A Southwark flats appeal has overturned the council’s opposition to a 38-home development in Peckham, with the developer also securing a partial award of appeal costs. Inspector Stewart Glassar granted planning permission on 20 October 2026 for a mixed-use scheme at 269-275 Rye Lane and 1A Philip Walk.
The case was an appeal against non-determination rather than a formal refusal notice. Southwark’s case nevertheless set out reasons why it considered the homes unacceptable, primarily the quality of accommodation for future residents and affordable housing. The Inspector accepted that parts of the residential design were deficient but found the benefits sufficient to justify permission.
The Southwark flats appeal also highlights two separate questions that are too often conflated. Viability evidence can justify a scheme with no immediate affordable housing payment, while an authority’s unreasonable handling of a later appeal can still expose it to a limited costs order. Neither conclusion removes the need to assess the merits of the proposed homes.
What the Southwark flats appeal proposed
The Third Quarter (Rosebery Avenue) Limited proposed demolishing the existing building and replacing it with a mixed-use development of 38 Class C3 flats and Class E commercial floorspace. Landscaping, parking, cycle facilities, waste and recycling arrangements and other works formed part of application 24/AP/3834.
A hearing took place on 25 August 2026. The Inspector looked at Southwark Local Plan policies on residential design, wheelchair-accessible homes and amenity, along with London Plan requirements and the national policy framework revised during the appeal. The council had not issued an application decision within the required period.
The site fronts a busy part of Rye Lane where frequent buses, deliveries and neighbouring buildings all create design constraints. Some flats would have only one aspect and mechanical ventilation. The Inspector accepted that, in this location, mechanical ventilation could be a sensible response rather than evidence that the development should automatically fail.
Even so, the Southwark flats appeal did not receive an unqualified endorsement of its floor plans. Several bedrooms would have obscured glazing to 1.7 metres, restricting normal outward views. A number of rooms also had below-guideline daylight or sunlight, and the Inspector considered the overall effect on some future occupiers to be harmful.
Wheelchair housing defects and a payment in lieu
The most serious deficiencies concerned the wheelchair-accessible apartments. Five proposed units did not meet Southwark’s required local floorspace standards, falling short by 6.06 to 7.81 square metres. The block containing those apartments also had only one lift, despite the applicable local policy requiring two where wheelchair units are above ground level.
The Inspector noted that every wheelchair unit would experience at least some compromised daylight, sunlight or outlook. He found that the combined quality of the wheelchair accommodation fell below expected standards. A previous permission for a different scheme was not a compelling answer because the number and scale of the present deficits were greater.
Instead, Southwark Local Plan Policy P8 permits, in certain circumstances, a payment that supports the adaptation of other housing for wheelchair users. A legal undertaking secured that separate contribution, which the Inspector considered necessary and appropriate. This addressed a specific planning harm rather than showing that the shortcomings did not exist.
That distinction is important. The Southwark flats appeal did not establish that inadequate accessible flats should routinely be authorised. The proposed mitigation was available under the relevant local policy, and the Inspector relied on the actual agreement before him when reaching his conclusion.
Why no immediate affordable housing payment was required
Southwark’s plan seeks 35% affordable housing, subject to the outcome of viability testing. Here, viability consultants for both sides agreed that the development could not support an affordable housing contribution, although they differed over the size of the underlying deficit. The Inspector said the deficit was not marginal.
The developer had initially made a £1 million payment available, described during the proceedings as roughly equivalent to 8% affordable housing. However, the offer was withdrawn as the appellant’s substantive case evolved. It was included in the legal agreement only as a conditional option if the Inspector found it necessary.
No adequate evidence explained how that particular £1 million was calculated or why it fairly related to the impact of the development when the tested scheme could not afford the payment. The Inspector therefore found it did not meet the necessary justification. The amount was not imposed, though a late-stage viability review mechanism remained in the legal agreement.
The Southwark flats appeal is a reminder that policy targets, tested scheme viability and the legal justification for individual obligations are different considerations. The existence of a local affordable housing need does not, by itself, establish that an otherwise unviable scheme must make an arbitrary fixed contribution.
The housing balance that decided the appeal
The council and appellant agreed that Southwark could demonstrate a 4.53-year housing land supply, below the expected level. Housing delivery had recently been recorded at 69%. The Inspector gave substantial weight to the delivery of new homes in a settlement and to the reuse of previously developed land.
He nevertheless placed considerable weight on the unacceptable living conditions affecting some rooms. The key was the overall planning balance under the revised August 2026 national framework. In his assessment, the identified accommodation harm did not substantially outweigh the scheme’s benefits, and national policy indicated that permission should be granted.
He acknowledged conflict with parts of the development plan. The decision was to grant permission despite that conflict because the material considerations, notably the national framework and housing need, were sufficiently weighty. This was a case-specific judgement and not a general suspension of local daylight, design or accessibility standards.
Why the costs award was only partial
A separate costs decision on 20 October 2026 found unreasonable conduct by Southwark in two limited respects. Once the applicant had withdrawn the earlier affordable housing offer in its revised appeal statement, the council continued to pursue a payment without showing why viability evidence justified one. The Inspector found that this caused avoidable costs.
He also criticised the way the legal agreement was handled. The council delayed responding to the appellant’s solicitor and then required a redraft rather than using the earlier document based on its own template. The additional drafting and subsequent review generated unnecessary expense. Those costs, rather than every cost of the appeal, were awarded.
The Inspector expressly rejected several other complaints, including the argument that councillors’ concerns about the standard of accommodation were inherently unreasonable. The Council was entitled to reach a different planning judgement from its officers. It was not a development which was plainly bound to be approved at committee.
Accordingly, the Southwark flats appeal resulted in a partial costs award, limited to work arising from the unjustified affordable housing demand after the revised appeal statement and the unnecessary redrafting of the agreement. The actual amount is to be agreed between the parties or assessed by the Senior Courts Costs Office.
What this means for applicants and councils
For applicants, the strongest lesson is to keep viability evidence, proposed financial obligations and the legal agreement consistent as the case develops. An offer made during negotiations may later be withdrawn, but changes in position need to be explicit and evidence-based. If the council then maintains a demand, its reasons must be defensible.
For councils, delaying a decision does not remove the right to raise genuine concerns about future living conditions. What attracts costs is unreasonable conduct causing avoidable appeal expense, not simply losing an appeal. Planning Geek’s appeal costs guide explains that important distinction.
The Southwark flats appeal is confined to England and the evidence in this application. Read the separate merits and costs decisions through the Planning Inspectorate appeal record, reference 6010489. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments