Archived on 6/5/2022

Lammas Green / Sydenham Hill Estate, Mais House redevelopment

11 Jan '20

The planning application is now live, with a closing date for for comments of 31 Jan.

The planning section of Lewisham’s website will be closed for maintenance on Mon 13 and Tues 14 Jan.

11 Jan '20

Thanks for sharing, @marymck :+1:

It’s a major redevelopment and will affect the outlook from Sydenham Hill - and also bring 500+ new residents to Sydenham:



Previous consultations:

How do people feel about these plans?

  • Very happy
  • Happy
  • Unhappy
  • Very unhappy
  • No strong feelings

0 voters

11 Jan '20

As there is no GP surgery in Forest Hill ward this will mean 500-ish extra patients for Wells Park Practice.

11 Jan '20

Housing is so desperately needed, and the council has quotas of new housing to provide.

Can Sydenham rest assured that one large development of this kind will avoid the housing quota being satisfied by lots of low rise developments?

@marymck makes a good point about the clinic. The pressures on school places will be high too.

11 Jan '20

I agree that affordable housing is desperately needed. However, the scale of the proposal is enormous. It will be 2 1/2 times the size of Countisbury House (on the corner of Crescent Wood Road).
They are really squeezing the homes in, many local residents had hoped to see something more sympathetic to the surroundings.
Lewisham does not have a great track record on delivering affordable housing quotas in private developments. There is also little joined up planning around transport, NHS etc.
The City of London are planning large housing developments north of the river with no affordable housing included. The issues are complex, however this is a missed opportunity for a special site.

13 Jan '20

The scale and size of development concern me. Hopefully unfounded and all will be fine but a tad uncertain re. potential overcrowding of already pressed services such as local schools, GP, etc… But then again I guess there is pressure to provide more housing…

18 Jan '20

For those opposed:

19 Jan '20

The scale and massing is out of proportion with the surrounding area. Tall blocks will stand proud of the tree line.
Residents of 110 new housing units will add pressure to the lack of local infrastructure - schools. Drs surgery, shops - section 106 ( or the newly named NCIL) money will not provide an answer to problems already perceived.

24 Feb '20

Just a reminder that this Planning Application is still live …

The City of London Corporation (CoL) has submitted a planning application to demolish parts of the Sydenham Hill Estate at the very top of the Sydenham Hill Ridge and build instead high density, urban style blocks of flats that will tower over the tree tops and dominate the skyline.

The Estate is currently made up of three parts: Lammas Green, Otto Close and Mais House.

Lammas Green is a shining example of post-war development at its best. 27 terraced, two storey houses, all with private back gardens and fronting onto a village green of airy beauty. On the uphill side of the green, two low rise blocks of flats were designed to provide a buffer from the roadway.

Otto Close and Mais House were added in the 1970s. Otto Close offers family-sized maisonettes, opening onto a communal garden and adjacent Mais House sheltered housing for 62 elderly residents.

Five years ago the CoL decided to close Mais House and “decant” its residents. Initially CoL said they would refurbish the building and promised residents that they could choose to return. But since then Lewisham Council has claimed there is an over-supply of sheltered housing in our part of the Borough. Now CoL intends to demolish Mais House and build the high density, high rise, general housing development that will see the estate, the Ridge and Sydenham change forever.

No one disputes the need for more housing. But these should be the right developments for the right space. What is proposed is a clear case of over development. Sydenham Society is supporting residents in calling for a co-design approach and for the CoL to work with the community on a design that works for all.

Mais House should enjoy the highest level of protection. It is in a Conservation Area. It is adjacent to Grade II Listed Lammas Green and the locally listed Castlebar care home. Lewisham’s Core Strategy is to protect the wooded skyline of the Ridge.

If tower blocks can be built despite this level of protection, they can be built anywhere – no matter how unsuitable a site.

CoL’s post-war vision in a leaflet given to early residents:

“The lower density was deliberately chosen so as to establish conditions under which a community with its own life and identity might be able to grow and flourish.”

Sydenham Society would like to see that vision suffuse any future plans for the estate.

You can view and comment on the current application online at

Search under Application No. DC/20/115160

You can also email your comments to:

Or you can write to:

David Robinson, Planning Service. 3rd Floor Laurence House, 1 Catford Road, London, SE6 4RU

For your comments to be considered you must include:

Application No. DC/20/115160, your name and address, date of comment

The residents on online petition is here:

26 Aug '20
27 Aug '20
27 Aug '20

Well they approved it. Then the Councillors all smugly patted one another on their backs and headed off to their nice houses in Brockley and Telegraph Hill, where they won’t have to live with the consequences. Oh no, wait. They didn’t even have to go out in the rain tonight. They all voted from home.

Thank you to Bellingham Councillor Alan Hall for trying. You were the only Lewisham Councillor who spoke up for the community and for the disabled who were, as usual, the subject of a last minute tick box exercise by Lewisham.

The funny thing is that I remember at an early presentation (they call them consultations, but they’re just developers showing forced perspective images) I said to Mike Kettle one of the Corporation of London housing bods, “if you think Lewisham will throw away its housing regulation standards and rules of protection on the Ridge you’re mistaken.” He laughed in my face. Well he must be rolling in the aisle now.

If they can do this in this location, with the high level of protection it has (had?) they can make any area a high rise slum. Nowhere is safe (unless the right decision makers live there I suppose.)

27 Aug '20

It will be interesting what Legal might make of Alan Hall’s point re the late appearance of critical documents. It is astonishing that new documents turned up online yesterday and today. It shows the whole process was a farce, and they didn’t do rigarous checks before undertaking the consultation.

28 Aug '20

The video of last night’s whitewashing exercise can be viewed here:

It cuts off before the show of blatant trumphalism by our elected so called representatives. But not before Chair James Walsh has demonstrated his clear bias. They had so obviously pre determined this.

How must Jamie Hale be feeling this morning?

28 Aug '20

The transcript of last night’s meeting is also online - though possibly it won’t be there for long. Transcript courtesy of Monty Python Secretarial Services Inc.?

Here are some of the informative extracts …

together as a serious addressed tables sex and pitch with battalion the officer report forgot to dance the calculations

the Grade II listed llama screen

I laid it and the red orange buildings on the screen

additionally the application site is located close for sanity of two locally listed buildings and related like glue

the right hand of sales screamed screen is very steep

the top end of the site as a kitten sediment help her with the lower end of the site located on cocktail of Stap riddance across the site surrounding area is largely residential nature of puddings topically ranging from 2 to 5 storeys in height

when I tasked with assessing the application that’s this before us tonight

as quaintly Apollo now as fine thank you

31 Aug '20

Yes, it’s the precedent that’s hugely damaging to the area, aside from the development itself.

The council know they’re electorally untouchable. It shows.

1 Sep '20

The gloating by the Chair of the decision makers is pretty sickening.

That Tweet was made moments after the Committee meeting. Meanwhile, back on the election campaign trail he had claimed:

7 Sep '20

This is rather funny. When you click on the link “Council Ethical Standards” on this page …

You get this page …