m to the south of the MGWHS and its buffer zone which includes the open expanse of Blackheath Common. The Lewisham Gateway and the Connington Road developments, which comprise tall buildings between 25 and 34 storeys, are located between the Site and the MGWHS.

8.22

This assessment for MGWHS also considers the following assets, which are located within Greenwich WHS:

Following the Demolition and Construction stage of the Proposed Development, subsequent direct works will be carried out to the buildings along the High Street. This will include cleaning, repair and internal improvements. Following the cleaning, repair and maintenance works undertaken during the Demolition and Construction phase, the function and usability of all heritage assets would improve and their architectural quality would be more readily legible.

50-64 Lewisham High Street (Building of Townscape Merit);

66 Lewisham High Street (Locally Listed Building);

68-70 Lewisham High Street (Building of Townscape Merit);

86-88 Lewisham High Street (Building of Townscape Merit);

90-104 Lewisham High Street (Locally Listed Building);

116-118 Lewisham High Street (Building of Townscape Merit);

157-173 Lewisham High Street (Building of Townscape Merit); 64

The Manor House (Map Ref; 17);

Roman Catholic Church of Our Ladye Star of The Sea including its Forecourt Wall and Gate Piers (Map Ref: 18);

The Presbytery (Map Ref: 19);

West Grove, Conduit House, Blackheath (Map Ref: 51);

Anglo-Saxon Cemetery in Greenwich Park (Map Ref: 52);

Greenwich Park Conservation Area (Map Ref: Q); and

Greenwich Park RPG (Map Ref: 53).

8.23

The MGWHS is embedded in the emerging townscape of south-east London, comprising the tall building zones at Canary Wharf, Millwall, Blackwall and the Greenwich Peninsula. The MGWHS Management Plan recognises that the cluster of tall buildings on the north side of the River Thames will continue to evolve. From the MGWHS and its buffer zone, other tall building zones across the capital can be seen, for example the Eastern Cluster in the City of London, Kidbrooke and the Canada Water cluster which is under construction.

8.24

The WHS is located in a planned area for tall and high-density development. It would sit within the context of existing and emerging development and, as a result, the WHS and the individual heritage assets within it have a low susceptibility to the type of Proposed Development.

8.25

Due to the separating distance of the Site from the MGWHS, the potential impact of the Proposed Development is limited to intervisibility, albeit heavily filtered, from the wooded areas within the southern part of Greenwich Park

Given the location of non-designated heritage assets directly adjacent to the existing shopping centre, this will have a direct effect on the following buildings: x

The WHS is one of Britain’s most complex and well-preserved Baroque architectural compositions, designed by Wren, Hawksmoor and Vanbrugh, who are among the country’s most famous architects. The buildings are integrated into the parkland originally designed by André Le Nôtre, Louis XIV’s court gardener, set along the Grand Axis from the Queen’s House to the River Thames. The significance of the axis was recognised when the view from the General Wolfe statue was added to the protected views set out in the LVMF.

DIRECT EFFECTS

8.17

198-206 Lewisham High Street (Building of Townscape Merit).

8.18

OPERATIONAL

8.16

180-190 Lewisham High Street (Locally Listed Building); and

INDIRECT EFFECTS (SETTING IMPACTS)

these assets to be relatively low during this phase of the Proposed Development, resulting in a Negligible Adverse effect. Views of construction equipment from the wider area is likely to have a limited impact due to the temporal nature of the works, the concentrated area of development and the limited visibility of works which will take place at lower levels. The presence of these demolition and construction activities within the wider setting of the assets will not affect one’s ability to appreciate their significance and thus why a Negligible Adverse effect has been identified.

8.15

and from Blackheath Common. From most areas of the Royal Park, the proposed height would sit below the canopy of trees bounding the southern border of the open space, (as articulated by View 37 from Greenwich Park, looking cross the Royal Naval College). Looking towards the WHS from the north, from Island Gardens (as demonstrated by View 14), whilst there is a historic connection between the two areas, the Proposed Development sits well below the tree canopy and thus visibility is limited. 8.26

8.27

The Proposed Development would be most visible from Blackheath in the buffer zone to the south of the Royal Park. The Buffer Zone is a component of setting to protect the OUV of the MGWHS and is not an asset in its own right nor an extension of the WHS boundary. The Proposed Development would be understood as part of the evolving skyline of Lewisham town centre, which currently comprises the buildings of Lewisham Gateway, Loampit Vale and at Conington Road. The Proposed Development would complete the emerging cluster at taller elements, achieving a balanced composition with a concentration of taller elements at the junction of Rennell Street and Molesworth Street next to Lewisham train and DLR station. The roofline would step down to the south and the low-rise neighbourhoods of Ladywell and Brockley, emulating the varied roofscape of southeast London. The views as a whole demonstrate the Proposed Development would not give rise to any setting impacts that

THE CLOCK TOWER (MAP REF: 20) 8.34

The clock tower was erected for Queen Victoria’s diamond jubilee on the central crossing of Lewisham High Street and Lee High Road, it lies directly opposite the Site and has watched over the town centre for over a century. Since the clock tower was built, Lewisham High Street has undergone major changes. Following the destructions of World War II much of the town centre was rebuilt in the 1950s. The arrival of the shopping centre in the late 20th century introduced a new super structure into the town centre which erased much of the original street layout. Road widening and improvement works necessitated the clock tower to be moved. The asset is an object structure within the main high street and has a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed without change to its value.

8.35

The Proposed Development would remove some of the late 20th century structures from the immediate setting of the clock tower and introduce new, high-quality architecture, while the transformation of the Site would have a general uplifting impact on the town centre. The taller elements would be set back from the clock tower behind the existing buildings along the high street frontage. They would appear as a backdrop to the asset and the traditional buildings in the foreground.

8.36

The Proposed Development, by virtue of the introduction of high quality architecture and the improvements to landscaping and public realm, would improve the immediate setting of the listed clock tower, as demonstrated by

would adversely impact the OUV of the MGWHS. The Proposed Development would therefore not impact the viewer’s ability to appreciate the OUV.

View 29 and the standalone assessment of the Clock Tower (including VuCity analysis) separately prepared by Montagu Evans. The impact of the Proposed Development would be beneficial, and therefore the special interest of the listed structure is enhanced.

LISTED BUILDINGS CHURCH OF ST SAVIOUR AND ADJOINING PRESBYTERY (MAP REF. 21 AND 22) BOONE CHAPEL, GRADE I (MAP REF: 1) 8.37 8.28

Attributed to Sir Christopher Wren, the chapel is the only survivor of the late 17th century almshouse complex commissioned by Christopher Boone. The Site is located approximately 1 km to the west of the chapel, linked by Lee High Road, the A20, which leads from the chapel in long curves towards Lewisham town centre, which is earmarked as an area of growth in the Local Plan.

8.29

Despite its proximity to the road and the new buildings in the town centre, the asset has a medium ability to accommodate the type of change caused by the Proposed Development without change to its heritage significance.

8.30

Due to the curving nature of Lee High Road, there is no intervisibility between the asset and the proposed

red brick with a 38 m tall campanile. 8.38

Lewisham town centre was badly affected by World War II and many of the buildings along the High Street were destroyed and subsequently rebuilt. Some of the buildings within the setting of the assets are in need of repair and investment. The town centre is identified as a growth area in the Local Plan. As a result, the church and presbytery have a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed without change to its value.

8.39

buildings. The Proposed Development would not impact significance of the asset.

contribute to an overall uplift of the town centre and therefore the setting of the church and presbytery. Taller elements would be towards the western site boundary away from the assets. The bulk of the Proposed Development would be obscured by the existing building along the high street. The overall magnitude of impact to the asset is judged to be relatively low, as the proposals would result in a minor change to the wider setting of the assets. The effect would be beneficial given the above mentioned impacts.

RANGERS HOUSE, (MAP REF: 2) 8.31

The Ranger’s House is a fine late 17th century building on the edge of the Royal Park, located approximately 1.3 km to the north of the Site. The asset is embedded in the open landscape of Blackheath, facing the built-up areas of Lewisham with a clear view of the emerging cluster of tall buildings at the town centre. Lewisham is identified as a growth area. Tall buildings have become a key component of the horizon line framing the heath.

FORMER PRUDENTIAL BUILDING (MAP REF: 23) 8.40

8.32

8.33

From the Ranger’s House, the Proposed Development would be seen in conjunction with the other tall buildings at Lewisham, such as Lewisham Gateway and the tall building at Conington Road, thereby helping consolidate the Lewisham cluster. The proposed buildings would be appreciable from the asset’s setting as a composition of high-quality buildings delivered through the Design Code with highly articulated elevations which provide texture and visual interest.

The former Prudential Building derives its significance from its architectural quality and the well-preserved early 20th century interiors and its connections with the Prudential Insurance Company.

8.41

It stands opposite the southernmost tip of the Site, integrated into the eastern frontage of Lewisham High Street. Following the rebuilding efforts after World War II and the road works at the junction of Lewisham High Street, Molesworth Street and Limes Grove, the asset lost much of its original setting. Lewisham town centre has been identified as a growth area with a tall building cluster emerging to the north. The former Prudential Building has a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed without change to its heritage significance.

8.42

As with the heritage assets nearby, the Proposed Development would transform the town centre and introduce high quality architecture, replacing buildings which have reached the end of their lifespan. Overall, the improvements to Lewisham High Street would contribute to an overall uplift of the town centre and therefore the setting of the church and presbytery. Taller elements would be concentrated towards the west and north of the

As with the MGWHS, the impact of the Proposed Development is minor, given that the Proposed Development would be seen as part of the existing Lewisham skyline. The Proposed Development does not result in harm to the significance of the asset.

Located on Lewisham High Street opposite the Site, the church of has been the heart of Lewisham’s catholic community for more than a hundred years. It is a striking building in an Italianate early Renaissance style, built in

Site, away from the asset. The buildings opposite at the southern end of the Site would be refurbished and new

LEWISHAM BRIDGE PRIMARY SCHOOL (MAP REF: 26)

public space introduced. The Proposed Development is therefore considered to have a relatively low magnitude of impact on the significance of the asset, resulting in minor change to the significance of the asset by virtue of change to setting. The effect would be beneficial given the above mentioned impacts.

8.50

The school is one of the first buildings that was infirmed by modern school design ideas at the beginning of the 20th century. The layout, well-lit and ventilated classrooms and the well preserved interiors are rare.

CHURCH OF ST STEPHEN AND WAR MEMORIAL (MAP REF: 24)

8.51

Modern extensions have altered the rear of the school. The main entrance still overlooks an open space that is oriented towards the River Ravensbourne and the Site, which lies approximately 220 m away. Lewisham House is directly opposite.

8.43

Designed by Sir George Gilbert Scott, the church has a High heritage value. It is a fine example of the Victorian’s reinterpretation of the Early English style, complete with the interiors and stained glass windows.

8.44

The church stands diagonally opposite the Site to the north of the junction of Lewisham High Street and Rennell Street. Since the rerouting of Lewisham High Street, Rennell Street and Molesworth Street and the demolition of the historic buildings to the south of St Stephen’s Grove in the late 20th century, the asset has lost its original setting to the south and west. It now faces the Lewisham Gateway redevelopment which comprises several tall buildings. As identified by the Local Plan, the town centre is a growth area and the church’s setting is set to see further change. As a result, the church and presbytery have a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed without change to its value.

8.52

8.45

The proposed buildings, which would represent an increase in intensity and scale on the Site, would be appreciable from the asset’s setting as a composition of high-quality buildings delivered through the Design Code with highly articulated elevations which provide texture and visual interest. The detailed elements of the Proposed Development, Plots N1 and N2 would be visible about the outline element, contributing to a visually interesting townscape composition. 8.46

8.53

The Proposed Development would complement the emerging cluster of tall buildings at the railway station and introduce new public space at the interface of the River Ravensbourne, Rennell Street and Molesworth Street. As part of the proposals, Lewisham House would be reconfigured, introducing high quality design.

8.54

While the transformative impact of the Proposed Development would enhance the visual amenity to the area surrounding the school, it would not change the asset’s value.

The Proposed Development would transform the town centre and introduce high quality architecture, replacing buildings which have reached the end of their lifespan. Overall, the improvements to Lewisham High Street would contribute to an overall uplift of the town centre and therefore the setting of the church and presbytery. The Proposed Development would be seen next to the tall buildings of the Lewisham Gateway development and understood as part of the emerging cluster at Lewisham town centre. Currently, the northern flank of Lewisham Shopping Centre comprises a fragmented assembly of party walls revealed after the road widening works of the late 20th century, the northern servicing and delivery area at Salisbury Yard, blank walls, Lewisham House and the access ramps for the multistorey car park. From the church, the proposed public space at Rennell Street would be noticeable, creating a welcoming and verdant entry point into the Site and an attractive new streetscape.

The distinct roof profile of N1 and its angled form, varied brickwork bonding and composition through a careful detailing approach of faience columns to the shopfront; has created interest to a previously defunct area of the High Street and within the immediate setting of St Stephen’s Church.

The school sits next to the emerging cluster of tall buildings at Loampit Vale and Lewisham Gateway. As identified by the Local Plan, the town centre is a growth area and a tall building zone. The susceptibility of the asset to the type of change is therefore low.

RILEY’S (FORMER TEMPERANCE BILLIARD HALL) AND UNITED REFORMED CHURCH SUNDAY SCHOOL GROUPING (MAP REF.: 28 AND 29) 8.55

Both assets stand opposite each other on Courthill Road at the corner of Lewisham High Street, approximately 230 m to the south of the Site. The church and former Temperance Billard Hall are fine examples of their types that have been the heart of their community for many decades.

8.56

Separated from the town centre by the railway line, the assets’ setting is comprised of the mixed-use building stock along Lewisham High Street and Courthill Road. There are a number of taller, recent developments such as the eight-storey building opposite the former billiard hall. While the two historic buildings can still be understood as serving part of the surrounding residential neighbourhoods, this part of Lewisham is affected by the wider transformation of the town centre and the borough. As a result, the church and former billiard hall have a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed without change to its value.

8.57

Due to the visual barrier that the railway line introduces, the Proposed Development would be only partially visible. Where glimpses are possible, the taller elements would be seen in conjunction with the Lewisham Gateway development and understood as part of the emerging cluster at Lewisham town centre.

8.47

8.48

8.49

The base of N1 forms a plinth that steps down from four storeys to two storeys as it wraps around the Site and provides a contextual scale to the existing High Street buildings, including the Church of St Stephen. The verticality of design is demonstrated by the position of windows, articulated panels, shop fronts and columns. The N2 building has been designed by a different architectural practice and as such, there is further variation in design to the proposed buildings on Site. N2 also comprises variation in materiality, through the use of a combination of red and buff brick, as well as dark green detailing around the fenestration and for the window glazing bars. The angled roof profile also creates visual interest and variation to the backdrop of the church.

While the Proposed Development would change the setting of the church, when seen from Lewisham High Street. However, these views are incidental, and the Proposed Development would be understood as part of the busy, urban town centre environment as set out in the Local Plan, where there is contrast between buildings, a varied scale between development and a large range of styles, details and materials. That intervisibility does not impact on the value of the heritage asset and the Proposed Development would therefore have no effect on the heritage

8.58

The improvements to Lewisham High Street would contribute to an overall uplift of the town centre that would be tangible around the two heritage assets. The Proposed Development would be understood as part of the busy, urban town centre environment as set out in the Local Plan, where there is contrast between buildings, a varied scale between development and a large range of styles, details and materials.

8.59

As such, the Proposed Development would not be understood to impact the setting of the historic buildings and is therefore considered to have no impact on the heritage significance of the asset. CONSERVATION AREAS ST STEPHEN’S CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: C)

8.60

The conservation area comprises the Victorian terraces to the east of the grade II listed church of St Stephen’s (see above). It has an overall consistent historic character and appearance.

8.61

The railway line separates the conservation area from the residential areas of Blackheath to the north, to the east are the large houses of the Belmont Conservation Area. The conservation area has lost its traditional setting to the west: modern large scale developments between Conington Road, Lewisham Gateway and Lewisham Shopping Centre and the road widening work that led to the rerouting of Rennell Street at the junction with

significance of the asset.

8.62

Molesworth Street and Lewisham High Street have introduced a new, high rise context, typical for a major London

articulated roof form of N2 and subsequent step down further aids in breaking up the perception of mass. The

town centre that has been identified as a growth area. The conservation area abuts one of the tall building zones listed in the draft Local Plan. As a result, the conservation area has a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed without change to its value.

lighter tonality and angled roof form of N1 is also perceptible from the CA. The detailed design of both buildings and clear contrast between them and the existing built form in the CA, ensures they form an attractive new part of the townscape in the setting of the CA.

The Proposed Development would help address some of the shortcomings of the road widening works which left the party wall of the property on the corner of Lewisham High Street and Rennell Street exposed and introduced the unsatisfactory public realm between the shopping centre and the Gateway development. New, high quality buildings and public space would give Rennell Street a welcoming character and draw people into the Site, creating a safe and pleasant pedestrian experience. The taller elements would help consolidate the tall building cluster next to Lewisham railway station as set out in the Local Plan. The proposed buildings, which would represent an increase in intensity and scale on the Site, would be appreciable from the asset’s setting as a composition of high-quality buildings delivered through the Design Code with highly articulated elevations which provide texture and visual interest. The detailed elements of the Proposed Development, Plots N1 and N2, would create a distinct roof profile and angled form in views looking south from within the CA. The single use of a lighter tone brick materiality for the taller and main element of N1 establishes a single volumentric presence, unencumbered by setbacks or projections.

8.63

While the difference in scale would be noticeable, the stepped skyline and vertical emphasis of the buildings would mitigate the impact and create an attractive composition and appropriate backdrop to the conservation area.

8.71

As a result, the change to the setting of the conservation area would be limited. Intervisibility between the proposals and the conservation area would not detract from the quality of the conservation area and significance would be preserved.

8.72

The Church of St Margaret and associated structures are located with an enclosed churchyard setting, which is clearly defined by a hard border comprising iron railings and supplemented by a number of mature trees. The introduction of the Proposed Development in the wider periphery of the assets does not affect one’s appreciation of the heritage value of the church and associated structures. Glimpsed visibility of the Proposed Development in views looking west does not undermine the historic and architectural value of the church as outlined in Section 5.0.

8.73

The Proposed Development therefore preserves the overall heritage significance of the conservation area, and the assets located within it.

N1 is of greater scale and thus is the most visible element of the detailed design proposals from within St Stephen’s CA. N2 may be partially visible appearing behind N1 (as articulated in AVR View 28 in Appendix 1.0), in which the variation in materiality which comprises a richer, red buff brick, will create visual interest when viewed in conjunction with the lighter tonality of N1.

8.64

8.70

In the views along the High Street, the Proposed Development would be understood as part of a busy, urban town centre environment where there is contrast and varied scale of development and architectural details. As a result, the change to the setting of the conservation area would be limited. Intervisibility between the proposals and the conservation area would not impact the heritage significance of the asset.

MERCIA GROVE CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: E) 8.74

The Mercia Grove Conservation Area is located approximately 85 m to the east of the Site, the conservation area is one of the smallest, only comprising two rows of late 19th century two storey terraces.

8.75

Following the rebuilding after World War II and the construction activities in the late 20th century, the setting of the conservation area has changed fundamentally. From the street between the two terraces, the upper part of the multistorey car park that forms part of the Lewisham Shopping Centre is visible above the properties on Lewis Grove. From the junction of Mercia Grove with Lewis Grove and Lewisham High Street, the tall building developments to the north at Lewisham Gateway and Conington Road are visible.

8.76

Despite the sense of enclosure created by the arrangement of the street which makes a positive contribution to the asset’s setting, the conservation area sits within a major town centre adjacent to a tall building zone identified

Belmont Conservation Area (map ref: D) 8.65

The following assets, by virtue of their location within the Belmont Conservation Area are assessed as part of the impact on the CA: x

The Fludyer Tomb, Lee Old Churchyard (Map Ref: 5);

Monument of Sir John Call Bart Lee Old Churchyard (Map Ref: 6);

Church of St Margaret (Map Ref: 7);

10-18 Belmont Hill (Map Ref: 25); and

The Priory (Map Ref: 27).

in the Local Plan. As a result, the conservation area has a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed without change to its value.

8.66

The Belmont Conservation Area comprises the large late 19th and early 20th century houses north of Belmont Hill leading to the town centre from the east.

8.67

Due to the east-west alignment of Belmont Hill and the other streets, the emerging tall building cluster at the town centre that stretches from Conington Road to Lewisham Gateway and Lewisham House can be seen from many vantage points within the conservation area. The conservation area lies close to a major town centre that has been identified a growth area and tall building zone by the Local Plan. As a result, the conservation area and the assets located within it have a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed without change to its value.

8.68

8.77

elevations which provide texture and visual interest. 8.78

The detailed elements of the Proposed Development, would be partially visible from the CA, as articulated by AVR View 30 in Appendix 1.0 of the BHTVIA. The buff red brick and emphasis on horizontality, demonstrated by the symmetrically placed windows and associated balconies, is appreciable from within the CA. The use of traditional ratios and proportions, and emphasis on symmetry echoes the historic character of the Mercia Grove CA. The slight setback not only breaks up the perception of mass but also creates a visually interesting backdrop to the CA.

8.79

There is a historic, functional relationship between the residential areas and the shops and facilities of the town centre. As such, intervisibility between the conservation area and the much larger shopping centre buildings would not alter the conservation area’s character. Its significance would be preserved.

The Proposed Development would introduce additional buildings in the views from the conservation area. The proposed buildings, which would represent an increase in intensity and scale on the Site, would be appreciable from the asset’s setting as a composition of high-quality buildings delivered through the Design Code with highly articulated elevations which provide texture and visual interest.

8.69

The detailed elements of the Proposed Development, Plots N1 and N2, would thus be visible from specific points within the CA, as demonstrated by AVR View 16. The red buff brick materiality of N2 is particularly noticeable, as well as the horizontal emphasis on the façade, expressed by the reoccurring balconies and facades. The 70

The Proposed Development would replace the current multistorey car park with taller buildings, which would represent an increase in intensity and scale on the Site, and introduce a new retail frontage along the High Street which would be visible from within the conservation area. The visual impact would be mitigated by the skilful articulation of each block with an emphasis on elegant, vertical forms and the large amount of planting which would soften the appearance of the new buildings. The proposed buildings would be appreciable from the asset’s setting as a composition of high-quality buildings delivered through the Design Code with highly articulated

considered that this marginal visibility will affect one’s appreciation of the heritage value of the assets located

LADYWELL CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: F)

within the CA. 8.80

8.81

The Ladywell Conservation Area lies approximately 400 m to the west of the Site and comprises the late Victorian suburban residential development to the north of Ladywell station. The Grade II listed Ladywell Station (Map Ref: 38) is also considered as part of this assessment. Ladywell is located at a short distance to the west from Lewisham town centre. Over the last decade, the emerging cluster of tall buildings at Lewisham station, as set out in the draft Local Plan, and the other tall building developments in southeast London and beyond have become an important component in the asset’s setting. As a result, the conservation area and station building have a high ability to accommodate the type of change

8.89

As a result, the conservation area and the assets within it have a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed without change to its value.

8.90

The Proposed Development would introduce additional tall elements into the emerging skyline of Lewisham. The buildings would be largely obscured by mature trees and interposing existing developments from many parts of the conservation area and the listed building within it. However, as demonstrated by viewpoints 11, 12, 19 and 20, there is some intervisibility from the heath. The proposed undulating roofline composition comprises a taller

proposed without change to its value. 8.82

The streets within the conservation area run off Vicars Hill, which joins Ladywell Road near the station. From the streets running northwards parallel to the railway line, intervisibility with the Site is limited, but the upper parts of the Proposed Development would be visible from the rear gardens and Ellerdale Street which is oriented towards the town centre. The proposed buildings would complement the emerging tall building cluster at the station, ensuring a balanced composition of the Lewisham town centre skyline.

cluster to the north that integrates the buildings at Lewisham Gateway. Across the distance, the proposed buildings would be appreciable from the asset’s setting as a composition of high-quality buildings delivered through the Design Code with highly articulated elevations which provide texture and visual interest. 8.91

The magnitude of impact of the Proposed Development is relatively low, resulting in a negligible, neutral impact on the heritage significance of the conservation area, by virtue of change to its setting. ST MARY’S CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: H)

8.83

As a result, the change to the setting of the conservation area and station would be limited. Intervisibility between the proposals and the assets would not detract from the quality of the conservation area and significance would be preserved.

8.92

BLACKHEATH CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: G AND R) 8.84

8.85

8.86

The following assets, by virtue of their location within the Blackheath Conservation Area are assessed as part of the impact on the CA: x

The Pagoda (Map Ref: 8);

Church of the Ascension (Map Ref: 9);

Perceval House and Spencer House (Map Ref: 11);

22 Dartmouth Row (Map Ref: 12);

91 and 91a Belmont Hill (Map Ref: 30);

The Sacred Heart Convent (Map Ref 36);

Old Tower of Former Church of St Margaret (Map Ref: 39); and

1-6 Aberdeen Terrace (Map Ref: 43).

8.93

Located approximately 300 m to the northeast of the Site, the Blackheath Conservation Area falls partially into the MGWHS buffer zone. It comprises a number of highly graded heritage assets: The Pagoda, Church of the Ascension, Perceval House and Spencer House, 22 Dartmouth Row.

8.87

The skyline that can be seen beyond the tree canopies that enclose the heath is continuously changing, which adds to the interest of the views out of the conservation area. Canary Wharf, Kidbrook and more recently Lewisham Gateway and the tall building at Conington Road introduced a novel effect with interesting points of orientation. From the conservation area, much of London can be seen. Both the London Plan and the Local Plans

8.94

There are a number of highly graded assets within the CA including the Grade II* Pagoda, Church of Ascension Perceval and Spencer House and 22 Dartmouth Row. The ZTV overlay with the heritage asset plan at Figure 5.2 indicates intervisibility between these assets and the Proposed Development. Where visible, the proposals are seen in conjunction with the existing and emerging tall building development around Lewisham, and it is not

St Mary’s Vicarage (Map Ref: 3); Church of St Mary the Virgin (Map Ref: 4);

Garden Walls to South and West of St Mary’s Vicarage, Police Station and Coroner’s Court (Map Ref: 32);

340 Lewisham High Street (Map Ref: 34);

Old Swimming Baths (Map Ref: 35);

Walls surrounding Churchyard of St Mary’s Church (Map Ref: 37);

School Treatment Centre (Map Ref: 40); and

Lewisham Public Library (Map Ref: 42).

