{"id":780368,"date":"2025-03-27T08:10:53","date_gmt":"2025-03-27T08:10:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/?p=780368"},"modified":"2025-03-27T12:42:13","modified_gmt":"2025-03-27T12:42:13","slug":"maccreanor-lavingtons-contentious-borough-triangle-scheme-approved","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/maccreanor-lavingtons-contentious-borough-triangle-scheme-approved","title":{"rendered":"Maccreanor Lavington\u2019s contentious Borough Triangle scheme approved"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Councillors on Southwark Council\u2019s planning committee narrowly agreed to back the so-called Borough Triangle scheme, drawn-up for Berkeley, last night (26 March) after an almost four hour-long discussion, admitting no that &#8216;there\u2019s not such thing as the perfect plan&#8217;.<\/p>\n<p>Opponents of the high-rise redevelopment of the site protested outside while the application was decided, voicing concerns over density, massing and the number of social homes on offer. More than 400 objections were lodged against the application.<\/p>\n<p>Maccreanor Lavington\u2019s scheme proposes four brick-clad towers between 10 and 44 storeys high, together delivering 892 homes, of which 153, or 25 per cent, are earmarked as affordable and social. By habitable room, the proposal is 35 per cent affordable and social.<\/p>\n<p>Tenures for the affordable and social homes will include mostly family sized units, planning documents say. A majority of the units for the private market include one and two-bed studios.<\/p>\n<p>Smaller traders at Mercato Metropolitan, the pop-up food and drink venue that currently operates on the site, will be offered units in a dedicated market space once complete, according to Southwark Council\u2019s planning report. However, other operators will be relocated elsewhere by Berkeley.<\/p>\n<p>The consented scheme also includes proposals for a Latin community centre and at least 1,780 m\u00b2 of public open space.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\" data-media-max-width=\"560\">\n<p dir=\"ltr\" lang=\"en\">Just home from Southwark\u2019s Planning Committee. Labour approved the Borough Triangle scheme \u2013 892 flats, but just 17% for social rent. Over 400 locals objected, yet Labour councillors sided with big developers again. We\u2019ll keep fighting for truly affordable homes. This isn\u2019t over. <a href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/cXDZLwBk7R\">pic.twitter.com\/cXDZLwBk7R<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\u2014 Cllr Victor ChamberlaIN (he\/him) (@VMMChamberlain) <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/VMMChamberlain\/status\/1905041141952909818?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">March 26, 2025<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><script async src=\"https:\/\/platform.twitter.com\/widgets.js\" charset=\"utf-8\"><\/script><\/p>\n<p>Borough Triangle is a triangular site that faces Southwark Crown Court and is bounded by Borough Road and Newington Causeway. One building that features on the draft list for locally listed buildings would be maintained, while another would be partially retained.<\/p>\n<p>However, local architect Benedict O\u2019Looney was among those raising concerns over the loss of the Institute of Optometry building and the size of the largest tower as part of <span data-olk-copy-source=\"MessageBody\">Southwark Conservation Area Advisory Group.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>He argued in a letter to Southwark Council: \u2018The proposed demolition <span class=\"markc8yo2zj87\" data-markjs=\"true\" data-ogac=\"\" data-ogab=\"\" data-ogsc=\"\" data-ogsb=\"\">of<\/span>\u00a0the\u00a0<span class=\"markshy7cp0we\" data-markjs=\"true\" data-ogac=\"\" data-ogab=\"\" data-ogsc=\"\" data-ogsb=\"\">Institute<\/span>\u00a0<span class=\"markc8yo2zj87\" data-markjs=\"true\" data-ogac=\"\" data-ogab=\"\" data-ogsc=\"\" data-ogsb=\"\">of<\/span>\u00a0<span class=\"mark46oud9e6l\" data-markjs=\"true\" data-ogac=\"\" data-ogab=\"\" data-ogsc=\"\" data-ogsb=\"\">Optometry<\/span> is unfortunate and unacceptable [&#8230;] It is one <span class=\"markc8yo2zj87\" data-markjs=\"true\" data-ogac=\"\" data-ogab=\"\" data-ogsc=\"\" data-ogsb=\"\">of<\/span>\u00a0the last remnants\u00a0<span class=\"markc8yo2zj87\" data-markjs=\"true\" data-ogac=\"\" data-ogab=\"\" data-ogsc=\"\" data-ogsb=\"\">of<\/span> the late Georgian terrace that characterised Newington Causeway when it was \u201cimproved\u201d 200 years ago [&#8230;] Why throw these historic <span class=\"markj6ebxcoih\" data-markjs=\"true\" data-ogac=\"\" data-ogab=\"\" data-ogsc=\"\" data-ogsb=\"\">building<\/span>s away?\u2019<\/p>\n<p>Maccreanor Lavington originally submitted plans for the site in late 2022 for 838 homes across five buildings, including towers standing 46 and 42 storeys tall. That scheme also included 35 per cent affordable and social homes.<\/p>\n<p>However, that application was withdrawn and the architects redesigned the scheme to accommodate second staircases. Berkeley also acquired the Institute of Optometry building next door, enlarging the application site, since the 2022 planning application.<\/p>\n<p>The approved plans are the latest in a string of proposals for the triangular plot.<\/p>\n<p>In 2014, Stephen Marshall Architects submitted plans for a pair of towers standing at 40 and 32 storeys on the site. The plans, which included other blocks between four and 12 storeys, would have created 576 homes as well as new headquarters for developer Peabody.<\/p>\n<p>The scheme was withdrawn in 2016 and Squire &amp; Partners subsequently drew up a masterplan for 600-700 homes on the site. Peabody consulted on the early Squires plans in 2017 but the site was subsequently sold to Berkeley in 2020.<\/p>\n<p><em>Site view:<\/em><br \/>\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" style=\"border: 0;\" src=\"https:\/\/www.google.com\/maps\/embed?pb=!4v1665588500956!6m8!1m7!1s-2tKIorLt0XTaIYjFI_iYQ!2m2!1d51.49907060319283!2d-0.09693595020774484!3f257.2739291875602!4f5.2812738202891865!5f0.7820865974627469\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Councillors on Southwark Council\u2019s planning committee narrowly agreed to back the so-called Borough Triangle scheme, drawn-up for Berkeley, last night (26 March) after an almost four hour-long discussion, admitting no that &#8216;there\u2019s not such thing as the perfect plan&#8217;. Opponents of the high-rise redevelopment of the site protested outside while the application was decided, voicing &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":131789,"featured_media":780454,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_oasis_is_in_workflow":0,"_oasis_original":0,"ep_exclude_from_search":false},"categories":[681],"tags":[1155,1985,1975,6056],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v21.