The Planning Committee (Major Applications) B of Southwark Council met on Wednesday 09 September 2026. The committee resolved to refuse a planning application for the Borough Triangle site at 18-54 Newington Causeway, 69 Borough Road, and 82-83 Borough Road, London SE1. This refusal was primarily due to the low level of affordable housing proposed, which officers deemed insufficient to outweigh the heritage harm to the Trinity Church Square Conservation Area.

Borough Triangle Site at 18-54 Newington Causeway, 69 Borough Road, 82-83 Borough Road, London SE1

The committee refused planning permission for a Section 73 application to vary conditions 1, 45, and 49 of a previous planning permission (24/AP/1958) for the phased mixed-use redevelopment of the Borough Triangle site. The proposed amendments included reducing the total quantum of affordable housing to a minimum of 10% on-site, with a consequential change to the quantum of affordable wheelchair accessible homes. The application also sought to amend internal layouts and design to comply with the latest fire regulations.

The primary reason for refusal was the significant reduction in affordable housing from the originally approved 35.02% to 10% (by habitable rooms). Officers argued that this reduction in public benefit, specifically the loss of social rented homes, did not outweigh the identified heritage harm to the Trinity Church Square Conservation Area. The harm was described as 'less than substantial' but at the upper end of the scale, with the proposed tall buildings, particularly Blocks A and B, considered to be visually intrusive and detrimental to the character and appearance of the conservation area. This decision was made in accordance with national and local planning policies, including the NPPF, the London Plan, and the Southwark Plan.

Arguments against the proposal, as voiced by objectors including the Southwark Law Centre and the 35% Campaign, highlighted concerns about the failure to meet local housing needs, the potential for social imbalance, and the cynicism of seeking approval with undertakings and then abandoning them. Councillor David Watson, a ward councillor, was particularly critical, stating that the development blatantly puts profit ahead of people and urged the committee to reject the application.

The applicant, Berkeley Homes, had argued that the reduction in affordable housing was necessary due to challenging economic conditions, increased finance costs, build cost inflation, and new building regulations, which made the original development unviable on a present-day basis. A viability assessment submitted by the applicant indicated a projected deficit, which was reviewed by the council's independent consultants, BPS. BPS concluded that the scheme could not support any additional affordable housing, although their calculations still showed a substantial deficit.

Despite the applicant's viability arguments, the committee ultimately sided with the officer's recommendation for refusal, emphasizing the significant heritage harm and the reduced public benefit due to the diminished affordable housing provision. The decision to refuse was also subject to referral to the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State, as required by relevant legislation.

The meeting also included a report on the Brimmington Park Sports Facilities Redevelopment, where the committee approved the release of Section 106 funds totalling £442,947.75 for improvements to the park's sports facilities. This project aims to upgrade aging infrastructure, enhance visibility, accessibility, and safety, and increase biodiversity. The redevelopment includes new artificial football pitches, accessible toilet facilities, an upgraded outdoor gym, a multi-use games area, skateable areas, and lowered basketball hoops.