The developer behind a controversial housing development in South London is facing backlash as it wants to reduce its affordable housing offer to just 10 per cent – but has pledged to double the figure if it can get grant funding.
Developer Berkeley has submitted a Section 73 planning application and plans to make some changes to its Borough Triangle development, which was narrowly approved last year by Southwark councillors.
A Berkeley spokesperson told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) that it aims to deliver 20 per cent affordable housing, provided it can access “the full benefits” of the Government and the Greater London Authority’s (GLA) new planning route.
Under the new route, developers delivering at least 20 per cent affordable housing can apply for grants on all units above the first 10 per cent without needing an additionality viability assessment – as long as planning decisions are issued by March 31, 2028.
The consented scheme consists of 892 homes in four tower blocks, with the two tallest buildings being 38 storeys and 44 storeys respectively.
The plans also include an office block, flexible café or retail space and a new community centre, which is expected to be occupied by a Latin American group.
The development is set to create 1,780sqm of public space.
A number of buildings, including the Elephant and Castle branch of the popular food hall, Mercato Metropolitano, are set to be demolished to make way for the development. At the end of last year, Mercato Metropolitano confirmed to the LDRS that its Elephant and Castle site will stay open until the end of 2026.
A replacement food hall is part of the planned development. But until it is finished, most of the 40 traders with stalls in Mercato Metropolitano will have to find alternative arrangements. Up to 12 will be rehoused in a temporary nearby location by Berkeley while the scheme is under construction.
Of the 892 homes, 230 homes (35 per cent) within the current scheme are set to be affordable by habitable room, which consists of 25 per cent social rent homes and 10 per cent intermediate.
However Berkeley is looking to slash its previous affordable housing offer to just 10 per cent overall, stating it would provide a “minimum” of 60 affordable homes consisting of 42 social rent and 18 intermediate homes.
According to its Section 73 planning statement, Berkeley has experienced viability challenges at the Borough Triangle site, such as changes to fire safety regulations.
Berkeley has concluded that the only way to deliver the homes is by slashing its overall affordable housing offer as there are no other “tenable options” to reduce the cost of the development.
The scheme was narrowly approved by Southwark councillors by 4 to 3 votes in 2025, and faced strong opposition with 415 out of 434 public comments being objections.
The revised plans have already faced backlash from Southwark’s Lib Dem and Labour groups, and will likely continue to face a strong local resistance.
Cllr Victor Chamberlain, Liberal Democrat Leader of the Opposition at Southwark Council, said: “This scheme was already failing local people – now it’s getting even worse. Cutting affordable housing to just 10 per cent on a site delivering nearly 900 homes is simply unacceptable.
“We warned from the start that Borough Triangle didn’t go far enough. Now the developer is back asking to water it down even further and that raises serious questions about how this was approved in the first place.”
Cllr Chamberlain went on to say Southwark residents deserve better, and accused Labour of “rolling over to developers at every level of government” after City Hall recently chose to approve a Section 73 application for the Canada Water Masterplan which has allowed the developer to deliver just 9 per cent affordable housing.
As a result, Lib Dem councillors have contacted Southwark Council’s Head of Planning and urged officers to refuse the application. The Lib Dems believe it would set “a dangerous precedent” to approve the Section 73 application, arguing it would further erode trust in the planning system.
Cllr Graham Neale, ward councillor for St George’s ward, added: “Residents have been clear all along – this development does not deliver the homes local people need.
“Instead of improving the scheme, the developer is now trying to reduce its commitments even further. Southwark is in the middle of a housing crisis. We should be maximising genuinely affordable homes on sites like this not allowing them to be cut back.”
Southwark Labour has also spoken out against the plans to reduce affordable housing.
Cllr Helen Dennis, Southwark Labour spokesperson for New Homes and Sustainable Development, said it was “immensely disappointing” to see the 10 per cent affordable housing offer.
Cllr Dennis said: “We are in a housing crisis. For a development of this scale in a prime central London location to be reduced from 35 per cent affordable to just 10 per cent is unacceptable and simply cannot be justified.”
A Berkeley spokesperson said: “The reality is that each affordable home is built at a major financial loss, so developments can’t deliver as many now that taxes, planning levies, regulations and build costs have all increased. This is why new private and affordable homebuilding has fallen to record lows across London.
“It’s important to recognise the full benefits this brownfield regeneration project offers Southwark and London, including much‑needed private and affordable homes, major new investment in community infrastructure and local services, a new community space, public square, 60 apprenticeships and hundreds of jobs.”
Berkeley is also responsible for the redevelopment of the Aylesham Centre in Peckham, a controversial regeneration scheme which could see the affordable housing drop from 35 per cent by habitable room to just 12 per cent.
The proposals are currently awaiting an outcome from the Planning Inspectorate, after Berkeley chose to appeal the plans last year because it had not received an update from Southwark Council on its revised application.
Cllr Dennis said at the time that the council had met all the relevant timetables for this application and the decision to appeal against ‘non-determination’ was entirely that of Berkeley.
Southwark Council’s Planning Committee went on to unanimously reject the revised plans for several reasons, including the lack of affordable housing on offer.
