Plans for a controversial regeneration scheme in south London which is offering just 12% affordable housing have been rejected by the local council.
Southwark Council’s Planning Committee voted unanimously to reject the plans from Berkeley Homes which involves redeveloping the Aylesham Centre in Peckham for several reasons including the lack of affordable housing and the impact the plans will have on local heritage.
The council’s decision to refuse the plans will not actually determine the outcome of the application, as Berkeley Homes has already appealed the plans directly to the Planning Inspectorate, which will have the final say following an eight-day Inquiry which is expected to begin on October 27.
Tuesday’s meeting, which lasted almost six hours, was to confirm the council’s reasons for refusing the development ahead of the inquiry.
Berkeley Homes’ original plans consisted of bulldozing the 1980s Aylesham Centre and the current supermarket to deliver a 877-home development, of which 270 homes would be “affordable”, consisting of 185 social rented and 85 intermediate homes which equated to 35% affordable housing by habitable room.
However in December 2024, Berkeley Homes amended its original plans to redevelop the site by Rye Lane by dropping the number of homes built to 867 and drastically reducing affordable housing by habitable room to just 12% – which equates to 77 affordable homes, of which 50 would be social rented and 27 would be intermediate.
The amended proposals will also see a Community Land Trust (CLT) scrapped, which would have provided low cost locally-designed housing. Under the latest plans, the buildings will be replaced with a new Morrisons store, the new homes, plus shop and restaurant space. The application also includes plans for several buildings up to 20 storeys high.
Berkeley Homes says it reduced the affordable housing on offer due to the uncertainty around the availability of GLA (Greater London Authority) funding for affordable housing, and not being able to secure planning permission as soon as it had hoped, as well as building costs increasing and regulatory changes.
The plans were supposed to be heard in spring 2025, however the amended application meant the council had to launch a 30-day consultation period where locals were invited to drop-in sessions to have their say on the latest plans.
During last night’s meeting, planning officers said they had advised Berkeley Homes that the reduction in affordable homes meant the public benefits of the proposal would no longer be sufficient enough to outweigh the heritage harm which would from the plans.
Additionally, the existing buildings in the Rye Lane Peckham Conservation Area are 3 to 5 storeys high, whereas Berkeley Homes intends to build on this specific part of the site up to 7 storeys high, which would change the Peckham skyline forever and would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the area.
The scheme has undergone two public consultations, one for the original plans and one for the amended one, and in total 27,141 neighbours were consulted.
The plans received 2,505 responses, of which 2,427 are objections, 59 are in support while there are 19 neutral comments.
The plans have received strong opposition from the local community and SHAPE (Southwark Housing and Planning Emergency), which is a coalition of local groups who have campaigned against the plans.
Last night, SHAPE organised a rally which saw more than 50 people gather outside the council’s headquarters in Tooley Street to protest against the scheme from going ahead.
There were nine registered objectors who were supposed to speak last night, however only four turned up.
The committee first heard from local resident, Siobhan McCarthy, who argued the development is offering “the wrong type of homes” and said the lack of affordable housing is unacceptable for the area.
Ms McCarthy said: “50 units of social rent housing is insufficient for the site as access to genuinely affordable housing is very low across Peckham, for such a major site to provide such a low level of affordable housing is a significant lost opportunity.
“The shortage of affordable housing displaces people on low incomes, officers accept the proposals are likely to increase house prices in the area, there is evidence that families [who are] economically disadvantaged and global majority people are most affected, therefore changing the local demographic.”
Ms McCarthy went on to say around 25 small independent and global majority-run businesses who offer affordable shopping opportunities will be “directly misplaced” by the plans, and accused Berkeley Homes of wanting to replace the existing shops with high-end and boutique businesses.
Reverend Dean Pusey, Vicar of St Mary Magdalene Church in Peckham, also spoke out against the plans.
Rev. Pusey said: “I come here as a Peckham boy, I left Peckham at the age of seven and I’ve come back via places like Woking and Surrey who also had similar schemes.
“I’ve seen what happened there, displacement, and I’ve seen other things that have happened where people are deeply concerned.”
He added: “I’m very struck in listening to this that we’re talking about economics, and there’s a driver that I sense strongly and people have said, whose Peckham is this? Is it the developer’s Peckham? Whose Peckham really is this?”
However Nick Alston, senior director at Averson Young, which is Berkeley Homes’ planning consultant, said the council’s reasons for refusal were “entirely subjective”.
Mr Alston told the committee: “The view of our heritage advisor is that overall the development would not harm the Conservation Area or the wider townscape.
“The view of your officers is there would be some harm but this would not be substantial, the benefits of the development must be properly weighed up in this context of no, or at worst, non-substantial harm. The proposal offers clear and substantial benefits and these should be afforded great weight in this balancing exercise.”
Mr Alston added: “The government has made it clear that we all have a moral duty to see more homes of all tenures built, and built quickly.
“Berkeley Homes is committed to playing its part in meeting this emergency but is reliant on the NPPF [National Planning Policy Framework] requirement for planning applications that accord with the development plan to be approved without delay.”
After almost six hours of discussing the application, the committee ultimately decided to refuse the plans, with every councillor unanimously voting in favour of rejecting the application.
Reacting to last night’s decision, SHAPE campaigner and local resident, Tanya Murat, said: “We are delighted that the planning committee refused the Berkeley scheme. We believe this is a result of years of campaigning and organising.
“At just 12%, [the] so called affordable housing is an insult to the people of Peckham. But the proceedings showed the planning system is stacked in the developers’ favour and is geared to prioritising their profits.”
Ms Murat went on to say: “We will support Aylesham Community Action to fight the scheme at the Planning Inspector’s Inquiry. We continue to demand a revolution in housing and planning that puts people and the planet before profit.”
Helen Dennis, Cabinet Member for New Homes and Sustainable Development, said the council has a responsibility to deliver affordable housing to the borough’s residents.
Cllr Dennis said: “Our target proportion for affordable homes in any new development is 35% and we fight to uphold and meet, and where possible exceed this target, working with developers to do so.
“In the adjusted proposal from Berkeley Homes for the Aylesham site, the low proportion of affordable housing and uncertainty about the delivery of Community Land Trust homes does not justify the development and impact on the heritage of the Rye Lane Peckham Conservation Area.”
Cllr Dennis added: “The new plan also contradicts stipulations around design, character, conservation and heritage of the [NPPF]. Southwark Council therefore does not support the proposal from Berkeley in its current form.”
A spokesperson for Berkeley Homes previously told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS): “This is a site that has been earmarked for housing for 11 years now. Two previous developers failed to come up with a workable project. We have been working with the council, local residents and businesses for four years and have sought to accommodate everyone’s wishes, as far as possible, along the way, while keeping the project viable.
“After all this time, effort and money, if Berkeley is to build homes, we have no other option but to appeal for non-determination.”
