Plans to ballot Achilles Street residents on Lewisham Homes development proposals have been met with concern from a campaign group.

In a tense interaction with councillors, Save Achilles Street spokeswoman Jacqui Utley accused the council of social cleansing and said a full range of options had not been presented to residents and local businesses during the consultation.

The balloting will see residents either accept or reject redevelopment proposals – with full redevelopment, including knocking down 87 homes and 15 businesses, the council’s preferred option over refurbishment and infill.

Council tenants who want to stay in the New Cross development are guaranteed a new home at social rent levels with the same tenancy conditions, according to the council’s residents’ charter.

But Cllr Joe Dromey said an infill and refurbishment scheme considered in 2014 did form part of the consultation, with redevelopment only going ahead if it was supported by the majority of residents.

He said there had been at least four council-run consultation meetings with residents. 

“Officers and councillors have knocked on every door in the estate and residents have been written to. We want people to engage in the consultation,” he said.

“The reason why the council’s preferred option is redevelopment is because redevelopment will provide hundreds of new homes.”

Ms Utley said the infill option only appeared on one of the 19 consultation boards presented to residents.

“It wasn’t presented in a fair and transparent manner. It’s outdated and it’s not part of the current consultation. One sentence out of 19 boards, I really don’t think that is presenting a full range of options,” she said.

Ms Utley was concerned with the amount of additional social housing on the site, however all homes are expected to be let at council rent levels.

She was also concerned at potential job losses through the redevelopment of commercial space.

Cllr Dromey said there would be an increase of commercial space in the new development, with the council supporting existing businesses to stay in the area.

Cabinet member for housing, Cllr Paul Bell, refuted that the scheme was social cleansing.

“I don’t see how you can reduce the number of people on site when every single council tenant and leaseholder will be offered to remain on site plus the additional units, it doesn’t make mathematical sense,” he said.