10,695
edits
Changes
From Peckham Vision
→July 2026 ACA joins High Court battle
* '''in total 27.300 signatures over 10 years'''
==Latest News about the development==[[Image:View-31-after.jpg|thumb|right|500px|]]
[[Image:Our House x ACA Event Flyer.jpg|thumb|right|200px|]]
[[Image:Public inquiry 28 Oct 2025.jpg|thumb|right|250px|demo outside the Hearing in Tooley Street]]
==2026==
===July 2026 ACA joins High Court battle===
'''[https://londonsociety.org.uk/keep-adapt-or-replace-what-two-peckham-buildings-tell-us-about-how-london-changes/ 28 July 2026. London Society.]''' Keep, adapt or replace? What two Peckham buildings tell us about how London changes For 20 summers, the upper floors of a Peckham multi-storey car park have been home to art, architecture, music and performance. Next door, the future of an ageing shopping centre has become the subject of a major battle over housing, heritage and development. Together, they raise a question London will increasingly need to answer: how do we decide what to keep, what to adapt and what to replace? <br><br>
'''15 July 2026 ACA launches appeal for funds''' to join Southwark Council opposing Berkeley's High Court Appeal. '''[https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/acapeckham/#share See crowdfunding page here.] <br><br>'''
'''[https://www.propertyweek.com/insight/leader/heritage-hassle-the-preservation-regeneration-conundrum 15 July 2026. Property Week.] Heritage hassle: the preservation versus regeneration conundrum.''' “The machinations of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) are rarely front of mind in the property industry. It is, however, the department responsible for heritage protection, the sponsor of Historic England and the owner of the listed building system. As a result, its influence over new development and redevelopment schemes is not to be ignored.”<br><br>
'''[https://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1963385/inspectors-dismissal-housebuilders-high-rise-867-home-plan-underlines-importance-considering-heritage-impacts 1 July 2026 Planning Resource by Jo Smit.]''' "How an inspector’s dismissal of a housebuilder’s high-rise, 867-home plan underlines the importance of considering heritage impacts. A planning inspector has dismissed a volume housebuilder's plans to redevelop a south London shopping centre with a high-density, 20-storey residential scheme, prompting the firm to launch a legal challenge to the decision. The case reminds decision-makers and developers of the importance of heritage and townscape considerations when proposing and determining urban schemes." Interesting quotes from the article include
* Mike Kiely, chair of the Planning Officers Society, which represents public sector planners, believed the inspector’s conclusion was “very much a decision in the round”. Not only did he look at listed and unlisted assets and overall townscape, said Kiely, but he also seemed to appreciate the “cumulative benefits that had occurred in this area over decades of sensitive, careful decision-making”. The inspector accepted there were “considerable” benefits to the provision of new homes, but ultimately decided “there is no reason for me to conclude a design better responding to those heritage assets could not be achieved”, according to Kiely, who added: “Berkeley needed to do a better job. It’s as simple as that. The provision of housing in and of itself isn’t always going to trump everything else.”
* For architect Benedict O’Looney, a member of community group Peckham Heritage and chair of the Southwark Conservation Areas Advisory Group, “the valuing of Peckham’s heritage felt like a momentous turning point”. He added: “Peckham has desperate housing need and people want change,” describing Berkeley’s proposal as a “missed opportunity”.
* Responding to news of Berkeley’s fresh legal challenge, Eileen Conn, coordinator of local group Peckham Vision, which co-founded Aylesham Community Action, the campaigner and Rule 6 party in the case, said she was “disappointed that there will be even more delay in developing a plan that fits with Peckham’s proven capacity for self-regeneration”.
===26 June 2026 Judicial Review===
[[Image:View-31-after.jpg|thumb|right|500px|]]
* '''[https://www.housingtoday.co.uk/news/berkeley-launches-legal-challenge-against-flawed-rejection-of-south-london-scheme/5142918.article 26 June 2026 Housing Today.]''' 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.
