Southwark Law Centre welcomes the dismissal of Berkeley Homes’ appeal relating to the proposed redevelopment of the Aylesham Centre in Peckham. This decision is an important moment for Peckham and for communities across London facing the pressure of large-scale regeneration schemes that risk displacing existing communities without delivering genuinely inclusive development.

The Planning Inspector dismissed the appeal and refused planning permission for the proposed scheme following a lengthy public inquiry.

Southwark Law Centre worked closely alongside the local community campaign throughout the process and acted for the Rule 6 Party at the inquiry. Our specialist planning team supported residents, traders and community groups to participate effectively in what was a highly complex planning process with major long-term implications for Peckham. Southwark Law Centre’s planning solicitor, Jed Holloway, appeared as a witness at the inquiry on behalf of the community campaign.

The decision is significant not because Southwark Law Centre or the community campaign oppose new housing or redevelopment. We do not. But we want to ensure redevelopment complies with planning policy and responds to local community need.

London is in the grip of an acute housing crisis and there is an urgent need for genuinely affordable homes, including social housing. The Inspector himself acknowledged that 93% of Southwark households require social or intermediate housing, with need particularly acute in Peckham. Against that backdrop, the proposed 12% affordable housing offer plainly did not reflect local need. The proposals also failed to adequately support the small and independent businesses on site, in contravention of local policy, and failed to reflect the character and identity of Peckham. This case demonstrates that the housing crisis cannot be used to justify development at any cost.

The Inspector accepted that the proposal would have delivered benefits, but he ultimately concluded that those benefits did not outweigh the serious harm the scheme would cause to Peckham’s historic townscape, community character and built environment.

Importantly, the decision recognises that there is a difference between regeneration that works with communities and regeneration that overrides them.

The Inspector found that the proposed buildings would be overly dominant, out of scale with Peckham’s historic environment and harmful to the Rye Lane Peckham Conservation Area. He described elements of the scheme as “monolithic”, “uninspiring” and disconnected from the character and identity of Peckham.

The decision also carefully considered the impact on existing traders and small businesses at the Aylesham Centre. Peckham’s town centre is not simply a collection of retail units — it is a diverse economic and cultural ecosystem built over decades by local communities, migrant entrepreneurs, independent traders and creative businesses. The Inspector acknowledged the real-world challenges posed by displacement and the inadequacy of relocation arrangements raised during the inquiry.

The initial proposals would have displaced the many small and independent businesses on site that serve the diverse local community, without any support. Southwark Law Centre worked directly with traders to platform their voice, by assisting with written submissions and supporting them with speaking directly to the Inspector at the inquiry. Our intervention secured a relocation and support package, but the Inspector ultimately agreed with our view that this still failed to meet the standards required under policy.

In the Inspector’s own words:

“The circumstances of the case do not lead me to accept new housing and other associated betterments at all costs. Furthermore, SP Policy NSP74 entails a generational opportunity for Peckham which should be carefully managed to ensure a more optimally designed scheme for future generations”

Equally significant was the recognition that meaningful community engagement matters. Throughout the process, local residents, traders and community organisations consistently raised concerns that consultation had not been adequate and that local voices were not being genuinely reflected in the development process.

Southwark Law Centre’s involvement in the inquiry formed part of our wider planning and community justice work. Our Planning Voice project exists because planning decisions are often inaccessible to the people most affected by them. Communities facing redevelopment frequently struggle to access independent legal advice, understand technical planning documents or engage effectively with decision-making processes.

Through Planning Voice, we work alongside residents, traders and community groups to:

  • improve understanding of planning rights and regeneration processes;
  • support participation in consultations, inquiries and local planning debates;
  • provide accessible legal and strategic advice;
  • challenge poor decision-making where necessary; and
  • ensure that regeneration delivers public benefit rather than displacement.

Over recent years this work has included supporting communities affected by estate regeneration, redevelopment schemes, planning disputes and major infrastructure proposals across South London. We have worked closely with grassroots organisations and resident campaigns to ensure that community voices are heard in planning processes that can otherwise feel remote and inaccessible.

What this decision says is that redevelopment must be done properly: with meaningful consultation, with respect for the character and identity of local areas, with protection for existing communities and traders, and with a design approach that genuinely responds to place.

This decision also raises wider questions about the role of viability in the planning system. If major developments cannot provide the affordable housing, community protections and public benefits required by adopted policy, that should not automatically mean policy standards are lowered to accommodate the developer bottom line.

The challenge facing London is not simply to build more homes. It is to build homes and neighbourhoods that people can actually afford to live in, that strengthen rather than erode communities, and that do not treat long-standing residents and businesses as obstacles to investment.

Peckham deserves regeneration that works for the whole community.