This conservation area is located to the south of the railway viaducts, approximately 230 m away from the Site. It

Due to alignment of Lewisham High Street, Lewisham’s key north-south transport corridor, which runs through the conservation area and the visual separation of the railway viaduct, the conservation area has limited intervisibility with Lewisham town centre. However, the conservation area falls within the New Cross/Lewisham/Catford Opportunity Area with two growth points, Lewisham town centre and Catford town centre in close proximity.

8.95

As a result, the conservation area and the assets within it have a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed without change to its value.

8.96

Only the upper parts of the Proposed Development would be noticeable from Lewisham High Street. The buildings would be understood as belonging to the established and emerging skyline of the town centre. The change to the setting of the conservation area and the other heritage assets within it would be limited. Intervisibility between the

of the adjoining boroughs, Lewisham and Greenwich, have identified much the surrounding land as growth areas. 8.88

x x

is focused on the church of the same name, listed at grade II*, and the civic buildings and housing from the Victorian and Edwardian era that surround it. The Vicarage is an 17th century house that was later extended and altered; today it is listed at grade II*. Several other buildings, such as the Old Swimming Baths and the Library, are listed at grade II.

The key component of the conservation area is the heath, one of the largest areas of common land in London, that lies between the Royal Park and Blackheath Village. The area is associated with Georgian developments such as the Pagoda (map ref.: 8), the Paragon (located outside the study area) and the buildings on Dartmouth Row, some of which can be seen at distance from the centre of the heath.

The following assets, by virtue of their location within the St Mary’s Conservation Area are assessed as part of the impact on the CA:

proposals and the assets would not impact on the viewers’ ability to appreciate the assets and their significance would be preserved. 8.97

The Church of St Mary and associated listed structures are located within an enclosed churchyard setting, which is bordered by a dense boundary of mature trees. As a result, partial visibility of the Proposed Development is largely occluded by interposing vegetation, especially during winter months when the trees are in leaf. The

introduction of the Proposed Development within the wider setting of the church is not considered to alter one’s

8.106

appreciation of its significance. 8.98

The Proposed Development will therefore have no impact on the heritage value of the St Mary’s conservation area, or the assets located within it. 8.107 LEWISHAM PARK CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: I)

8.99

The emerging new townscape is visible, comprising tall new developments, such as the 35 storey tower at Conington Road and the cluster at Lewisham Gateway, which are comprised in the town centre tall building zone, defined in the draft Local Plan. As a result, the conservation areas have a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed without change to its value.

8.108

west of the park on Lewisham High Street. Lewisham High Street is part of the A21 corridor that connects Lewisham town centre with the South Circular at the Catford gyratory. Catford itself is subject to the Catford Town Centre Framework which sets out LBL’s vision for the future of this part of the Borough, including the delivery of 2,700 new homes. As a result, the conservation area has a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed without change to its value.

By virtue of its location within Brockley CA, the Hillyfields Sixth Form Centre (Map Ref: 10) is included within this assessment, it also has a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed by the Proposed Development. Seen across the separating distance, the upper parts of the Proposed Development would be visible. The overall skyline composition of Lewisham, comprising the tall buildings at Lewisham Gateway and Conington Road, would be consolidated. As a result, the change to the setting of the conservation area would be limited. Intervisibility between the proposals and the conservation area would not detract from the quality of the conservation area and the significance would be preserved. NON-DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS

8.100

Much of the Proposed Development would be screened by the mature trees in the park. The ZTV shows the visibility of the Proposed Development without tree coverage; even during the winter months, branches and remaining foliage would have a filtering effect. Where visible, only a small part of the top of the proposed buildings would be noticeable. The Proposed Development would be understood as part of the emerging skyline of Lewisham town centre. As a result, the change to the setting of the conservation area would be limited. Intervisibility would not detract from the quality of the conservation area and significance would be preserved.

LOCALLY LISTED BUILDINGS ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF LEWISHAM HIGH STREET 8.109

SOMERSET GARDEN CONSERVATION AREA, ST JOHN’S CONSERVATION AREA AND BROOKMILL CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: J, L AND M) 8.101

8.104

143-149 Lewisham High Street (Map Ref: 49).

Given the extent of change that the immediate setting of these buildings has undergone with the intervention of the shopping centre during the latter half of the twentieth century, these buildings have a Low susceptibility to the Proposed Development.

8.111

The Proposed Development will introduce a number of tall buildings on Site, which will culminate in height to the North of the Site, to the northwest of the assets, decreasing in height to the east of the Site. The new buildings will introduce high-quality architecture onto the existing shopping centre Site, as well as extensive improvements

The A20 (Lewisham Way and Loampit Vale) leads from the conservation areas down into the town centre, offering vistas across the town centre and the emerging new townscape, comprising tall new developments, such as the 35-storey tower at Conington Road and the cluster at Lewisham Gateway, which are comprised in the town centre

to public realm and landscaping. This includes a roof level garden which will be a key feature in the wider settings of the assets. The design of the majority of buildings, which is to be decided in detail at the reserved matters stage, will adopt a contextual and sensitive materiality and design approach to the buildings along Lewisham High Street.

As a result, the conservation areas and the listed structures within them have a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed without change to its value.

8.112

The Proposed Development would introduce additional tall elements into the emerging skyline of Lewisham. The overall townscape composition would be consolidated. As a result, the change to the setting of the conservation area would be limited. Intervisibility between the proposals and the conservation area would not detract from the quality of the conservatism area and significance would be preserved. The Proposed Development would not

BROCKLEY CONSERVATION AREA (MAP REF: K) The Brockley Conservation Area is located to the west of the Site, approximately 630 m away, comprising Hilly Fields and the residential streets to the west of the park. The conservation area comprises large houses and terraces, developed in the second half of the 19th century and more modest houses on the streets further west. Some of the larger houses stand on Drake Stret, which offers views out towards Lewisham town centre. The majority of the streets in the conservation area run north-south and views out are only possible at the junctions with the east-west streets. 74

Given the impact is limited to one of setting, remaining peripheral to one’s experience of each of the buildings, the overall effect of the Proposed Development on the buildings’ heritage significance is minor. The effect is a beneficial one, given the improvements to the setting of the locally listed buildings, enabled through the introduction of high-quality architecture on the former shopping centre Site. CUMULATIVE

change the setting of the Stone House and the other listed buildings within the conservation areas and their, as well as the conservation areas’ significance would remain intact.

8.105

85-95 Lewisham High Street (Map Ref: 47); and

x 8.110

tall building zone, defined in the Local Plan. 8.103

65-68 Lewisham High Street (Map Ref: 45);

The three conservation areas occupy the land that slopes down from the elevated land to the north towards Lewisham town centre. The area is bordered by Loampit Vale/Lewisham Vale to the west and Brookmill Road to the east, straddling the railway line. St John’s station lies at the centre. The building stock across all three areas is high-quality, mid-19th century housing, including short terraces, semi-detached and detached houses, some of which are listed such as Somerset Gardens (grade II), or Stone House, the Italianate villa on Lewisham Way, listed at grade II*.

8.102

The following locally listed buildings on the eastern frontage of Lewisham High Street are assessed together as a group, given their collective proximity to the Proposed Development. The assets within this group comprise the following:

DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION STAGE 8.113

There is one cumulative scheme considered within this assessment, is Lewisham Retail Park, located approximately 280m to the north of the Site. This would potentially introduce more demolition and construction activity to the wider setting of the following heritage assets: x

Church of St Stephen and St Stephen’s Church War Memorial, Lewisham (Map Ref: 24);

Lewisham Bridge Primary School (Map Ref: 26); and

Conservation areas to the west of the Site (Map Refs: F and K).

8.114

This type of activity would introduce noise, traffic and visual influences which are unattractive and which detract from the wider area in which the receptors are experienced.

8.115

For all other heritage assets the likely effect of the combined effect of the construction and demolition of the Proposed Development would remain the same.

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1

This (built) heritage assessment relates to proposals which are subject to a hybrid planning application for the redevelopment of Lewisham Shopping Centre and adjacent land in Lewisham, London. It describes the significance of any heritage assets affected by the Proposed Development, including any contribution made by their setting. The Site is not statutorily listed, nor is it situated within a conservation area. It lies within close proximity to several statutorily listed assets, including the Grade II Lewisham Clock Tower. There are a number of non-designated heritage assets located within the Site boundary, including the locally designated 65-85 Lewisham High Street, 90-100 Lewisham High Street and 180-190 Lewisham High Street, as well as part of an area of local special character.

9.2

9.3

The assessment has identified an adverse effect to one non-designated heritage asset, 156-60 Lewisham High Street, which is to undergo wholesale demolition during the demolition and construction stage of development. In accordance with Paragraph 209 of the NPPF: the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. This will need to be considered by the decision maker in the wider planning balance.

9.4

70 ST MARY AXE LONDON EC3A 8BE

London | Edinburgh | Glasgow | Manchester WE CONSIDER OUR CREDENTIALS, HOW WE HAVE STRUCTURED OUR BID AND OUR PROPOSED CHARGING RATES TO BE COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE INFORMATION. WE REQUEST THAT THESE BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL.

APPENDIX 6: HISTORIC FABRIC STUDY PREPARED BY MONTAGU EVANS Lewisham Shopping Centre, Lewisham

LEWISHAM SHOPPING CENTRE FABRIC STUDY JUNE 2024

CONTENTS 1.0

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 3

2.0

OVERVIEW OF THE BUILDINGS ON THE SITE ............................................................. 15

3.0

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 19

APPENDICES APPENDIX 1.0

LOCALLY LISTED BUILDINGS, AS PUBLISHED ON THE COUNCIL'S WEBSITE

APPENDIX 2.0

HISTORIC OS MAPS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1

Montagu Evans have been instructed by Landsec (the 'Client') to assess the historic fabric of the buildings on the Lewisham Shopping Centre Site in the London Borough of Lewisham. The London Borough of Lewisham (the ‘Council’) is the Local Planning Authority.

1.2

This report has been informed by Site visits undertaken by Montagu Evans and desktop research.

1.3

The Site, as identified in Figure 1.1 below, is roughly triangular and is bounded by Molesworth Street and Rennell Street to the west and north, Lewisham High Street to the east and south.

1.4

The Site does not fall within a conservation area nor does it comprise any statutorily listed buildings. The closest designated heritage asset is the Lewisham Clock Tower, listed at Grade II, on Lewisham High Street. A heritage asset map is provided at Figure 1.1.

1.5

This initial report has taken look at the site area’s history and the significance of the buildings within it in to: •

Analyse the evolution of the area, including its land use and urban grain over time;

•

Provide an initial overview of historic significance; and

•

Provide an initial overview of heritage value.

OVERALL SUMMARY FINDINGS 1.6

The buildings around the site are largely the product of rebuilding in the post-World War II period, following extensive bomb damage. The site was much more badly damaged than many of the immediately surrounding areas, especially those to the south.

1.7

The Site comprises several buildings which are identified as non-designated heritage assets on the Lewisham Local List. Their contribution to the Site is discussed in this report; the listing descriptions, as published on the Council's website, are provided at Appendix 1.0.

1.8

The northern and southern parts of the Site comprise the majority of historic buildings. Here, a more homogenous and traditional high street character is retained, supported by a collection of historic buildings on the opposite side of the High Street, some of these are either statutorily or locally listed.

1.9

The shopping centre buildings on the site are of no architectural merit and have neither historic nor townscape value. Some elements of the shopping centre, such as the multi-storey car park building and the low block fronting onto Rennell Street, have a detrimental impact on Lewisham's streetscape.

Figure 1.1: Heritage asset map.

1.12

Lewisham began to experience further growth in the mid eighteenth century as wealthy City merchants settled in the area to take advantage of the healthy air away from the busy capital. St Mary’s Church was rebuilt from 1774-1777 to accommodate the growing congregation. Roque’s map of 1746 (Figure 1.2) shows Lewisham as a small linear village with a number of mills along the river. The surrounding landscape is principally rural and characterised by farmland.

1.13

1.14

Figure 1.3: Lewisham Clock Tower, 1870. Source: Lewisham Archives. 1.15

Lewisham continued to evolve. Many of the residential areas were built for the upper middle class with adjoining small areas of more affordable housing. The 1896 OS map demonstrates how Lewisham changed over the course of the late nineteenth century as terraced housing and detached housing with large gardens and wider streets became the prevalent feature across the town (Appendix 2.0). Many of the residential areas were being demolished and rebuilt for the upper middle class with small pockets of more affordable housing available.

1.16

Figure 1.2: Rocque's map of London, 1746. Source: British Library. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF LEWISHAM: AN OVERVIEW 1.10

1.11

From the Middle Ages, water mills have been recorded at Lewisham. Tanning leather and silk weaving were concentrated along the River Ravensbourne. 5

Figure 1.5: Lewisham High Street, 1916 showing the post office building which was later destroyed in 1944. Source: Lewisham Archives. Figure 1.4: The Prince and Princess of Wales visit Lewisham High Street, July 1897. A year before the Clock Tower was constructed, this photo shows the market square area. Source: Lewisham Archives.

Figure 1.6: Lewisham High Street, 1915. Source: Lewisham Archives.

Figure 1.7: Lewisham High Street, showing the Woolworths Building, 1938. Source: Lewisham Archives. 1.17

The strategic location of Lewisham during World War II meant that the area was targeted by German bombers with a total of 1,128 high explosive bombs dropped there between 1940 and 1941 alone. The 1945 Bomb Damage Map (Figure 1.8) shows the extent of damage in Lewisham throughout WWII as well as highlighted areas of clearance following the destructions. Homes has been built to replace prefab housing that stood on stretches of land that had been left as bombsites since the 1940s. The 1955 OS map (Appendix 2.0) shows the early evolution of the urban form that exists in

Figure 1.8: 1945 Bomb Damage Map. Source: British Library.

Lewisham today.

1.18

Figure 1.9: Aerial photo of Lewisham High Street in 1949. Source: Lewisham Archives.

Figure 1.11: Lewisham High Street, 1963. Source: Lewisham Archives 1.19

The OS map from 1974 (Appendix 2.0) shows further growth in Lewisham, more vacant plots have been filled with new residential developments. The residential terraces on Molesworth Street were cleared and redeveloped in 1977 to create the ‘Riverdale Shopping Centre’, latterly recognised as ‘Lewisham Shopping Centre.’ This shows a shift in demand from new residential developments to new commercial developments. Much of the surrounding urban setting is residential with the exception of the town centre which envelops the Site.

1.20

Following the construction of Lewisham Shopping Centre in the 1970s, the town centre has increased in density and has undergone extensive redevelopment. Over recent years, the urban landscape of Lewisham has undergone further change with the emergence of tall buildings as part of the redevelopment of Lewisham Gateway and the station area.

1.21

There are currently plans to further improve transport links by extending the Bakerloo line into Lewisham. This is expected to commence in 2023 and could be completed as early as 2029.

Figure 1.10: Aerial photo of Lewisham High Street in 1965. Source: Lewisham Archives. 11

HISTORY OF THE SITE 1.22

The OS map of 1870-72 (Appendix 2.0) illustrates that Molewsworth Street, to the immediate west of the Site, standing between it and the railway line; had been constructed by this time. On the opposing, eastern side, Lewisham Road (later becoming Lewisham High Street) had also been established.

1.23

The land comprising the Site to the south, was made up of a series of larger, detached houses, the majority of which fronted Lewisham Road with deep, narrow rear gardens comprising formal landscaping and orchards. To the north, the land featured burgage style plots along the high street frontage, their compact and narrower character indicating shops or commercial premises.

1.24

The streetscape and urban grain of the Site remained largely the same by the time of the 1896 OS map (Appendix 2.0). Further development had taken place with the construction of terraced housing on the north and south sides of Rennell Street. The area within the middle of the Site, which had formerly comprises orchards and gardens associated with larger detached houses exists as undeveloped land by this time. And further south, beyond Avenue Road, which had also formerly comprised larger villa style properties, had seen the emergence of the industrialisation of the Ravensbourne River and surrounding ponds with a number of mills including that of Riverdale Mill.

1.25

The bomb damage map illustrates that by the early to mid-20th century, the area comprising the Site formed a cinema on its northern boundary, with the same 19th century terraces and shop frontages to the immediate south. Further south commercial and retail premises including a garage and a pub are labelled on the map. The area that covers the site was badly affected by World War Two bombing, with a V1 flying bomb dropped at the junction of Lewisham and Avenue Road. The middle part of the Site was thus the worst affected, particularly those buildings that fronted the High Street. The area to the north of the Site was the least affected, predominantly suffering blast damage which was minor in nature.

Figure 1.12: Aerial photo of Lewisham High Street 1971. Source: Lewisham Archives.

1.26

The 1955 OS map illustrates much the same street scape and urban form, although many of the buildings in the middle part of the Site were demolished as part of the slum clearance of the area. The 1974 OS map illustrates the large urban footprints of infill development that replaced the historic, burgage-style plots and buildings along Lewisham High Street.

1.27

Lewisham Shopping Centre (formerly the Riverdale Centre) was built in 1977 and is shown on the OS map of 1995. It retained a number of historic terraced style plots on High Street frontage, including the locally designated 65-85 Lewisham High Street, 90-100 Lewisham High Street and 180-190 Lewisham High Street. In 1944 the adjacent High Street was pedestrianised, becoming a traffic-free street market and an open space.

Figure 1.13: Clock Tower in 1984. Source: Lewisham Archives. 13

2.0 OVERVIEW OF THE BUILDINGS ON THE SITE 2.1

The Site comprises a variety of buildings which can be broadly split into two groups, the 1970s Lewisham Shopping Centre and the small grain, more traditional commercial buildings along Lewisham High Street.

2.2

Lewisham Shopping Centre comprises the multi-storey car park along Molesworth Street, retail units, Riverdale Hall, Lewisham House and several buildings fronting onto the High Street. All these buildings have no heritage or townscape value.

2.3

The other buildings on Lewisham High Street are more varied, comprising Victorian, Art Deco and post-war elements. This mix of building ages and styles is representative for a typical London high street.

2.4

Some of the existing buildings, including those which are locally listed, make a positive contribution to the character of the High Street. They have a consistent mid-height roofline and relate in scale, height and appearance to the buildings on the opposite side of the High Street.

2.5

2.6

2.7

The buildings which are locally listed, such as Nos. 100-104 and Nos. 90-98, display more decorative features and are generally built in a more lavish style than their mundane neighbours. However, they are standard examples of their type and lack any features that would distinguish them from similar buildings elsewhere in South London. Therefore, their heritage value has been identified as "Low" and the value of the remaining buildings as "Very low". Built in the 1970s, Lewisham Shopping Centre is a sprawling structure that comprises a 20 storey office block, a leisure hall, large service courts and a multi-storey car park. It lacks any architectural interest and has no heritage value. The tall element relates to the emerging cluster of tall buildings to the north, while the relentless car park block on Molesworth Street compromises the quality of the streetscape. A description of the buildings is provided below (Table 2.1), a map of the site is provided at Figure 2.1. LEWISHAM HIGH STREET NO. 212 – 210 – 208

206

198 – 204

196 – 192

190 -180

176 – 166

164 – 162 160 – 156

154 – 150

143-149

142-148

148 – 130

128

126 – 122

120

118-116

110-114 106-108

BRIEF DESCRIPTION Post war 4-storey modernist office block, comprising horizontal strip band windows and constructed from concrete. Simple 3-storey Victorian building, brick gable, minimal decorative use of brick, modern ground floor extension (see 198-204). Very limited historic interest. Forms a group with adjoining properties (Nos. 198-204). Plain 3-storey Victorian terrace, rendered, modern ground floor extension along whole frontage to accommodate public house functions. Very limited historic interest. Small 2-storey buildings, Nos. 194196 pre-war, No. 198 post-war rebuilt. The ground floor has a shopfront extension which projects into the street. Large Art Deco commercial building. It is one of the main retail units in Lewisham Centre. Locally listed.

HERITAGE VALUE No value

TOWNSCAPE VALUE Inactive frontage onto Molesworth Street, low townscape value

Very low value

Relates to grade II listed church and Prudential Building, also listed at grade II, opposite. Very low townscape value

98-90

Very low value

As above

93-95

No value

Low townscape value. Engages with historic buildings opposite.

Low value

Two 3-storey units dating from the 1950s-60s. Restrained modernist with horizontal strip band windows and constructed from red brick. First unit with panels in burgundy. In need of refurbishment. Projecting shopfronts have been added to each unit. Similar to Nos 176-166. This building dates from the 1950s-60s with shopfront extension. Building clad in corrugated metal, pre-war building with curved corner survives. Subject to opening up/investigative works. Post-war retail building with later façade redesign.

No value

Group value. Engages with historic buildings on opposite side, particularly nos. 143 – 149 Lewisham High Street (also locally listed). As above

No value

As above

Very Low value (front of building only)

As above

72-78

No value

As above

73-85

104- 100

86-88 85-87

82 – 84

143-149 Lewisham High Street comprises a commercial building with large faience blockwork and vertical fenestration. It derives historic and architectural interest as a fine example of early 20th century architecture expressed in large scale. 4-storey Art Deco building comprising Art Deco stone detailing, slim windows, with large ground floor extension. 1970s shopping centre main entrance with office on top floors, brutalist influences, red brick, protruding central element, vertical strip windows and horizontal band windows at top Simple red brick 3-storey buildings, post-war. Band windows on the upper floors. Festival of Britain influence Red brick 3-storey buildings, postwar, central windows unified with white frame, decorative vertical accents. Festival of Britain influence. Simple red brick 3-storey buildings, post-war. Band windows on the upper floors. Festival of Britain influence Victorian 3-storey buildings with large dormers yellow brick with white banding. Very limited historic interest. 4-storey red brick 1950s modernist block. Festival of Britain influence 3-storey post-war building, brick and panelling

Low value

The unusual use of faience on a building of this size and in this location where the surrounding vernacular is predominantly brick, gives this property positive townscape qualities.

Low value

Originally corner building, has now lost its role and is poorly integrated into shopping centre Blocks east-west connection, formerly Romer Avenue which continued Albion Way

Grand classic revival style former cinema, now converted into shops. Locally listed. A group listing of Victorian buildings. Nos 94-98 are constructed from yellow stock brick and display Dutch gables. Nos 90-92 show Victorian Italianate influence, original mansard roof survives. Forms group with adjoining properties. Locally listed. 93-95 Lewisham High Street comprises an attractive three storey curved corner building constructed of yellow stock brick. It faces onto Lewisham High Street and the market. Sharing the same address is the adjacent property, a four storey stone temple style building with giant order of fluted ionic columns over the upper three storeys. The original black metal windows are still in situ and are an essential element of this design. 3-storey post-war building with setback roof storey, red brick and white render Built in 1901, it comprises a generous corner block and is a building of three storeys plus attic, constructed in red brick with limestone detailing. It derives historic and architectural interest as an early 20th century Neo-Classical building. Part 6-storey brick building with concrete front part, 1970s, built as key entrance route into shopping centre, brutalist influence. Post-war 3-storey commercial building with inset balcony on top level, grid façade with geometric panels, poor condition. 73-77 date to c.1890, constructed of red brick with rising pilasters to roof level which

No value

Aligned in scale and height to High Street frontage. Very low townscape value.

Very low value (front of building only)

Aligned in scale and height to High Street frontage. Very low townscape value.

No value

Aligned in scale and height to High Street frontage. Very low townscape value.

Very low value

As above

No value

As above

No value Low value

No townscape value. Distracts from adjoining locally listed building. As above

Low value

As above

Low value

Very Low townscape value. Provides a necessary vertical emphasis that harmoniously links the neighbouring buildings.

No value

Aligned to adjoining buildings in height and scale. Very low townscape value. Low townscape value. Prominent corner plot location.

Low value

No value

No relationship with adjoining buildings. No townscape value.

No value

Aligned with adjoining buildings in height and scale. Very low townscape value.

Low value

Very low townscape value. Prominent height which

65-71

features carved ornamental brickwork and a decorated parapet, with an original mansard extension behind. No. 79 has a date stamp of 1886, and features a characteristic Dutch gable roof typology with stone dressings and pedimented window surrounds. Nos 81-85 are c.1850 and are more modest and traditional in style with a curved corner meeting Belmont Hill. Victorian building with a pitched roof 3-storeys, constructed from brick. Poor condition. Forms a group with adjoining properties. Very limited historic interest. Post-war replacement on historic narrow plot. 3-storeys with metal cladding. Poor condition. Forms a group with adjoining properties. Late 19th century. Constructed from red brick, the building comprises a Dutch gable and timber panelling on the façade. Purpose built public house. Forms group with adjoining properties. Locally listed.

creates variation on the streetscape.

Very low value

Aligned with adjoining buildings in height and scale. Very low townscape value.

No value

Aligned with adjoining buildings in height and scale. Very low townscape value.

Low value

Aligned with adjoining buildings in height and scale. Contributes positively to the townscape as one of the few historic buildings at entrance into High Street. Complements buildings on opposite side of High Street and grade II listed clock tower. Low townscape value. Prominent plot location, directly opposite Lewisham Clock Tower.

Numbers 65-71 comprise a four storey Art Deco building constructed of red brick with carved stone details including low relief plaques depicting a steam train, lorry and steam ships with the dates 1868-1933 in the tower. It was built as a department stored named ‘Tower House’ in 19333 for the Royal Arsenal Cooperative Society. It derives historic and architectural interest as a good example of a 1930s purpose-built department store for local company Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society. Numbers 3-storey Victorian building with stone detailing around the windows. Forms a group with adjoining properties. Very limited historic interest. 3-storey modern replacement building. Brick. Forms a group with adjoining properties. Row of simple Victorian brick buildings, architectural detailing mostly absent. Forms a group with adjoining properties. Very limited historic interest.

Low value

20 storey office block, completed in the 1970s.

No value

Sainsbury Yard block

Main shopping centre entrance from Rennell Street and Station Road. In poor condition.

No value

Riverdale Hall

Red brick 1970s block at centre of the Site.

No value

Molesworth Street multi-storey car park and ramps

Red brick 1970s multi-storey car park with concrete ramps.

