Plans to demolish Lewisham shopping centre and replace it with 1,700 homes and a new mall were backed by councillors on Thursday night amid angry scenes in the public gallery.
Two councillors who had expressed critical or sceptical views about the development were barred from voting on the decision after the meeting restarted without them following a short break.
But the six remaining councillors all backed the £1.5 billion development, which has angered campaigners who want more social housing in the area, and a rival developer with its own plans for the former Citibank tower which is attached to the centre.
Councillors resolved to give Landsec permission to knock down the 1970s mall and its car park in stages, replacing it with 1,744 homes in towers of up to 35 storeys, a new shopping centre, up to 630 student rooms and 445 co-living homes, where residents share facilities like kitchens, a music venue, new public spaces and a rooftop meadow.
Just 98 of the new homes would be for social rent, with 231 at discounted rents aimed at key workers, all counting as “affordable” housing. All the other homes would be for private rent.
The area around Boots is due to be the first for redevelopment, with Landsec returning to Lewisham Council at a later date to sign off details for the rest of the site – which would include all the “affordable” homes.
Introducing the proposals to councillors, David Robinson, Lewisham’s major and strategic planning manager, was interrupted by a member of the public who was threatened with being thrown out of the meeting by Jack Lavery, the Labour councillor for Sydenham who chairs the strategic development committee. Two people were removed by security, Salamander reported.
Robinson conceded that the development did not meet Lewisham’s 50-per-cent target for “affordable” housing, but that the council’s consultations had found the scheme would not be viable if more was provided, and there would be four opportunities to review the scheme to increase it from its level of 16 per cent.
But he added that together, the new flats, student homes and co-living spaces would contribute to the housing targets set by the government and City Hall.
Rosie Parry, a Labour councillor representing Deptford, said the scheme was “a really good example of the really invidious position that councils like ourselves are in, we would like to see more social housing but the framework we’re operating in is not ideal”, although she said key-worker housing was “very welcome”.
One of the organisers of the Save Lewisham Shopping Centre campaign, introduced only as Farris, criticised the lack of immediate plans for “affordable” homes, pointing to a review of the scheme for the council showing that it would lose £492 million. Landsec has called the project a “long-term investment”.
“We are basically approving a plan based on non-guarantees, based on speculation, based on thin air, on false promises,” he said, adding that the borough had 2,800 households in temporary accommodation.
Jon Watson, the development director of Landsec, said the scheme had been a long collaboration with Lewisham Council’s planning officers and said it had been four years since it had started consulting residents.
“There are no homes on the site today,” he said. “No one is being relocated or displaced from a home as part of this development. Every single affordable home that we build as part of this scheme is new. It is a net gain. No one development will solve any borough’s housing list, but it is still a contribution. And if this scheme doesn’t come forward, that contribution will be lost.”
Watson said that stores including Sainsbury’s – which had filed an objection – and Primark would remain and there would be new jobs, community facilities and open space where there currently is none.
“One of the themes that we hear an awful lot in relation to this project is that the shopping centre is going to close. It is not. It stays open through the entire process,” he said. “The kind of shops that are there today do not leave. It’s the same customer that will be here in the future.
“We just think there could be a better choice. We think there could be things to do in the evening, which just aren’t there today. We think there could be things to do with families, which just aren’t there today. We absolutely do not intend to lose our customers.”
But asked by Green councillor Hau-Yu Tam if Landsec had spoken to universities about the student housing block, Watson said it had not.
“All the student housing is in the later phases, it’s just too early,” he said. “We want to have proper design conversations with them about the right mix and the right approach.”
Landsec also wants to extend and convert the old Citibank tower – which it owns the freehold to – into flats as part of the plans. But Lewisham House No 1 Ltd (LHN1), a Guernsey-based developer which bought a 900-year lease from Citigroup a decade ago, has its own plans for the tower. It has also had plans to turn the tower into flats approved.
For Landsec’s plan to go ahead, Lewisham Council would have to serve a compulsory purchase order on Lewisham House.
Chris Benham from Knight Frank, representing LHN1, said its plans for a “vibrant co-living community of 319 studios with commercial and public space” would “breathe new life into the long vacant site, delivering sustainable housing within the next three to five years” – compared with the ten years envisaged by Landsec.
“Whilst we support the principle of the Landsec masterplan, we object because Landsec’s submission includes an alternative scheme for our building: one they do not own, cannot deliver without compulsory purchase, and which fails to meet the council’s own policies on affordable housing.
“All that glitters is not gold. The viability assessment tells a very clear story. Landsec’s own consultants show a £266 million deficit. The council’s own review of this shows a £492 million deficit, and the GLA’s viability team concludes that the scheme is not deliverable even in the most optimistic assumptions.”
Benham called on the committee to defer the scheme and was applauded by housing campaigners in the public gallery.
But six of the councillors did not agree and voted for Landsec’s plans after they were told that because Lewisham had failed its housing delivery targets, that meant in law they were meant to look on the scheme more favourably.
John Paschoud, a Labour councillor for Perry Vale, said to shouts from the gallery: “I know how many years of work that have gone into getting this far with a comprehensive proposal to redevelop this part of Lewisham town centre by our own officers and other people with interests in the site.”
Peter Bernards, a Forest Hill Labour councillor, seconded Paschoud’s motion to approve the scheme, saying: “Having been a homeless person myself before, one extra house in Lewisham for a homeless person will mean the world to them.”
Six Labour councillors – chair Lavery, Paschoud, Bernards, John Muldoon (Rushey Green), cabinet member for culture Sakina Shekih (Perry Hill), and cabinet member for business Ese Erheriene (Lee Green) – voted in favour.
Green councillor Tam, who was clearly unhappy about the scheme, and Parry had missed the restart of the meeting when it took a short break after nearly two hours. Lavery said they were unable to vote as they were not present for “the whole amount of the meeting”.
Tam said, to shouts from the gallery: “Me and councillor Perry were unable to vote because we left the room for a toilet break and to cough outside. I just wanted to make the chamber aware that this is what happened.”
📺 For transparency: The Greenwich Wire usually tries to attend meetings like this in person. Unfortunately, we could only cover this meeting via the webcast.
📩 Follow The Greenwich Wire on Bluesky, Facebook, LinkedIn or Threads. You can also sign up for WhatsApp alerts – or subscribe to our emails through the blue box above.
You must be logged in to post a comment.