The Berkeley Group has proposed a major redevelopment of Borough Triangle in SE1.
Campaigners and local residents believe the scheme fails to meet the needs of the existing community and breaches key planning policies around affordable housing, family homes, cultural space, and community infrastructure.
Although the original application was approved by Southwark Council in March 2025, the latest variation application has now been referred to the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the Mayor of London for review.
Campaigners continue to encourage objections and are exploring further legal options.
#SAVEBOROUGHTRIANGLE
CAMPAIGN FOR A DEVELOPMENT THAT WORKS FOR LOCAL PEOPLE
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
Below is a list of topics you might want to object to – but feel free to add your own:
Berkeley is reducing the affordable housing to only 10% (60 out of 892). This fails to meet the needs of the local community, which is overwhelmingly affordable housing and particularly social housing. Regardless of “viability”, this is too high a price to pay.
While 170 affordable homes are being lost, projected profit has increased by £31.7m. The proposals fail to strike a balance between the developers interests and the public benefit.
Berkeley needs to model different situations to show how alternative scenarios might result in more affordable housing.
Berkeley wants to slow down the build-out speed to drip feed private homes into the market. Higher affordable housing allows build-out to be quicker.
Berkeley is relying on “off-plan” sales (i.e. before construction is finished) – meaning the homes are being sold to investors and not to local people.
All the existing harms remain, but the benefit is massively reduced. The existing harms include:
Lack of family housing in breach of policy. Only 13.8% are 3+ bed units, when the minimum should be 20%.
Net loss of community space.
Net loss of cultural space.
No affordable workspace.
Daylight and sunlight impacts – particularly to nearby council housing.
Visual impact from tall buildings.
Harm to nearby heritage assets.
Displacement of local traders and Peckham Amateur Boxing Club. The support package is not enough and they are still struggling to find relocation space.
Increased strain on local infrastructure that is already at capacity.
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?
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