No value

64 – 62

60-58 56 – 50

OTHER BUILDINGS Lewisham House

Table 2.1: Description of the buildings on the Site. 17

Figure 2.1: Heritage values map.

Very low value

Aligned with adjoining buildings in height and scale. Very low townscape value.

No value

Aligned with adjoining buildings in height and scale. Very low townscape value. Aligned with adjoining buildings in height and scale. Very low townscape value.

Very low value

Neutral impact on the town centre in terms of height and scale. Currently vacant. Neglected entrance lobby makes a negative contribution to the surrounding streetscape. No townscape value. Inactive frontage onto Rennell Street. Exacerbates hostile condition. No townscape value. Built above commercial units at the centre of the Site. Neutral contribution to surrounding streets. No townscape value. Creates a cliff-like frontage which is detrimental to Molesworth Street. No townscape value.

Figure 2.2: Map of designated and non-designated heritage assets on Site.

3.0 CONCLUSION 3.1

The majority of buildings on the Site have no historic or townscape interest, including Lewisham House, the multi-storey car park and Riverdale Hall which occupy the western part of the Site.

3.2

The eastern part of the Site is integrated into Lewisham High Street which retains a traditional low-rise character with buildings of predominantly 3 storeys with flats above shops. There are several locally listed buildings and buildings of townscape merit on this frontage, which have been identified on the heritage designation map at Figure 2.2. The opposite street frontage comprises a number of statutorily listed buildings and locally listed buildings. The grade II listed clock tower is located at the northern end of Lewisham High Street.

3.3

The northern section of Lewisham High Street retains a group of older buildings which, while individually of very low and low value (the locally listed Joiners Arms), create a sense of identity and historic context. The southern section is similar, comprising the locally listed 180-190 Lewisham High Street and 188-204 Lewisham High Street which is identified as a building of townscape merit. Together, these historic buildings provide a setting for the grade II listed St Saviour's Church and the former Prudential building nearby.

3.4

The central section of the Site comprises the least sensitive buildings, predominantly the existing shopping centre building and a number of buildings which have been identified as having no value. Of very low value in this section of Lewisham High Street is the Art Deco frontage behind the modern fabric of the H and M building, as well as 116-118 Lewisham High

MONTAGU EVANS 70 ST MARY AXE LONDON EC3A 8BE

Street. 142-148 is a locally listed building which lies adjacent to the shopping centre entrance on this frontage. The removal of the shopping centre buildings would repair Lewisham's townscape and allow for the insertion of new high-performing buildings that serve the local community in a more efficient way. 3.5

The locally listed buildings on the Site have been identified as having low heritage value but are typical examples of their type.

WWW.MONTAGU-EVANS.CO.UK London | Edinburgh | Glasgow | Manchester 19

WE CONSIDER OUR CREDENTIALS, HOW WE HAVE STRUCTURED OUR BID AND OUR PROPOSED CHARGING RATES TO BE COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE INFORMATION. WE REQUEST THAT THESE BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL.

APPENDIX 7: LEWISHAM CLOCK TOWER STUDY PREPARED BY MONTAGU EVANS Lewisham Shopping Centre, Lewisham

LEWISHAM CLOCK TOWER STUDY PREPARED BY MONTAGU EVANS LLP OCTOBER 2024

CONTENTS 1.0

HISTORIC PHOTOS ........................................................................................................... 3

2.0

NON VERIFIED VUCITY IMAGES ..................................................................................... 8

3.0

VERIFIED VIEW ............................................................................................................... 13

1.0 HISTORIC PHOTOS

Figure 1.3 Lewisham Clock Tower – 1920s Figure 1.1 Lewisham Clock Tower – 1870

Figure 1.2 Lewisham Clock Tower – 1905

Figure 1.4 Lewisham Clock Tower – 1935

Figure 1.5 Lewisham Clock Tower – 1963

Figure 1.7 Lewisham Clock Tower – 1984

Figure 1.6 Lewisham Clock Tower – 1979

2.0 NON VERIFIED VUCITY IMAGES LEWISHAM CLOCK TOWER 2.1

The Clock Tower was Grade II listed in 1973. It is located on Lewisham High Street opposite the Application Site. The Clock Tower was erected in 1897 to celebrate Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee. It is constructed in Portland stone and formed of three stages and topped with a squat stone spire flanked by flying buttresses. A crown sits on top of the structure. The Clock Tower has historical interest due to its commemorative function. It is also a fine example of its type and forms a key landmark in Lewisham’s town centre. The structure was moved slightly from its original location to accommodate road layout changes in the 1990s. CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE

2.2

Figure 1.8 Lewisham Clock Tower – 2014

The setting of the clock tower is defined by the existing Lewisham Shopping Centre and the other commercial buildings along Lewisham High Street. This part of the High Street is a busy commercial area, and therefore contributes to the setting of the listed building to a certain extent. The buildings in this area reflect the architectural styles of the last 150 years, including attractive Victorian buildings, the dramatic Art Deco commercial buildings of the inter-war years and the Festival of England style buildings of the post-World War II era. Some of the more recent developments do not make a positive contribution to the townscape, such as the large shopping centre blocks, Lewisham House and the bland retail frontages of the late 20th century have compromised the setting of the clock tower. Motor traffic, particularly buses and delivery vehicles for the market, market paraphernalia and street furniture further impact on the potential quality of the streetscape and detract from the heritage asset. The historic and contemporary photographs in the previous section demonstrate the extent of change that has occurred to the setting of Lewisham Clock Tower, given its location its town centre location.

2.3

Since the clock tower was built, Lewisham High Street has undergone major changes. Following the destructions of World War II much of the town centre was rebuilt in the 1950s. The arrival of the shopping centre in the late 20th century introduced a new super structure into the town centre which erased much of the original street layout. Road widening and improvement works necessitated the clock tower to be moved. The receptor is an object structure within the main high street and has a high ability to accommodate the type of change proposed without change to its value. The Proposed Development would remove some of the late 20th century structures from the immediate setting of the clock tower and introduce new, high-quality architecture, while the transformation of the Site would have a general uplifting impact on the town centre. The taller elements would be set back from the clock tower behind the existing buildings along the high street frontage. They would appear as a backdrop to the receptor and the traditional buildings in the foreground. The Proposed Development would neither impede nor improve the ability of the observer to recognise and appreciate the listed clock tower (as demonstrated by Verified View 29 and the VuCity images below). The Proposed Development would thus have a minor effect on the receptor. The effect would be beneficial, given that the Proposed Development would remove negative elements from the receptor’s setting and introduce a new piece of high-quality townscape.

Figure 1.9 Lewisham Clock Tower – 2024

Figure 2.3 VuCity View S2

Figure 2.1 View Location Plan – Lewisham High Street

Figure 2.4 VuCity View S3

Figure 2.2 VuCity View S1

Figure 2.5 VuCity View E1

Figure 2.7 VuCity View E3

Figure 2.6 VuCity View E2

3.0 VERIFIED VIEW

MONTAGU EVANS 70 ST MARY AXE LONDON EC3A 8BE

WWW.MONTAGU-EVANS.CO.UK London | Edinburgh | Glasgow | Manchester 13

WE CONSIDER OUR CREDENTIALS, HOW WE HAVE STRUCTURED OUR BID AND OUR PROPOSED CHARGING RATES TO BE COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE INFORMATION. WE REQUEST THAT THESE BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL.

MONTAGU EVANS 70 ST MARY AXE, LONDON, EC3A 8BE TEL: +44 (0)20 7493 4002

WWW.MONTAGU-EVANS.CO.UK

LONDON | EDINBURGH | GLASGOW | MANCHESTER

APPENDIX 1: VERIFIED VIEWS AND METHODOLOGY PREPARED BY MILLER HARE Lewisham Shopping Centre, Lewisham

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study October 2024

Contents 1

Views Assessment

25 | Lewisham Park

114

1 | Lewisham DLR 2023

26 | Sunninghill Roads / Lewisham Way

117

2 | Albion Way

27 | Halesworth Road

122

3 | Hilly Fields

28 | Silk Mills Path

125

4 | Blythe Hill Fields

29 | Lewisham Clock Tower

128

5.1 | Vicars Hill at Shell Road

30 | Mercia Grove

133

5.2 | Ellerdale Street

31 | Marischal Road

138

6 | Ladywell Station Bridge

32 | King John’s Walk/Eltham Palace

143

7 | Mountsﬁeld Park

33 | Outside Prendergast Vale School

146

8 | Courthill Road

34 | Waterway Avenue (Waterlink Way)

151

9 | St Stephen’s (Cressingham Road)

35 | Ryecroft Road

154

10 | Lewisham High Street

36 | Millennium Circle

157

11 | Hyde Vale (Blackheath)

36w | Millennium Circle | winter

160

11w | Hyde Vale (Blackheath) | winter

37 | The Queens House gardens

165

12 | Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road

38 | St Johns Park | Option 1

168

12w | Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road | winter

39 | Greenwich Local View 5: Eltham Park (North) to Central London

171

13 | Chalton Way/Greenwich Park

Appendices

174

13w | Chalton Way/Greenwich Park | winter

Technical notes

174

14 | Island Gardens

View Locations

175

15 | Belmont Hill / Cedars Grove

Details of schemes

183

16 | Belmont Hill

Model Overview (Plots N1, N2 and Maximum Parameters)

184

17 | St Mary the Virgin

Model Overview (Plots N1, N2 and Illustrative)

185

18 | Chudleigh Road

Accurate Visual Representations

186

Client Land Securities Properties Limited

19 | All Saints’ Church

Methodology for the production of Accurate Visual Representations 188

19w | All Saints’ Church | winter

Architect Studio Egret West, Mae Architects & Archio Architects

20 | Goffers Road

20w | Goffers Road | winter

21 | Telegraph Hill

102

22 | Loampit Hill

105

23 | Lee High Road

108

24 | Honor Oak Road / Honor Oak Park

111

Townscape Consultant Montagu Evans LLP Visualisation Millerhare

Views Assessment

1 | Lewisham DLR 2023

2 | Albion Way

3 | Hilly Fields

4 | Blythe Hill Fields

5.1 | Vicars Hill at Shell Road

5.2 | Ellerdale Street

6 | Ladywell Station Bridge

7 | Mountsﬁeld Park

8 | Courthill Road

9 | St Stephen’s (Cressingham Road)

10 | Lewisham High Street

11 | Hyde Vale (Blackheath)

11w | Hyde Vale (Blackheath) | winter

12 | Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road

12w | Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road | winter

13 | Chalton Way/Greenwich Park

13w | Chalton Way/Greenwich Park | winter

14 | Island Gardens

15 | Belmont Hill / Cedars Grove

16 | Belmont Hill

17 | St Mary the Virgin

18 | Chudleigh Road

19 | All Saints’ Church

19w | All Saints’ Church | winter

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study October 2024

20 | Goffers Road

20w | Goffers Road | winter

21 | Telegraph Hill

22 | Loampit Hill

23 | Lee High Road

24 | Honor Oak Road / Honor Oak Park

25 | Lewisham Park

26 | Sunninghill Roads / Lewisham Way

27 | Halesworth Road

28 | Silk Mills Path

29 | Lewisham Clock Tower

30 | Mercia Grove

31 | Marischal Road

32 | King John’s Walk/Eltham Palace

33 | Outside Prendergast Vale School

34 | Waterway Avenue (Waterlink Way)

35 | Ryecroft Road

36 | Millennium Circle

36w | Millennium Circle | winter

37 | The Queens House gardens

38 | St Johns Park | Option 1

39 | Greenwich Local View 5: Eltham Park (North) to Central London

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study October 2024

Camera Location

HFOV

View

Description

MH Reference

Type

Method

Easting

Northing

Height

Camera

Lens

Photo

Image

Photo date/time

Bearing distance (km)

Lewisham DLR 2023

1100

Render (AVR3)

Veriﬁed

538143.2

175837.0

9.39

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

73.9

73.2

09/10/2023 15:43

165.0

0.3

Albion Way

5500

Render (AVR3)

Veriﬁed

538483.6

175372.9

14.06

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

73.9

73.3

10/10/2023 07:47

303.9

0.3

Hilly Fields

1400

Render (AVR3)

Veriﬁed

537365.8

175344.0

51.99

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.5

73.4

09/10/2023 14:44

76.4

0.9

Blythe Hill Fields

1500

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

536606.6

173870.8

54.82

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.7

73.4

09/10/2023 13:57

43.9

2.3

5.1

Vicars Hill at Shell Road

1900

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

537548.6

175453.0

30.58

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.1

73.2

09/10/2023 14:56

81.8

0.7

5.2

Ellerdale Street

1700

Render (AVR3)

Veriﬁed

537746.1

175511.0

15.22

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.3

73.2

09/10/2023 15:07

85.3

0.5

Ladywell Station Bridge

0200

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

537739.5

174936.2

18.53

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

74.5

73.4

01/11/2021 15:08

38.1

0.8

Mountsﬁeld Park

0210

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

538393.1

173937.4

34.69

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

73.5

72.8

28/10/2021 14:47

353.9

1.6

Courthill Road

0230

Render (AVR3)

Veriﬁed

538422.3

174876.2

24.99

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

73.7

72.7

28/10/2021 14:23

343.3

0.7

St Stephen's (Cressingham Road)

2500

Render (AVR3)

