Any updates? - Sidings East Dulwich on the top of Railway rise

[GD JP]

Hi all

Any updates on this planning? I checked the last form but there is no date for commencing so if anyone knows anything it would be appreciated

On Friday I saw massive blockers being placed at the gate

[James Barber]

Current status of Planning Application 24/AP/2314 is the approval document was published 31 December 2025 with effect 1 January 2026.  https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/E5F5EC6005598720843BC00D7E6A7D11/pdf/24_AP_2314-DECISION_NOTICE_-_MAJOR_-_GRANT-4194604.pdf

It has 41 conditions many of which must be confirmed via further applications into Southwark Council before works on site can begin. I've not seen any applications to start discharging those conditions yet - amazed some of these have not been prepared by the developer. No work of any kind is allowed on site until some of those conditions are discharged.

Additionally the sites proximity to the rail tracks means Network Rail will have to be heavily involved. My work experiences with Network Rail would suggest quite some delay will come rom them alone. 

With the national government and Southwark Council planning to reduce the proportion of social housing from 35% to 20%, and some schemes in Southwark are now only provided 2% social housing. It would be amazing if the developer doesn't seek an amended viability appraisal to reduce social housing for the scheme or even taller buildings.

[beansprout]

How can councils reduce social housing element? Is this just London or through out UK? Housebuilders making enough money as it is!! 

When are housebuilders going to understand their social responsibilities — with a shortage of property throughout UK, guess like everything, does not matter whuch Govt in charge… back handers, mates blah blah..

Been going on for years… 

Europe as a whole, well most of them can find ways of supporting homeless with pods etc, turn containers into housing and we in UK? Do what?

Govt - all for some extraordinary reason are not accountable for mis using tax payers money..

NHS not held accountable either for mis use of funds and yet, we expect and complain if  overworked doctors, nurses etc are doing their best in a very difficult situation.

Years ago, wrote a paper on elderly care, bed blocking, dementia and no plans going forward to accommodate or in deed plans in place to sort out social care..

No wonder, medical professions are looking to work or relocate abroad.. 

Simply do not get it at all.. changing names of govt departments to something what? Acceptable in 21century is not going to solve the problems…

Same goes for police, fire department, ambulances, schools etc.. only sector that seems to be having and have had for years, monies and support is sport… 

Education is in same situation - having to ask for donations for books, musical instruments etc and now expected to train toddlers in how to use utensils for food, provide food and train/assist  potty training to use of toilets…plus normal teacher and or assistant duties.

Not even going to go down route of SEN needs…

Rant over.. 

 

 

 

 

 

[mitchiner]

What do they mean by “affordable” housing? Unsure how they will profit with 41 of these if they are council flats

[beansprout]

My  understanding is that all developments whatever size, have to have an element of social housing…affordable housing… council housing..No longer sure of percentage but clearly less than years ago..

The point is house builders clearly make a profit or they simply would not  continue building what I refer to as modern  boxes!  Putting housing condensed or what originally was one house with land attached. 

Huge development going on in Beckenham - 200 social housing and rest open market.. sited over several houses now demolished… up the road from the park on way into town centre.. might even be completed by now.. haven’t been that way in last year… certainly can’t miss it..

So, for example, let’s say a developer builds houses and flats on a site… social housing I assume would be in a separate block to other flats and I assume house as well. Ie to put it bluntly, away from main site.. Nothing wrong in that at all. 

Many years ago, near Borough a developer built flats divided into blocks. . Price range £300/400,000. Social housing was in a different block…. Can’t remember how many… so families , couples etc got a brand new flat with modern kitchen and bathrooms, flooring etc  and could not even keep common parts clean.. trash thrown out and left including out of windows etc..total disregard for community and certainly not  grateful for brand new property and a home.. I hasten to add, not every flat in the social housing sector but certainly a fair few behaved that way.

 

 

 

[march46]

On 25/01/2026 at 11:07, James Barber said:

With the national government and Southwark Council planning to reduce the proportion of social housing from 35% to 20%, and some schemes in Southwark are now only provided 2% social housing. It would be amazing if the developer doesn't seek an amended viability appraisal to reduce social housing for the scheme or even taller buildings.

Southwark Council has issued a response  on changes to planning in London, urging a rethink - 
 
“We have significant concerns over plans to allow developers to build fewer affordable homes in London, and to cut developer contributions to local communities.
 
“Under current proposals, the fast-track threshold for planning applications in London would be cut from 35% affordable housing to 20%.
 
“The proposals would also cut in half the levy that developers currently pay when they build, which helps pay for much-need local community improvements.
 
“Today we have submitted our responses to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Greater London Authority consultations and urged a rethink.”
 
Read the council’s response in full https://southwark.gov.uk/planning-environment-and-building-control/planning/planning-policy-and-guidance/responses

[James Barber]

Good update - thanks march46. The actual % Southwark Council is currently agreeing with developers that must be social housing is generally much lower - not walking the talk.

And the council currently has over 1,250 empty council properties and rising, plus over 5,000 empty private properties. 

