Developer launches judicial review over planning inspectorate refusal of 850-home scheme

Berkeley Group applied for permission to build the 850-home development in 2024. But Southwark left the developer's application undetermined.

The Planning Inspectorate later dismissed an appeal regarding the application in May this year, after concluding that harm to nearby heritage assets and Peckham's townscape outweighed the scheme's benefits.

The inspector acknowledged the development would redevelop underutilised land, deliver "crucial" private and affordable housing, and promote active travel, "thereby reducing air pollution".

They also highlighted job creation, building energy efficiency advantages and renewal energy delivery components as a positive.

Berkeley's executive chair, Rob Perrins, has since announced a judicial review, criticising the decision as "clearly flawed" and one that "will undermine the Government's housebuilding agenda".

The developer's case advances five grounds, which argue that the inspector failed to:

• Consider deliverability of the “myriad” of alternative design solutions to which he referred, and whether they could deliver the site allocation requirements; 
• Consider paragraph 125c of the NPPF which mandates a strong presumption in favour of sustainable development; 
• Conclude on the London Borough of Southwark’s housing land supply and take this into account in weighing the benefit of housing in the planning balance; 
• Understand and apply paragraph 11d of the NPPF,  which triggers a tilted balance in favour of sustainable development where there is a housing land supply shortfall
• Take into account the joint Design Brief developed by Berkeley and Southwark Council, with which the scheme complies.  

Launching the legal challenge, Perrins said: "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."

The executive chair also said that Historic England has made no objections to the scheme on heritage grounds, adding that it "cannot be right that heritage concerns trump all other policies".

Adam Carey