Veriﬁed

538292.9

175809.9

9.60

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.3

73.5

10/10/2023 06:35

195.7

0.3

Lewisham High Street

0260

Render (AVR3)

Veriﬁed

538154.8

175127.3

12.04

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

74.3

73.3

01/11/2021 13:49

8.8

0.4

Hyde Vale (Blackheath)

2700

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

538631.9

176733.4

46.56

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.4

73.5

10/10/2023 07:17

199.2

1.3

11w

Hyde Vale (Blackheath) | winter

2750

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

538632.0

176733.4

46.52

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.1

73.2

16/02/2024 09:31

199.2

1.3

Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road

4800

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

538870.8

176824.8

48.50

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.7

73.3

10/10/2023 07:07

207.0

1.4

12w

Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road | winter

4850

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

538870.8

176824.7

48.41

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.1

73.2

16/02/2024 10:30

207.0

1.4

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park

6000

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

539713.8

177058.4

42.91

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.3

73.1

08/10/2023 11:34

224.7

2.1

13w

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park | winter

6050

Render (AVR3)

Veriﬁed

539713.7

177058.4

42.90

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.1

73.2

16/02/2024 11:27

224.7

2.1

Island Gardens

7600

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

538341.5

178276.1

6.74

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.5

73.4

10/10/2023 06:35

182.6

2.7

Belmont Hill / Cedars Grove

0350

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

538919.6

175608.8

30.86

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

73.7

72.6

28/10/2021 12:08

265.2

0.7

Belmont Hill

0360

Render (AVR3)

Veriﬁed

538578.6

175687.8

20.50

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

72.6

28/10/2021 12:22

249.0

0.4

St Mary the Virgin

0370

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

537949.8

174766.4

13.72

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

74.2

73.3

01/11/2021 13:22

19.0

0.8

Chudleigh Road

0400

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

537273.3

174638.8

18.39

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

73.5

72.8

28/10/2021 16:16

46.1

1.3

All Saints' Church

5700

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

539643.3

176273.5

37.43

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.1

73.2

08/10/2023 12:17

243.1

1.6

19w

All Saints' Church | winter

5750

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

539643.3

176273.5

37.44

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.1

73.2

16/02/2024 11:46

243.1

1.6

Goffers Road

0490

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

539029.5

176491.5

46.98

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

73.6

72.8

28/10/2021 11:05

220.7

1.2

20w

Goffers Road | winter

4950

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

539029.5

176491.5

46.98

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.2

73.3

16/02/2024 11:01

220.7

1.2

Telegraph Hill

0420

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

535816.0

176066.5

48.88

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

73.7

73.2

28/10/2021 16:49

102.1

2.5

Loampit Hill

4400

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

537469.3

176091.3

20.01

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.5

73.4

09/10/2023 15:30

125.8

0.9

Lee High Road

0450

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

539265.1

175190.6

17.78

Canon EOS 5DS R DSLR

24mm

73.6

72.8

28/10/2021 12:43

289.0

1.1

Honor Oak Road / Honor Oak Park

0670

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

535322.2

173974.5

71.45

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

73.8

73.1

10/10/2023 14:44

61.5

3.3

Lewisham Park

0640

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

538125.5

174477.9

16.47

NIKON Z 7 DSLR

24mm

72.9

72.1

08/03/2022 14:13

5.0

1.1

Sunninghill Roads / Lewisham Way

0680

Render (AVR3)

Veriﬁed

537620.0

176002.6

12.06

NIKON Z 7 DSLR

24mm

72.2

71.9

15/07/2022 16:38

127.0

0.8

Halesworth Road

7000

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

537546.4

175818.7

28.01

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.4

73.2

09/10/2023 15:19

111.7

0.7

Silk Mills Path

0990

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

538253.0

175992.7

11.59

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

73.7

73.2

22/10/2023 09:12

184.3

0.4

Lewisham Clock Tower

0910

Render (AVR3)

Veriﬁed

538351.3

175592.2

9.99

NIKON Z 7 DSLR

24mm

72.2

71.9

15/07/2022 10:48

252.2

0.1

Mercia Grove

0720

Render (AVR3)

Veriﬁed

538432.1

175473.8

11.89

NIKON Z 7 DSLR

24mm

71.9

15/07/2022 10:26

289.8

0.2

Marischal Road

0730

Render (AVR3)

Veriﬁed

538573.8

175570.7

14.14

NIKON Z 7 DSLR

24mm

72.0

15/07/2022 10:11

266.6

0.4

King John’s Walk/Eltham Palace

0610

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

542264.3

173914.0

53.92

NIKON Z 7 DSLR

24mm

72.1

20/01/2022 11:42

292.0

4.4

Outside Prendergast Vale School

0740

Render (AVR3)

Veriﬁed

537978.5

175732.5

9.40

NIKON Z 7 DSLR

24mm

71.9

15/07/2022 15:44

127.1

0.3

Waterway Avenue (Waterlink Way)

0750

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

538026.1

175642.5

10.28

NIKON Z 7 DSLR

24mm

71.9

71.8

15/07/2022 15:57

115.5

0.2

Ryecroft Road

0590

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

538376.4

174836.2

22.22

NIKON Z 7 DSLR

24mm

72.3

72.1

01/11/2021 13:51

347.6

0.7

Millennium Circle

3000

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

539340.1

176602.0

45.46

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.1

73.2

08/10/2023 11:57

226.8

1.5

36w

Millennium Circle | winter

3050

Render (AVR3)

Veriﬁed

539340.0

176602.0

45.41

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.1

73.3

16/02/2024 11:13

226.8

1.5

Greenwich Local View 5: Eltham Park (North) to Central London

2350

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

543733.1

175409.5

75.53

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

50mm

39.0

38.7

14/07/2024 11:36

271.5

5.5

The Queens House Gardens (Greenwich Park)

2070

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

538722.1

177838.9

9.52

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.0

73.2

14/07/2024 08:07

192.4

2.3

St Johns Park

2100

Wireline (AVR1)

Veriﬁed

540282.4

177156.5

42.67

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

24mm

74.1

73.1

04/07/2024 10:31

232.1

2.6

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study October 2024

View location map 5

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study October 2024

Lewisham DLR 2023

4737_1101

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham DLR 2023

4737_1103

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham DLR 2023

4737_1104

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham DLR 2023

4737_1106

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham DLR 2023

4737_1105

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Albion Way

4737_5501

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Albion Way

4737_5503

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Albion Way

4737_5504

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Albion Way

4737_5506

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Albion Way

4737_5505

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hilly Fields

4737_1401

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hilly Fields

4737_1403

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hilly Fields

4737_1404

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hilly Fields

4737_1406

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hilly Fields

4737_1405

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Blythe Hill Fields

4737_1501

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Blythe Hill Fields

4737_1503

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Blythe Hill Fields

4737_1504

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Vicars Hill at Shell Road

4737_1901

5.1

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Vicars Hill at Shell Road

4737_1903

5.1

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Vicars Hill at Shell Road

4737_1904

5.1

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ellerdale Street

4737_1701

5.2

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ellerdale Street

4737_1703

5.2

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ellerdale Street

4737_1704

5.2

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ellerdale Street

4737_1706

5.2

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ellerdale Street

4737_1705

5.2

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ladywell Station Bridge

4737_0201

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ladywell Station Bridge

4737_0203

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ladywell Station Bridge

4737_0204

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Mountsﬁeld Park

4737_0211

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Mountsﬁeld Park

4737_0213

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Mountsﬁeld Park

4737_0214

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Courthill Road

4737_0231

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Courthill Road

4737_0233

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Courthill Road

4737_0234

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Courthill Road

4737_0236

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Courthill Road

4737_0235

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Stephen’s (Cressingham Road)

4737_2501

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Stephen’s (Cressingham Road)

4737_2503

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Stephen’s (Cressingham Road)

4737_2504

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Stephen’s (Cressingham Road)

4737_2506

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Stephen’s (Cressingham Road)

4737_2505

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham High Street

4737_0261

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham High Street

4737_0263

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham High Street

4737_0264

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham High Street

4737_0266

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham High Street

4737_0265

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hyde Vale (Blackheath)

4737_2701

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hyde Vale (Blackheath)

4737_2703

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hyde Vale (Blackheath)

4737_2704

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hyde Vale (Blackheath) | winter

4737_2751

11w

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hyde Vale (Blackheath) | winter

4737_2753

11w

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Hyde Vale (Blackheath) | winter

4737_2754

11w

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road

4737_4801

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road

4737_4803

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road

4737_4804

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road | winter

4737_4851

12w

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road | winter

4737_4853

12w

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road | winter

4737_4854

12w

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park

4737_6001

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park

4737_6003

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park

4737_6004

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park | winter

4737_6051

13w

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park | winter

4737_6053

13w

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park | winter

4737_6054

13w

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park | winter

4737_6056

13w

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chalton Way/Greenwich Park | winter

4737_6055

13w

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Island Gardens

4737_7601

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Island Gardens

4737_7603

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Island Gardens

4737_7604

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Belmont Hill / Cedars Grove

4737_0351

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Belmont Hill / Cedars Grove

4737_0353

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Belmont Hill / Cedars Grove

4737_0354

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Belmont Hill

4737_0361

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Belmont Hill

4737_0363

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Belmont Hill

4737_0364

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Belmont Hill

4737_0366

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Belmont Hill

4737_0365

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Mary the Virgin

4737_0371

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Mary the Virgin

4737_0373

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Mary the Virgin

4737_0374

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chudleigh Road

4737_0401

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chudleigh Road

4737_0403

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Chudleigh Road

4737_0404

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

All Saints’ Church

4737_5701

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

All Saints’ Church

4737_5703

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

All Saints’ Church

4737_5704

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

All Saints’ Church | winter

4737_5751

19w

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

All Saints’ Church | winter

4737_5753

19w

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

All Saints’ Church | winter

4737_5754

19w

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Goffers Road

4737_0491

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Goffers Road

4737_0493

N1 + N2 + Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Goffers Road

4737_0494

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Goffers Road | winter

4737_4951

20w

Existing

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Goffers Road | winter

4737_4953

20w

N1 + N2 + Parameters

100

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Goffers Road | winter

4737_4954

20w

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

101

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Telegraph Hill

4737_0421

Existing

102

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Telegraph Hill

4737_0423

N1 + N2 + Parameters

103

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Telegraph Hill

4737_0424

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

104

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Loampit Hill

4737_4401

Existing

105

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Loampit Hill

4737_4403

N1 + N2 + Parameters

106

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Loampit Hill

4737_4404

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

107

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lee High Road

4737_0451

Existing

108

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lee High Road

4737_0453

N1 + N2 + Parameters

109

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lee High Road

4737_0454

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

110

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Honor Oak Road / Honor Oak Park

4737_0671

Existing

111

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Honor Oak Road / Honor Oak Park

4737_0673

N1 + N2 + Parameters

112

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Honor Oak Road / Honor Oak Park

4737_0674

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

113

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham Park

4737_0641

Existing

114

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham Park

4737_0643

N1 + N2 + Parameters

115

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham Park

4737_0644

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

116

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Sunninghill Roads / Lewisham Way

4737_0681

Existing

117

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Sunninghill Roads / Lewisham Way

4737_0683

N1 + N2 + Parameters

118

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Sunninghill Roads / Lewisham Way

4737_0684

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

119

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Sunninghill Roads / Lewisham Way

4737_0686

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

120

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Sunninghill Roads / Lewisham Way

4737_0685

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

121

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Halesworth Road

4737_7001

Existing

122

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Halesworth Road

4737_7003

N1 + N2 + Parameters

123

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Halesworth Road

4737_7004

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

124

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Silk Mills Path

4737_0991

Existing

125

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Silk Mills Path

4737_0993

N1 + N2 + Parameters

126

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Silk Mills Path

4737_0994

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

127

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham Clock Tower

4737_0911

Existing

128

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham Clock Tower

4737_0913

N1 + N2 + Parameters

129

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham Clock Tower

4737_0914

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

130

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham Clock Tower

4737_0916

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

131

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Lewisham Clock Tower

4737_0915

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

132

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Mercia Grove

4737_0721

Existing

133

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Mercia Grove

4737_0723

N1 + N2 + Parameters

134

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Mercia Grove

4737_0724

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

135

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Mercia Grove

4737_0726

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

136

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Mercia Grove

4737_0725

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

137

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Marischal Road

4737_0731

Existing

138

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Marischal Road

4737_0733

N1 + N2 + Parameters

139

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Marischal Road

4737_0734

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

140

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Marischal Road

4737_0736

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

141

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Marischal Road

4737_0735

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

142

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

King John’s Walk/Eltham Palace

4737_0611

Existing

143

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

King John’s Walk/Eltham Palace

4737_0613

N1 + N2 + Parameters

144

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

King John’s Walk/Eltham Palace

4737_0614

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

145

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Outside Prendergast Vale School

4737_0741

Existing

146

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Outside Prendergast Vale School

4737_0743

N1 + N2 + Parameters

147

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Outside Prendergast Vale School

4737_0744

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

148

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Outside Prendergast Vale School

4737_0746

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

149

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Outside Prendergast Vale School

4737_0745

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

150

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Waterway Avenue (Waterlink Way)

4737_0751

Existing

151

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Waterway Avenue (Waterlink Way)

