The Planning Committee (Major Applications) A of Southwark Council met on Tuesday 6 October 2026 to discuss the Bermondsey Place, Phase 2 and 3 development on Malt Street. The committee ultimately refused planning permission for the development due to concerns over the low level of affordable housing proposed.

Bermondsey Place, Phase 2 and 3, Malt Street, London, SE1 5AY

The committee considered a proposal for the demolition of existing buildings and phased redevelopment to provide 1,060 dwellings, flexible retail, leisure, commercial accommodation, and light industrial space. The application sought to amend an extant planning permission that originally allowed for 1,453 homes with 40% affordable housing. The revised proposal significantly reduced the affordable housing provision to 12% by habitable room for phases 2 and 3, resulting in an overall affordable housing contribution of 17.9% across the entire site when combined with Phase 1.

Arguments for the development included:

• The applicant, Berkeley Homes, argued that the original scheme was no longer financially viable due to increased build costs and falling sales values. They presented viability assessments, supported by independent consultants Quintic Advisory, indicating a significant deficit that prevented the delivery of higher levels of affordable housing.
• The revised scheme offered reduced building heights compared to the extant permission, with a maximum height of 36 storeys, down from 44.
• The development would provide significant public realm improvements, including new open spaces, enhanced accessibility, and the creation of a new linear park connecting Burgess Park to the Old Kent Road.
• The scheme would deliver 1,060 new homes, including a standalone building for social rent predominantly comprising family-sized units in the first phase.
• The proposal included new light industrial buildings and flexible commercial spaces, aiming to generate employment opportunities and complement existing creative industries in the area.
• The applicant highlighted extensive community engagement and design co-creation, which they stated had shaped the proposals and contributed to the low number of objections received.

Arguments against the development included:

• Councillor Richard Livingstone, the ward councillor, argued that the proposed 12% affordable housing was a significant reduction from the original 40% and failed to meet local housing needs. He questioned the viability assessment, noting a substantial difference between the applicant's and the GLA's figures, and suggested that the developer's profit targets were unjustified. He also raised concerns about heritage impacts on conservation areas and listed buildings, stating that the harm caused was not outweighed by the reduced public benefits.
• Councillor Sabina Emmanuel expressed concern that the reduction in affordable housing would lead to increased local rent inflation and gentrification.
• Gerry Flynn, representing the Ledbury Tenants and Residents Association, argued that the low percentage of social rent homes would drive up local rents for existing council tenants.
• Jed Holloway from Southwark Law Centre highlighted that the viability assessment should not determine acceptability and that the council could refuse the application based on the unacceptable lack of affordable housing. He also pointed out that the site allocation wording did not permit a payment in lieu for commercial space, constituting a breach.
• Conrad Hine from Northfield House Tenants and Residents Association stated that the scheme, as proposed, did not address housing need and that communications from Berkeley Homes had dried up, leaving residents feeling marginalised.
• Several councillors expressed strong reservations about the low level of affordable housing, with multiple members indicating they were leaning towards voting against the application. Councillor Margy Newens specifically stated she would not approve of the 12% affordable housing.

Decision:

The committee voted to refuse planning permission for the development. The grounds for refusal cited were: The proposed development owing to the low level of affordable housing would fail to meet the significant need for social work. As such, the proposal would be contrary to H08, Providing Affordable Homes of the NPPF 2026, Policy H4, Deliverable Affordable Housing of the London Plan 2021, and Policy P1, Social Rented and Intermediate Housing of the Sussex Plan 2021.¹