top of page

SAVE BOROUGH TRIANGLE

Borough Triangle Site At 18-54 Newington Causeway 69 Borough Road 82-83 Borough Road London Southwark SE1 6DR

Planning reference: 24/AP/1958

The Berkeley Group has submitted a proposal for a major redevelopment of the Borough Triangle site. The proposal fails to meet the needs of our community and breaches key policy requirements – see our key concerns below

#SAVEBOROUGHTRIANGLE
CAMPAIGN FOR A DEVELOPMENT THAT WORKS FOR LOCAL PEOPLE

Supported by Southwark Law Centre

WHAT ARE THE COLLECTIVE 0BJECTION POINTS?

Planning reference: 24/AP/1958

P0INT 1

Lack of social housing

P0INT 2

Lack of family homes

P0INT 3

Mercato traders will be displaced

P0INT 4

Strain on GPs

P0INT 5

Reduction in community space

0BJECTION GUIDANCE

Take a look at our objection detail,

to support your comments on the local authority planning portal.

Anyone can object, and the number of objections is crucial to get our voice heard –

so we encourage everyone to object individually. 

 

Objections done as a group or via petition will be less effective.

We note these are just suggestions – put your objection in your own words and

feel free to add/take away any points

 

Take a look at our objection detail,

to support your comments on the local authority planning portal.

Anyone can object, and the number of objections is crucial to get our voice heard – so we encourage everyone to object individually. Objections done as a group or via petition will be less effective.

We note these are just suggestions – put your objection in your own words and feel free to add/take away any points

1. Affordable housing


  • There is not enough affordable housing:

    • For social rent, the proposals are 2 habitable rooms (equivalent to one flat) below the bare minimum required.

    • Affordable housing should be above the bare minimum of 35% given the high need and lack of affordability in the area.

  • The affordable housing must be delivered at the start of the development.


2. Family housing


  • There are too many studios and small flats, and not enough family homes – in breach of policy.

  • The developer’s excuse is that the site is in a central location, but policy already accounts for this, so it’s no excuse.


3. Housing for local people


  • We need to ensure that all of the units are offered to local people first and not sold overseas.

  • Local marketing needs to be for at least 1 year, with proper evidence that this has been done in good faith.

  • The private market homes will be unaffordable to most people and will not meet local housing need.


4. Mercato Metropolitano traders


  • There is no protection for the independent traders in breach of policy.

  • Displacement of traders is an equalities issue, given many traders are from BAME and lower socioeconomic backgrounds. The developer is ignoring this.

  • Even if the overarching company Mercato Metropolitano can come back to the site, the independent traders will not survive during construction unless supported.


5. Height and density


  • 44 and 38 storey towers are far too tall for the existing context, especially next to low-rise estates like Scovell. It is not appropriate as you move away from the town centre at the Elephant and Castle.

  • The proposals are also far too dense – over double the indicative site capacity.

  • The height and density results in an unacceptable daylight and sunlight impact on neighbours, well above guideline amounts.



6. GPs


  • The significant increase in number of residents will put an even greater strain on local GPs, whose doctor:patient ratios in their lists are already almost twice those recommended by the Royal College of General Practitioners, and considerably higher than the Southwark average.

  • The developer has not offered any money to go towards supporting local GPs.



7. Community Centre


  • Proposals will result in a reduction in community space in breach of policy.

  • There’s a risk that the remaining community space will be converted to commercial use.




8. Affordable workspace


  • There needs to be affordable workspace for local diverse businesses in line with policy.



9. Playspace


  • We need more information on what play space is proposed in Little Dorrit Park and its impact on the two nearby primary schools – we need to see specific proposals.

  • The lack of family homes means that the contribution is less than it should be.


10. Wind


  • The developer’s assessment shows there will be nowhere on the site for “frequent sitting”, and hardly even places for “occasional sitting” in winter. This undermines the benefit of the public space.

  • Pavements surrounding the site will have unacceptable levels of wind above recommended criteria.



11. Consultation


  • Community concerns have not been heard.

  • Comments given at consultation events have not resulted in any material changes.



Screenshot 2024-08-06 at 12.07_edited.png
Save Borough Triangle #nopriceonculture.jpeg

Application for the redevelopment of
Borough Triangle submitted

Email  Planning.applications@southwark.gov.uk all emails will be sent to the Planning Officer. 

Remember to quote Borough Triangle and reference 24/AP/1958

Did you know you can email your comments?

boroughtriangletowers.png
#saveboroughtriangle_edited.jpg
I am not against appropriate development on the site.
I am, however, against Berkeley Homes significantly over-developing the site (838 units vs. what Southwark originally determined was an indicative capacity of 438) with extremely excessive height and massing out of keeping with the letter and spirit of the Southwark Plan, the NPPF, the London Plan.

Live Objections

As a local resident who is supportive of development but keen to make sure it is appropriate and adds real homes for Londoners, I strongly object to the current proposal:
- loss of light, privacy, issues with height and massing. the development will cause a loss of light to vulnerable people in the Scovell estate and ruin the Trinity Square area and loss of provacy for everyone around

Live Objections

Displacement of traders is an equalities issue, given many traders are from BAME and lower socioeconomic backgrounds. The developer is ignoring this. Even if the overarching company Mercato Metropolitano can come back to the site, the independent traders will not survive during construction unless supported.

Live Objections

bottom of page