Planning inspector determined 850-home scheme’s height, scale and massing would cause harm to Peckham neighbourhood
Berkeley has applied for a judicial review of the planning inspectorate’s decision to block its plans to redevelop the Aylesham Centre in Peckham Town Centre.
Proposals drawn up by architect dRMM and submitted back in July 2024 would deliver 850 homes and a Morrisons supermarket to replace the existing one on the site, which has been allocated for housing development since 2014.
However the prospect of a 20-storey development in a largely low-rise suburb, as well as the small size of the proposed 12% affordable component, sparked controversy locally.
Berkeley launched an appeal in May 2025 on the grounds of non-determination, but after an inquiry in the autumn, inspector Matthew Shrigley last month refused planning permission.
The inspector found no significant issue with the adequacy of affordable provision or the impact of the proposed loss of retail floorspace on the town centre, but he determined that the height, scale and massing of the plans would “cause harm to nearby designated and non-designated heritage assets, as well as the local townscape”.
Berkeley will make the case that the inspector failed to consider the deliverability of the “myriad” of alternative design solutions to which he referred in his decision, to consider the strong presumption in favour of sustainable development in national planning policy, or to take into account the borough’s housing land supply.
It also argues that the inspector failed to understand and apply paragraph 11d of the National Planning Policy Framework, which triggers a tilted balance in favour of development in the case of a housing land supply shortfall, or to consider the joint design brief developed by Berkeley and the council, with which it says the scheme complies.
“This Planning Inspector’s decision is clearly flawed and will undermine the Government’s pro-homebuilding agenda unless it is swiftly quashed,” said Rob Perrins, executive chair of Berkeley Group.
“How can anyone invest in a town centre when policy-compliant plans for allocated sites are refused on the basis of vague and subjective heritage concerns?
“The fact that this borough is spectacularly failing its housing targets and faces a severe housing crisis appears to count for nothing.
“The Inspector also acknowledged that Berkeley was offering more affordable housing than the scheme could viably support, alongside significant economic benefits, yet still concluded that heritage harm matters more.
“This follows nine years of engagement with the Council and zero objections from Historic England, who are as shocked as everyone else that this scheme went down on heritage grounds.
“It cannot be right that heritage concerns trump all other policies, including the delivery of new homes, jobs and growth. This decision has already shaken investor confidence, and it is a great shame that we now have to go through the courts to have it overturned.”
Perrins earlier this week warned that the housebuilding market in London had no prospect of improvement without “decisive intervention” from ministers including tax cuts and regulatory changes.
This came after Berkeley revealed a 14.7% drop in its pre-tax profit, from £529m to £451m.
No comments yet