[Jenijenjen]

There are many reasons that properties both private and council are empty and these numbers do not signify that they could be moved into tomorrow to reduce homeless numbers. For example, in my terrace of 10 houses, one house is going through probate and another is going through a large scale renovation. 20% non ocupancy seems high until you examine the reasons why. Both will be providing homes in due course, sooner rather than later.

[Moovart]

2 hours ago, James Barber said:

Good update - thanks march46. The actual % Southwark Council is currently agreeing with developers that must be social housing is generally much lower - not walking the talk.

And the council currently has over 1,250 empty council properties and rising, plus over 5,000 empty private properties. 

There was a good More or Less episode examining the empty homes statistic trying to work out how many homes are actually empty and available.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002phn6?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

[Jenijenjen]

21 minutes ago, Moovart said:

There was a good More or Less episode examining the empty homes statistic trying to work out how many homes are actually empty and available.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002phn6?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

Excellent analysis nationally, thanks for recommend

[James Barber]

Hi JenJenJen,

Southwark Council have targets for turning around "minor voids" which are council properties with minimal work to be able to re-let them to new tenants. As it is consistently missing these targets and taking 3 x times longer than the target, that past councils did meet, they have just relaxed the targets to the level they are currently achieving. Clearly these empty homes are empty much longer than I suspect you, and definitely I, and the new tenants, would like. 

Big fan of More or Less. But their reporting is at a country wide level for empty homes not down to individual councils. 

[beansprout]

Why are they missing deadlines ie not completing repairs or refurbishing council properties? Or are council not held to account and Freddy contractors rubbing their hands in glee….. prob no clause ie c penalising them for not completing on time.

Not difficult to refurbished a property no matter what the budget is so what is the problem? 
 

 

[Insuflo]

59 minutes ago, James Barber said:

 

Big fan of More or Less. But their reporting is at a country wide level for empty homes not down to individual councils. 

You’ve just blown any credibility you ever had right there.

[ianr]

Your own comment's just blown way over my head.  What is it specifically you have in mind?

[Pugwash]

It is not only Southwark - our grandson, partner and 7 year old had a one bed council flat for years in Harlow Essex and all the properties offered were in poor condition. They eventually took a property as if they refused another one they would drop to the bottom of the Housing List. It was damp and in need of a level of renovation. Having lived in these conditions for a while they were offered better council accommodation recently, but further away from child's school. They had to pay 2 lots of rent for a few weeks as council had to undertake work in the new premises before they could move in,

[beansprout]

Well that is good news… alternative would have been homeless or private.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

On 25/01/2026 at 13:37, beansprout said:

Housebuilders making enough money as it is!! 

When are housebuilders going to understand their social responsibilities

Housebuilding isn't that profitable and housebuilders don't have social responsibilities. The affordable housing component is just a tax on new builds. It's a total failure by government - a fantasy belief that the private sector is going to solve the state's social housing crisis for free. It's like expecting Tesco to solve child humgrr by giving away a percentage of its products. It's not gonna work - it just slows down and disincentivises private sector construction of new housing.

The only solution to the housing crisis is a massive increase in the supply of housing, not a couple of "affordable" flats in a new development. The state needs to solve the problem of NIMBYs (one of whom is prominent on this thread), get out of the way of private sector developers building private rentals and homes for sale, and borrow to build a huge amount of social housing.

[beansprout]

Sorry, I disagree.. my understanding is all new builds have to have an element, or did have to have social housing  attached.

totally agreed, that the element of social housing attached to new build is inadequate. And not going to solve the housing crisis.

If house building was not profitable, then explain why the big players are still in business.

 

 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

I said it's not *that* profitable. Housebuilders and property developers are not the same, by the way.

Obviously if it weren't profitable at all, it wouldn't happen at all. We already see land lying undeveloped because between costs, taxes, obstructive councillors and the semi-hidden tax of affordable housing it's not economically viable. London needs 90,000 new homes a year even with steady demand (ie no more Boriswaves that increase demand for housing)...in 2024, about 30,000 were actually built.

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/new-homes-london-1

https://www.bidwells.co.uk/insights-reports-events/London-housing-delivery-crisis/

[Pugwash]

The lack of affordable housing is down to Thatcher's promoting sale of council properties. When I was working, I had to deal with many families/older folk/ disabled folk in inferior housing. The worst ones were ex council properties purchased by their tenants  with a very high discount who then sold on for a profit. The new owners frequently rented out at exorbitant prices and failed to maintain the properties. I remember a gentleman who needed to be visited by a district nurse daily becoming very upset as he rented a room in an ex council flat and shared kitchen and bathroom with 6 other people  (it was a 3 bed flat) the landlord did not allow visitors to the flat and this gut was frightened he would be evicted if the nurse visited daily. Unfortunately, the guy was re admitted to hospital and ended up in a care home as he could not receive medical help at home.   Private developers  are not keen on providing a larger percentage of 'social housing' as it dents their profits. Also a social rent is still around £200 plus a week