* '''[https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/peckham/berkeley-homes-to-launch-legal-challenge-after-aylesham-centre-plan-rejected/ 26 June 2026 Southwark News]''' Developer Berkeley Homes has appealed to overturn the Planning Inspectorate’s rejection of its plans to redevelop the Aylesham Centre in Peckham Rye, writes Alex Orr…
* '''[[media:Berkeley_applies_for_judicial_review_following_%E2%80%98flawed%E2%80%99_refusal_of_dRMM%E2%80%99s_Peckham_scheme_%282%29.pdf|26 June 2026 Architects Journal.]]''' Berkeley applies for judicial review following ‘flawed’ refusal of dRMM’s Peckham scheme. Developer Berkeley has applied to the courts for a judicial review of the Planning Inspectorate’s rejection of its dRMM-led redevelopment of the Aylesham Centre in Peckham. Last month planning inspector Matthew Shrigley rejected an appeal by Berkeley, citing the massing and scale of the controversial south London development, as well as its impact on local heritage and the Rye Lane Peckham conservation area as reasons for his refusal. He described the proposal as ‘an enormous wall of development, thus resulting in harm’ when viewed from some locations. Now the developer has applied for a judicial review of Shrigley’s decision, claiming it is ‘clearly flawed’ and warning that ‘unless swiftly quashed’, it will ‘undermine the government’s pro-homebuilding agenda’
===8 June 2026 the ACA successful case===
'''[https://www.35percent.org/posts/aylesham-centre-decision-the-backlash/ 35% Campaign blog. 08 Jun 2026. The Aylesham Centre - the decision, then the backlash]''' The recent decision by the government Inspector to reject Berkeley Homes’ proposals for the Aylesham Centre provoked much criticism from pro-development quarters, with the local Aylesham Community Action (ACA) campaign often cast as NIMBYs, denying people the opportunity of a new home, because of misguided heritage concerns.
* The Inquiry Inspector did indeed reject the application on heritage grounds. Hashi Mohamed the ACA’s barrister at the Inquiry has provided '''[https://www.linkedin.com/posts/hashi-mohamed-82b5515b_aylesham-appeal-decision-ugcPost-7465496285551185920-rUxK/ a measured commentary of the decision,]''' decrying ‘hysterical rhetoric’ and pointing out that heritage goes beyond buildings, encompassing ‘the people, the culture and history of Peckham’. He encourages people to '''[https://gat04-live-1517c8a4486c41609369c68f30c8-aa81074.divio-media.org/filer_public/03/70/0370039b-2c8d-40c2-be40-4654361c7a8b/appeal_decision_3366760_180526.pdf read the full decision.]'''
* One other key issue was the dire lack of affordable housing in Berkeley’s proposals - just 77 homes out of 867. Regrettably the Inspector did not think this was a ground for rejecting the application, saying that even if the scheme offered 35% affordable housing he would not have granted the scheme planning permission (which says something about how poor he considered the design to be).
* Affordable housing depends on a scheme’s viability and it is worth replaying the evidence presented at the Planning Inquiry by ACA's expert witness, because it demonstrates that viability is not set in stone, contrary to what many believe, but is a variable, determined by assumptions, projections and judgement.
* ACA’s viability evidence also demonstrates the serious thought and effort they put into the Inquiry, something that is absent from much of the commentary that followed the Inquiry decision.
'''[https://www.35percent.org/posts/aylesham-centre-decision-the-backlash/ Read here the comprehensive analysis of the ACA's case and why the Inspector dismissed Berkeley's appeal.]'''
===May 2026 Huge Success!===
We have great news – local people won the Aylesham case against Berkeley's plan for the Aylesham over-development. The Inspector's decision was announced 18th May, 4 months overdue. * He dismissed the Berkeley appeal against the Council refusal of planning permission. - '''[[media:3366760 - Appeal Decision.pdf|Inspector's decision report on Appeal.]]'''* He cited as a reason English Heritage objection that it would be ‘ '''"an enormous wall of development, thus resulting in harm’harm". ''' See image.->> * He dismissed Berkeley’s appeal for costs against the Council.- '''[[media:3366760 - Costs Decision.pdf|Inspector's decision report on Costs.]]'''* So six years of campaigning, since local people in '''[https://www.peckhamvision.org/ Peckham Vision] ''' and '''[https://peckhamheritage.org.uk/ Peckham Heritage] ''' started the '''[https://www.ayleshamcommunityaction.co.uk/ Aylesham Community Action (ACA) campaign] ''' in 2020, has paid off. * Nearly 30,000 signatures against this over development (since 2014), over £50,000 funds raised in 2025 by ACA to pay for lawyers at the Appeal Public Inquiry, and numerous marches and rallies, and banners and placards, community stalls, conversations. workshops and meetings - on-line and in-person, burning the midnight oil pouring over planning documents and campaigning leaflets. That is - hundreds of local people working together not giving up and working within the system can get results.
Join Peckham Vision mailing list - info@peckhamvision.org - to help strengthen the community network in Peckham.