Plans to demolish the 1970s Lewisham Shopping Centre and replace it with a large-scale residential and retail development have been approved by Lewisham councillors despite significant opposition and heated public debate. The £1.5 billion redevelopment, led by Landsec, will see the current mall and its car park replaced in phases by 1,744 new homes, including 445 co-living residences and up to 660 student beds, alongside a new shopping centre and community amenities. The tallest buildings in the scheme are set to rise up to 35 storeys.

The development is intended to revitalise Lewisham town centre, with promises of new jobs, a 500-capacity cultural venue, extensive public green spaces including an urban meadow, and retail stores like Sainsbury’s and Primark remaining open throughout the construction period. Landsec emphasises that the shopping centre will remain operational during redevelopment and that none of the current affordable homes are being lost, positioning the scheme as a net gain in housing supply. Construction is expected to begin in early 2026, with completion projected towards the late 2030s.

However, the social housing provision within the plan has proved deeply contentious. Of the 1,744 new homes, only 98 are designated for social rent, and 231 are offered at discounted rents targeting key workers, all classified as “affordable” housing. This accounts for just 16 per cent of the total, significantly short of Lewisham Council’s usual 50 per cent target. Council officers argued that increasing affordable housing further would compromise scheme viability and that the development includes multiple future review points to potentially boost affordable housing numbers. Still, critics—including campaign groups and some councillors—say this falls far short of local needs, noting that the borough currently has around 2,800 households in temporary accommodation.

The political process itself was fraught. Two councillors who had expressed scepticism about the scheme were removed and barred from voting following a meeting adjournment, leaving six councillors to approve the plans amid angry scenes from campaigners in the public gallery. Green councillor Hau-Yu Tam highlighted procedural issues, noting that he and another councillor were unable to vote because they briefly left the chamber due to health reasons.

Complicating the redevelopment is a legal and commercial tug-of-war over the iconic but long-vacant Citibank tower attached to the shopping centre. Landsec owns the freehold and wishes to convert the tower into flats as part of the scheme, requiring a compulsory purchase order on Lewisham House No 1 Ltd (LHN1), a Guernsey-based leaseholder with its own approved plans for residential conversion. LHN1 contends that its scheme could deliver sustainable housing sooner and objects to Landsec’s alternative plans, pointing to viability assessments indicating significant deficits that question the overall deliverability of the project.

Beyond housing, local critics have also raised concerns about transport and infrastructure, with Lewisham Cyclists calling for substantial improvements to active travel provisions within and around the redevelopment site to reduce congestion and pollution. They urge coordination between the council, Landsec, and Transport for London to ensure that cycling infrastructure is integrated comprehensively into the plans.

Landsec’s redevelopment vision includes creating a pedestrian-friendly urban district with new dining, entertainment, and community spaces, including a rooftop meadow atop the shopping centre designed to enhance biodiversity. The firm stresses a lengthy consultation process over four years and presents the scheme as a long-term investment poised to meet housing targets set by government and City Hall frameworks, even if it doesn’t fully satisfy local campaigners or councillors.

As Lewisham moves forward with what is already the borough’s largest town centre regeneration project in decades, the balance between delivering much-needed new homes, particularly affordable housing, and addressing residents’ concerns about social equity and infrastructure will remain a critical and closely watched issue. The redevelopment’s phased approach offers opportunities for further scrutiny and potential adjustment but also prolongs uncertainty for many in the community.

📌 Reference Map:

Source: Noah Wire Services