4737_0753

N1 + N2 + Parameters

152

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Waterway Avenue (Waterlink Way)

4737_0754

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

153

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ryecroft Road

4737_0591

Existing

154

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ryecroft Road

4737_0593

N1 + N2 + Parameters

155

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Ryecroft Road

4737_0594

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

156

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Millennium Circle

4737_3001

Existing

157

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Millennium Circle

4737_3003

N1 + N2 + Parameters

158

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Millennium Circle

4737_3004

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

159

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Millennium Circle | winter

4737_3051

36w

Existing

160

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Millennium Circle | winter

4737_3053

36w

N1 + N2 + Parameters

161

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Millennium Circle | winter

4737_3054

36w

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

162

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Millennium Circle | winter

4737_3056

36w

N1 + N2 + Illustrative + Parameter+ Cumulative

163

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Millennium Circle | winter

4737_3055

36w

N1 + N2 + Illustrative

164

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

The Queens House gardens

4737_2071

Existing

165

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

The Queens House gardens

4737_2073

N1 + N2 + Parameters

166

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

The Queens House gardens

4737_2074

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

167

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Johns Park | Option 1

4737_2101

Existing

168

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Johns Park | Option 1

4737_2103

N1 + N2 + Parameters

169

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

St Johns Park | Option 1

4737_2104

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

170

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Greenwich Local View 5: Eltham Park (North) to Central London

4737_2351

Existing

171

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Greenwich Local View 5: Eltham Park (North) to Central London

4737_2353

N1 + N2 + Parameters

172

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Greenwich Local View 5: Eltham Park (North) to Central London

4737_2354

N1 + N2 + Parameters + Cumulative

173

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study

October 2024

Appendices A1

Technical notes Scope

A1.1

A1.2

A1.3

A1.4

174

on 35mm ﬁlm camera). LVMF views in addition have been shown with their wider setting

This study tests the visual impact of the Proposed Development by Land Securities Properties Limited at Lewisham Shopping Centre. It consists of a series of accurately prepared photomontage images or Accurate Visual Representations (AVR) which are designed to show the visibility and appearance of the Proposed Development from a range of publicly accessible locations around the site. The views have been prepared by Miller Hare Limited. The views included in the study were selected by the project team and they include, where relevant, standard assessment points deﬁned by the Mayor of London and the Local Planning Authority. Where requested, view locations have been reﬁned and additional views added. The full list of views is shown in thumbnail foazrm on the preceeding pages, together with a map showing their location. Detailed co-ordinates for the views, together with information about the source photography are shown in Appendix A2 “View Locations”. In preparing each AVR a consistent methodology and approach to rendering has been followed. General notes on the AVRs are given in Appendix A6 “Accurate Visual Representations”, and the detailed methodology used is described in Appendix A7 “Methodology for the production of Accurate Visual Representations”. From each viewpoint a large format photograph has been taken as the basis of the study image. The composition of this photograph has been selected to allow the Proposed Development to be assessed in a meaningful way in relation to relevant elements of the surrounding context. Typically, photographs have been composed with a horizontal axis of view in order to allow vertical elements of the proposals to be shown vertically in the resulting image. If required in order to show the full extent of the proposals in an natural way the horizon line of the image has been allowed to fall above or below the centre of the image. This has been achieved by applying vertical rise at source using a large format camera or by subsequent cropping of the image. In a limited number of cases the source photograph has been extended vertically to ensure that the full height of the proposals are shown in the images of the future condition. In all cases the horizon line and location of the optical axis are clearly shown by red arrow markers at the edges of the image.

• Mid-distance views – horizontal Field of View approximately 74 degrees (equivalent to a 24mm lens on 35mm ﬁlm camera)

Schemes A1.10

• Local views – horizontal Field of View approximately 74 degrees (equivalent to a 24mm lens on 35mm ﬁlm camera) A1.7

For each AVR image, the precise Field of View, after any cropping or extension has been applied is shown clearly using indexed markings running around the edges of the image. These indicate increments of 1, 5 and 10 degrees marked away from Optical Axis. Using this peripheral annotation it is possible to detect optical distortions in parts of the image away from the Optical Axis . It is also possible to simulate a different ﬁeld of view by masking off an appropriate area of the image. More detailed information on the border annotation is contained in Appendix A6 “Accurate Visual Representations”. Conditions

A1.8

From each selected viewpoint a set of accurate images have been created comparing the future view with the current conditions represented by a carefully taken large format photograph. In this study the following conditions are compared: • Existing – the appearance today as recorded on the speciﬁed date and time • Proposed – the future appearance were the Proposed Development to be constructed • Cumulative – the Proposed Development is shown in the context of other signiﬁcant schemes considered relevant by the project team Styles

A1.9

For each viewpoint, the Proposed Development is shown in a defined graphical style. These styles comply with the definitions of AVR style defined by the London View Management Framework. The styles used in this study are:

A1.5

A1.6

In this study the following groups of views have been defined:

• AVR 2 – a simple white rendered representation showing the silhouette and architectural form of the proposals.

• Distant views – typically with a horizontal Field of View approximately 48 degrees (equivalent to a 35mm lens

• AVR 3 – a fully rendered representation of the building showing the likely appearance of the proposed materials

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study October 2024

under the lighting conditions obtaining in the selected photograph.

A1.11

The Proposed Development shown in the study has been defined by drawings and specifications prepared by the client’s design team issued to Millerhare in August 2024. Computer models reflecting the Proposed Development have been assembled and refined by Millerhare and images from these models have been supplied to the project team to be checked for accuracy against the design intent. An overview of the study model annotated with key heights is illustrated in Appendix A3 “Details of schemes”.

Appendices (continued) A2

175

View Locations

1 | Lewisham DLR 2023

2 | Albion Way

3 | Hilly Fields

4 | Blythe Hill Fields

5.1 | Vicars Hill at Shell Road

5.2 | Ellerdale Street

Lewisham Shopping Centre, Molesworth Street, London SE13 Visual Impact Study

August 2024

Appendices (continued)

176

6 | Ladywell Station Bridge

7 | Mountsﬁeld Park

8 | Courthill Road

9 | St Stephen’s (Cressingham Road)

10 | Lewisham High Street

11 | Hyde Vale (Blackheath)

Lewisham Shopping Centre, Molesworth Street, London SE13 Visual Impact Study

August 2024

Appendices (continued)

177

11w | Hyde Vale (Blackheath) | winter

12 | Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road

12w | Shooters Hill / General Woolfe Road | winter

13 | Chalton Way/Greenwich Park

13w | Chalton Way/Greenwich Park | winter

14 | Island Gardens

Lewisham Shopping Centre, Molesworth Street, London SE13 Visual Impact Study

August 2024

Appendices (continued)

178

15 | Belmont Hill / Cedars Grove

16 | Belmont Hill

17 | St Mary the Virgin

18 | Chudleigh Road

19 | All Saints’ Church

19w | All Saints’ Church | winter

Lewisham Shopping Centre, Molesworth Street, London SE13 Visual Impact Study

August 2024

Appendices (continued)

179

20 | Goffers Road

20w | Goffers Road | winter

21 | Telegraph Hill

22 | Loampit Hill

23 | Lee High Road

24 | Honor Oak Road / Honor Oak Park

Lewisham Shopping Centre, Molesworth Street, London SE13 Visual Impact Study

August 2024

Appendices (continued)

180

25 | Lewisham Park

26 | Sunninghill Roads / Lewisham Way

27 | Halesworth Road

28 | Silk Mills Path

29 | Lewisham Clock Tower

30 | Mercia Grove

Lewisham Shopping Centre, Molesworth Street, London SE13 Visual Impact Study

August 2024

Appendices (continued)

181

31 | Marischal Road

32 | King John’s Walk/Eltham Palace

33 | Outside Prendergast Vale School

34 | Waterway Avenue (Waterlink Way)

35 | Ryecroft Road

36 | Millennium Circle

Lewisham Shopping Centre, Molesworth Street, London SE13 Visual Impact Study

August 2024

Appendices (continued)

182

36w | Millennium Circle | winter

37 | The Queens House gardens

38 | St Johns Park | Option 1

39 | Greenwich Local View 5: Eltham Park (North) to Central London

Lewisham Shopping Centre, Molesworth Street, London SE13 Visual Impact Study

August 2024

Appendices (continued) Details of schemes

index

scheme name

address

reference

status

source of model data

positioning method

MH reference

colour

Lewisham Shopping Centre - N1

Lewisham Shopping Centre

n/a

Lewisham

Proposed

Paper planning application drawings from local authority

Best ﬁt to Ordnance Survey

lews0078.detail240919-mae-proposed

Blue

Lewisham Shopping Centre - N2

Lewisham Shopping Centre

n/a

Lewisham

Proposed

Paper planning application drawings from local authority

Best ﬁt to Ordnance Survey

lews0078.detail241008-archio-proposed-n2

Blue

Lewisham Shopping Centre Maximum Parameters

Lewisham Shopping Centre

n/a

Lewisham

Proposed

Paper planning application drawings from local authority

Best ﬁt to Ordnance Survey

lews0078.mass240731-sew-proposed- Purple parameter

Lewisham Retail Park

Lewisham Retail Park, Loampit Vale, London, SE13 7SN

DC/16/097629

Lewisham

Legal Consent granted

Paper planning application drawings from local authority

Best ﬁt to Ordnance Survey

lews0091.surface211126-dp-proposed

Lewisham Covered Market

DC/24/136236

Lewisham

Legal Consent granted

Paper planning application drawings from local authority

Best ﬁt to Ordnance Survey

Aerial diagram showing location of schemes

183

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study October 2024

Orange Orange

Appendices (continued) A4

Model Overview (Plots N1, N2 and Maximum Parameters)

Plot N1 E 538225.07m N 175689.27m 89.15m AOD

Maximum Parameter E 538181.21m N 175690.96m 124.25m AOD

Plot N1 E 538235.73m N 175658.37m 89.15m AOD

Plot N2 E 538245.95m N 175605.16m 61.70m AOD

Plot N2 E 538257.68m N 175570.19m 61.70m AOD

Maximum Parameter E 538210.19m N 175282.38m 29.73m AOD

Millerhare reference: lews0078\+detail240919-mae-proposed - lews0078\+detail241008-archio-proposed-n2 - lews0078\+mass240731-sew-proposed-parameter 184

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study October 2024

Appendices (continued) A5

Model Overview (Plots N1, N2 and Illustrative)

Plot N1 E 538225.07m N 175689.27m 89.15m AOD

Illustrative E 538183.26m N 175691.70m 119.25m AOD

Plot N1 E 538235.73m N 175658.37m 89.15m AOD

Plot N2 E 538245.95m N 175605.16m 61.70m AOD

Plot N2 E 538257.68m N 175570.19m 61.70m AOD

llustrative E 538210.25m N 175282.31m 25.07m AOD

Millerhare reference: lews0078\+detail240919-mae-proposed - lews0078\+detail241008-archio-proposed-n2 - lews0078\+mass241022-sew-proposed-illustrative 185

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study October 2024

Appendices (continued) A6

A6.1

Accurate Visual Representations Each of the views in this study has been prepared as an Accurate Visual Representation (AVR) following a consistent methodology and approach to rendering. Appendix C of the London View Management Framework: Supplementary Planning Guidance (March 2012) defines an AVR as: “An AVR is a static or moving image which shows the location of a proposed development as accurately as possible; it may also illustrate the degree to which the development will be visible, its detailed form or the proposed use of materials. An AVR must be prepared following a well-defined and verifiable procedure and can therefore be relied upon by assessors to represent fairly the selected visual properties of a proposed development. AVRs are produced by accurately combining images of the proposed building (typically created from a threedimensional computer model) with a representation of its context; this usually being a photograph, a video sequence, or an image created from a second computer model built from survey data. AVRs can be presented in a number of different ways, as either still or moving images, in a variety of digital or printed formats.”

A6.2

A6.3

Paragraph 2.2 highlights that the baseline photography should: “be sufficiently up-to-date to reﬂect the current baseline situation” “include the extent of the site and sufficient context;” “be based on good quality imagery, secured in good, clear weather conditions wherever reasonably possible;”

Selection of Field of View A6.5

The choice of telephoto, standard or wide-angle lens, and consequently the Field of View, is made on the basis of the requirements for assessment which will vary from view to view.

A6.6

A6.7

However in a visual assessment there are three scenarios where constraining the study to this single ﬁxed lens combination would not provide the assessor with the relevant information to properly assess the Proposed Development in its context.

The term ‘Field Of View’ (FOV) or more speciﬁcally Horizontal Field of View (HFOV), refers to the horizontal angle of view visible in a photograph or printed image and is expressed in degrees. It is often generally referred to as ‘angle of view’, ‘included angle’ or ‘view cone angle’.

186

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study October 2024

Secondly, where the wider context of the view must be considered and in making the assessment a viewer would naturally make use of peripheral vision in order to understand the whole. A print has a ﬁxed extent which constrains the angle of view available to the viewer and hence it is logical to use a wide angle lens in these situations in order to include additional context in the print.

A6.10

Thirdly where the viewing point is studied at rest and the eye is free to roam over a very wide ﬁeld of view and the whole setting of the view can be examined by turning the head. In these situations it is appropriate to provide a panorama comprising of a number of photographs placed side by side.