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Maccreanor Lavington\u2019s contentious Borough Triangle scheme approved<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Maccreanor Lavington\u2019s proposal for a high-rise scheme providing 892 homes in Borough, south London, has been given the go-ahead against a backdrop of local opposition\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/maccreanor-lavingtons-contentious-borough-triangle-scheme-approved\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maccreanor Lavington\u2019s contentious Borough Triangle scheme approved\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Maccreanor Lavington\u2019s proposal for a high-rise scheme providing 892 homes in Borough, south London, has been given the go-ahead against a backdrop of local opposition\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/maccreanor-lavingtons-contentious-borough-triangle-scheme-approved\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Architects\u2019 Journal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-03-27T08:10:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-03-27T12:42:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/cdn.rt.emap.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2025\/03\/27084843\/bt-1024x683.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1024\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"683\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Gino Spocchia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Gino Spocchia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/maccreanor-lavingtons-contentious-borough-triangle-scheme-approved\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/maccreanor-lavingtons-contentious-borough-triangle-scheme-approved\",\"name\":\"Maccreanor Lavington\u2019s contentious Borough Triangle scheme approved\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-03-27T08:10:53+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-03-27T12:42:13+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/779aa0e54c8c20bf4509b8cce80c65b0\"},\"description\":\"Maccreanor Lavington\u2019s proposal for a high-rise scheme providing 892 homes in Borough, south London, has been given the go-ahead against a backdrop of local opposition\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/maccreanor-lavingtons-contentious-borough-triangle-scheme-approved#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/maccreanor-lavingtons-contentious-borough-triangle-scheme-approved\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/maccreanor-lavingtons-contentious-borough-triangle-scheme-approved#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maccreanor Lavington\u2019s contentious Borough Triangle scheme approved\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/\",\"name\":\"The Architects\u2019 Journal\",\"description\":\"Architecture News &amp; Buildings\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/779aa0e54c8c20bf4509b8cce80c65b0\",\"name\":\"Gino Spocchia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/ff22f86c19263bf2f9ca73b4d596096f\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9ace0cb1667a73da3fb8f9f2e77f8b97?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9ace0cb1667a73da3fb8f9f2e77f8b97?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Gino Spocchia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/author\/gino-spocchia\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Maccreanor Lavington\u2019s contentious Borough Triangle scheme approved","description":"Maccreanor Lavington\u2019s proposal for a high-rise scheme providing 892 homes in Borough, south London, has been given the go-ahead against a backdrop of local opposition","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/maccreanor-lavingtons-contentious-borough-triangle-scheme-approved","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maccreanor Lavington\u2019s contentious Borough Triangle scheme approved","og_description":"Maccreanor Lavington\u2019s proposal for a high-rise scheme providing 892 homes in Borough, south London, has been given the go-ahead against a backdrop of local opposition","og_url":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/maccreanor-lavingtons-contentious-borough-triangle-scheme-approved","og_site_name":"The Architects\u2019 Journal","article_published_time":"2025-03-27T08:10:53+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-03-27T12:42:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1024,"height":683,"url":"https:\/\/cdn.rt.emap.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2025\/03\/27084843\/bt-1024x683.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"Gino Spocchia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Gino Spocchia","Estimated reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/maccreanor-lavingtons-contentious-borough-triangle-scheme-approved","url":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/maccreanor-lavingtons-contentious-borough-triangle-scheme-approved","name":"Maccreanor Lavington\u2019s contentious Borough Triangle scheme approved","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-03-27T08:10:53+00:00","dateModified":"2025-03-27T12:42:13+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/779aa0e54c8c20bf4509b8cce80c65b0"},"description":"Maccreanor Lavington\u2019s proposal for a high-rise scheme providing 892 homes in Borough, south London, has been given the go-ahead against a backdrop of local opposition","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/maccreanor-lavingtons-contentious-borough-triangle-scheme-approved#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/maccreanor-lavingtons-contentious-borough-triangle-scheme-approved"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/maccreanor-lavingtons-contentious-borough-triangle-scheme-approved#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maccreanor Lavington\u2019s contentious Borough Triangle scheme approved"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/","name":"The Architects\u2019 Journal","description":"Architecture News &amp; Buildings","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/779aa0e54c8c20bf4509b8cce80c65b0","name":"Gino Spocchia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/ff22f86c19263bf2f9ca73b4d596096f","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9ace0cb1667a73da3fb8f9f2e77f8b97?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9ace0cb1667a73da3fb8f9f2e77f8b97?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Gino Spocchia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/author\/gino-spocchia"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/780368"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/131789"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=780368"}],"version-history":[{"count":20,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/780368\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":780491,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/780368\/revisions\/780491"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/780454"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=780368"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=780368"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=780368"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}