A6.11

Using this measure it becomes practical to make a comparison between photographs taken using lens of various focal lengths captured on to photographic film or digital camera sensors of various size and proportions. It is also possible to compare computer renderings with photographic images. Studies of this type use a range of camera equipment; in recent times digital cameras have largely superseded the traditional film formats of 35mm, medium format (6cm x 6cm) and large format (5in x 4in). Comparing digital and film formats may be achieved using either the HFOV or the 35mm equivalent lens calculation, however quoting the lens focal length (in mm) is not as consistently applicable as using the HFOV when comparing AVRs. HFOV degrees

Lens focal length (mm)

Wide angle lens

74.0

Medium wide lens

54.4

Standard lens

39.6

Telephoto lens

28.8

Telephoto lens

20.4

100

Telephoto lens

10.3

200

Telephoto lens

6.9

300

The FOV of digital cameras is dependent on the physical dimensions of the CCD used in the camera. These depend on the make and model of the camera. The comparison table uses the speciﬁcations for a Canon EOS-5D Mark II which has CCD dimensions of 36.0mm x 22.0mm.

A6.9

Field Of View

35mm Lens A6.4

A6.8

A6.14

AVR 3 – Photoreal

Example of AVR 3 – conﬁrming the use of materials (in this case using a ‘photo-realistic’ rendering technique) A6.15

The purpose of a Level 3 AVR is to represent the likely appearance of the Proposed Development under the lighting conditions found in the photograph. All aspects of the images that are able to be objectively deﬁned have been created directly from a single detailed description of the building. These include the geometry of the building and the size and shape of shadows cast by the sun.

A6.16

Beyond this it is necessary to move into a somewhat more subjective arena where the judgement of the delineator must be used in order to define the final appearance of the building under the specific conditions captured by the photographic and subsequent printing processes. In this area the delineator is primarily guided by the appearance of similar types of buildings at similar distances in the selected photograph. In large scope studies photography is necessarily executed over a long period of time and sometimes at short notice. This will produce a range of lighting conditions and photographic exposures. The treatment of lighting and materials within these images will respond according to those in the photograph.

A6.17

“The 24mm tilt shift is typically used for visualisation work where viewpoints are located close to a development and the normal range of prime lenses will not capture the proposed site” A6.12

For some views two of these scenarios might be appropriate, and hence the study will include two versions of the same view with different ﬁelds of view. Representation of the Proposed Development and cumulative schemes

A6.13

Classification of AVRs AVRs are classified according to their purpose using Levels 0 to 3. These are defined in detail in Appendix C of the London View Management Framework: Supplementary Planning Guidance (July 2007). The following table is a summary. AVR level

showing

purpose

AVR 0

Location and size of proposal

Showing Location and size

AVR 1

Location, size and degree of visibility of proposal

Conﬁrming degree of visibility

AVR 2

As level 1 + description of architectural form

Explaining form

AVR 3

As level 2 + use of materials

Conﬁrming the use of materials

Appendices (continued)

AVR 1 – Outline

A6.30

Documenting the AVR Example of AVR 1 conﬁrming degree of visibility (in this case as an occluded ‘wire-line’ image) A6.24 A6.18

A6.19

In AVR1 representation each scheme is represented by a single line profile, sometimes with key edges lines to help understand the massing. The width of the profile line is selected to ensure that the diagram is clear, and is always drawn inside the true profile. The colour of the line is selected to contrast with the background. Different coloured lines may be used in order to distinguish between proposed and consented status, or between different schemes.

A6.20

A6.21

A6.22

187

Where more than one scheme is represented in outline form the outlines will obscure each other as if the schemes where opaque. Trees or other foliage will not obscure the outline of schemes behind them. This is because the transparency of trees varies with the seasons, and the practical difficulties of representing a solid line behind a ﬁligree of branches. Elements of a temporary nature (e.g. cars, tower cranes, people) will similarly not obscure the outlines.

A6.25

A6.26

A6.27

The vertical and horizontal field of view of the final image is declared using a graticule consisting of thick lines at ten degree increments and intermediate lines every degree, measured away from the optical axis. Using this graticule it is possible to read off the resultant horizontal and vertical field of view, and thereby to compare the image with others taken using specific lens and camera combinations. Alternatively it can be used to apply precise crops during subsequent analysis

A6.28

A6.29

Border annotation A Millerhare AVR image has an annotated border or ‘graticule’ which indicates the field of view, the optical axis and the horizon line. This annotation helps the user to understand the characteristics of the lens used for the source photograph, whether the photographer applied tilt, vertical rise or horizontal shift during the taking of the shot and if the final image has been cropped on one or more sides. The four red arrows mark the horizontal and vertical location of the ‘optical axis’. The optical axis is a line passing through the eye point normal to the projection plane. In photography this line passes through the centre of the lens, assuming that the film plane has not been tilted relative to the lens mount. In computer rendering it is the viewing vector, i.e the line from the eye point to the target point. If the point indicated by these marks lies above or below the centre of the image, this indicates either that vertical rise was used when taking the photograph or that the image has subsequently been cropped from the top or bottom edge. If it lies to the left or right of the centre of the image then cropping has been applied to one side or the other, or more unusually that horizontal shift was applied to the photograph.

Framing the view Typically AVRs are composed with the camera looking horizontally i.e. with a horizontal Optical Axis. This is in order to avoid converging verticals which, although perspectively correct, appear to many viewers as unnatural in print form. The camera is levelled using mechanical levelling devices to ensure the verticality of the Picture Plane, being the plane on to which the image is projected; the ﬁlm in the case of large format photography or the CCD in the case of digital photography. For a typical townscape view, a Landscape camera format is usually the most appropriate, giving the maximum horizontal angle of view. Vertical rise may be used in order to reduce

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study October 2024

Sample graticule showing horizon line markers

Comparing AVRs with different FOVs A key beneﬁt of the index markings is that it becomes practical to crop out a rectangle in order to simulate the effect of an image with a narrower ﬁeld of view. In order to understand the effect of using a longer lens it is simply necessary to cover up portions of the images using the graticule as a guide.

Appendices (continued) A7

Methodology for the production of Accurate Visual Representations Overview of Methodology

A7.1

A7.2

A7.3

A7.4

The study was carried out by Millerhare (the Visualiser) by combining computer generated images of the Proposed Development with large format photographs at key strategic locations around the site as agreed with the project team. Surveying was executed by Absolute Survey (the Surveyor). The methodology employed by Millerhare is compliant with Appendix C of the London View Management Framework: Supplementary Planning Guidance (March 2012) and Landscape Institute Technical Guidance Note 06/19. The project team defined a series of locations in London where the proposed buildings might have a significant visual effect. At each of these locations Millerhare carried out a preliminary study to identify specific Assessment Points from which a representative and informative view could be taken. Once the exact location had been agreed by the project team, a photograph was taken which formed the basis of the study. The precise location of the camera was established by the Surveyor using a combination of differential GPS techniques and conventional observations. For views where a photographic context was to be used additional surveying was carried out. A number of features on existing structures visible from the camera location were surveyed. Using these points, Millerhare has determined the appropriate parameters to permit a view of the computer model to be generated which exactly overlays the appropriate photograph. Each photograph has then been divided into foreground and background elements to determine which parts of the current context should be shown in front of the Proposed Development and which behind. When combined with the computer-generated image these give an accurate impression of the impact of the Proposed Development on the selected view in terms of scale, location and use of materials (AVR Level 3). Spatial framework and reference database

A7.5

A7.6

A7.7

188

A7.8

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study October 2024

A7.16

A7.17

From these the local survey stations, the requested alignment points were surveyed using conventional observation.

A7.18

A7.19

From the point set, the Visualiser created a three dimensional alignment model in the visualisation system by placing inverted cones at each surveyed point.

Process – photographic context

A7.9

A7.10

A7.11

A7.12

Reconnaissance At each Study Location the Visualiser conducted a photographic reconnaissance to identify potential Assessment Points. From each candidate position, a digital photograph was taken looking in the direction of the Proposed Development using a wide angle lens. Its position was noted with ﬁeld observations onto an OS map and recorded by a second digital photograph looking at a marker placed at the Assessment Point. In the situation where, in order to allow the appreciation of the wider setting of the proposal, the assessor requires more context than is practical to capture using a wide angle lens, multiple photographs may be combined to create a panorama, typically as a diptych or triptych. This will be prepared by treating each panel as a separate AVR and then combining in to a single panorama as a ﬁnal process.

Final Photography From each selected Assessment Point a series of large format photographs were taken with a camera height of approximately 1.6m. The camera, lens, format and direction of view are determined in accordance with the policies set out above Where a panoramic view is speciﬁed the camera/tripod head is rotated through increments of 40 degrees to add additional panels to the left and/or right of the main view.

A7.14

The centre point of the tripod was marked and a digital photograph showing the camera and tripod in situ was taken to allow the Surveyor to return to its location. Measurements and ﬁeld notes were also taken to record the camera location, lens used, target point and time of day. Surveying the Assessment Points For each selected Assessment Point a survey brief was prepared, consisting of the Assessment Point study sheet and a marked up photograph indicating alignment points to be surveyed. Care was taken to ensure that a good spread of alignment points was selected, including points close to the camera and close to the target.

Example of alignment model overlaid on the photograph

A7.27

A7.28 A7.21

The selected photograph was copied into a template image ﬁle of predetermined dimensions. The resulting image was then examined and any artefacts related to the digital image capture process were rectiﬁed.

A7.22

Where vertical rise has been used the image is analysed and compensation is applied to ensure that the centre of the image corresponds to the location of the camera’s optical axis.

The Visualiser assigned a unique reference to each Assessment Point and Photograph.

A7.13

A7.15

A7.20

alignment model as a record of the match. This was annotated to show the extents of the ﬁnal views to be used in the study.

A7.23

Calculating the photographic alignment A preliminary view deﬁnition was created within the visualisation system using the surveyed camera location, recorded target point and FOV based on the camera and lens combination selected for the shot

A7.24

A7.25

Using this preliminary view deﬁnition, a rendering was created of the alignment model at a resolution to match the scanned photograph. This was overlaid onto the background image to compare the image created by the actual camera and its computer equivalent. Based on the results of this process adjustments were made to the camera deﬁnition. When using a wide angle lens observations outside the circle of distortion are given less weighting.

A7.26

This process was iterated until a match had been achieved between the photograph and alignment model. At this stage, a second member of staff veriﬁed the judgements made. An A3 print was made of the resulting photograph overlaid with the

A7.29

Preparing models of the Proposed Development A CAD model of the Proposed Development was created from 3D CAD models and 2D drawings supplied by the Architect. The level of detail applied to the model is appropriate to the AVR type of the final images. Models of the Proposed Development and other schemes are located within the spatial framework using reference information supplied by the Architect or, when not available, by best fit to other data from the spatial framework reference database . Study renders of the model are supplied back to the Architect for confirmation of the form and the overall height of the Proposed Development. The method used to locate each model is recorded. Each distinct model is assigned a unique reference code by the Visualiser. Determining occlusion and creating simple renderings A further rendering was created using the aligned camera, which combined the Proposed Development with a computergenerated context. This was used to assist the operator to determine which parts of the source image should appear in front of the Proposed Development and which behind it. Using this image and additional site photography for information, the source file is divided into layers representing foreground and background elements.

A7.30

In cases where the Proposed Development is to be represented in silhouette or massing form (AVR1 or AVR2), ﬁnal renderings of an accurate massing model were generated and inserted into the background image ﬁle between the foreground and background layers.

A7.31

Appendices (continued)

A7.32

A7.33

A7.34

For each final view, lighting was set in the visualisation system to match the theoretical sunlight conditions at the time the source photograph was taken, and additional model lighting placed as required to best approximate the recorded lighting conditions and the representation of its proposed materials. By creating high resolution renderings of the detailed model, using the calculated camera specification and approximated lighting scenario, the operator prepared an image of the building that was indicative of its likely appearance when viewed under the conditions of the study photograph. This rendering was combined with the background and foreground components of the source image to create the final study images.

A7.35

A7.36

Material deﬁnitions have been applied to the models assembled as described. The deﬁnitions of these materials have been informed by technical notes on the planning drawings and other available visual material, primarily renderings created by others. These resulting models have then been rendered using the lighting conditions of the photographs.

A7.37

A7.38

Where a panoramic view is speciﬁed each panel is prepared by treating each photograph as an individual AVR following the process described in the previous paragraphs. The panels are then arranged side by side to construct the panorama. Vertical dividers are added to mark the edge of each panel in order to make clear that the ﬁnal image has been constructed from more than one photograph.

A7.39

189

Creating more sophisticated renderings Where more sophisticated representations of the Proposed Developments were required (AVR3) the initial model is developed to show the building envelope in greater detail. In addition, deﬁnitions were applied to the model to illustrate transparency, indicative material properties and inter-reﬂection with the surrounding buildings.

Lewisham Shopping Centre Visual Impact Study October 2024

were created cross-referencing background mapping supplied by Ordnance Survey. A7.40

The ﬁnal report on the Study Location was created which shows side by side, the existing and proposed prospect. These were supplemented by images of the location map, a record of the camera location and descriptive text. The AVR level is described.

A7.41

Peripheral annotation was added to the image to clearly indicate the ﬁnal FOV used in the image, any tilt or rise, and whether any cropping has been applied.