Southwark stands at a critical juncture in London’s affordable housing crisis. Despite ambitious promises, bold commitments, and regeneration programs worth billions of pounds, genuinely affordable homes remain out of reach for tens of thousands of residents. The borough’s housing waiting list has swollen to approximately 18,000 households, while average rents exceed £2,300 monthly and house prices approach £600,000. For working families, young professionals, and long-term residents alike, the promise of affordable living in Southwark has become an increasingly distant dream.
The statistics paint a stark picture of unfulfilled commitments. Southwark Council failed to start building a single council home in 2024-2025, down from just 28 the previous year, itself a 96 percent drop from earlier delivery. Meanwhile, children in temporary accommodation increased by 77 percent between 2020 and 2024, rising from around 1,900 to over 3,300. Major development schemes consistently fall short of affordable housing targets, with projects like Canada Water potentially delivering just 10 percent affordable housing, the Aylesham Centre in Peckham proposing 12 percent, and Borough Triangle offering 17 percent despite borough targets of 35 to 50 percent.
The Scale of the Affordability Crisis
Housing costs in Southwark have risen faster than London averages, creating an affordability crisis that affects residents across income levels. The average home in the borough sold for nearly £600,000 in April, up more than five percent from a year earlier, an increase that outpaced London as a whole. By August, average house prices reached £598,000, while detached properties commanded £1.739 million, semi-detached homes £1.25 million, and even flats and maisonettes averaged £495,000.
Rental costs have climbed with equal ferocity. The average monthly rent for a private property rose to more than £2,350 as of May, with September figures showing £2,345, representing a 2.9 percent annual increase. One-bedroom flats have seen the sharpest increases, rising seven percent year-on-year as demand for smaller homes grows stronger. By bedroom count, average rents in September reached £1,774 for one bedroom, £2,224 for two bedrooms, £2,583 for three bedrooms, and £3,420 for four or more bedrooms.
The squeeze on affordability affects even those who turn to flat shares, traditionally seen as the most accessible way to enter the capital’s rental market. The average rent for a room in a shared house in Bermondsey and Rotherhithe has reached £1,029 monthly, well above the capital’s average of £982. SpareRoom Director Matt Hutchinson observed there is a severe lack of affordable rented accommodation in Southwark pushing people further out of the city, questioning how service workers the city relies on to function can afford these rental prices.
Private renters claiming housing benefit face a widening gap between support and actual costs. More than 4,200 private renters in Southwark claim housing benefit to cover rent, but Local Housing Allowance rates fall short of market rents. Despite increases on April 1, 2024, monthly LHA rates remain £648 for shared accommodation, £1,292 for one-bedroom flats, £1,546 for two-bedroom flats, £1,945 for three-bedroom flats, and £2,618 for homes with four or more bedrooms. These amounts leave significant shortfalls that tenants must cover from already stretched incomes.
The Waiting List Crisis
Southwark maintains the ninth largest social housing waiting list in London with 11,893 households officially registered in 2022-2023, though more recent council data suggests the housing register has increased to around 18,000 households. This backlog reflects decades of insufficient social housing construction coupled with loss of existing stock through demolition, sales, and conversions. Just 10 percent of those on the waiting list make a successful bid each year, leaving thousands in limbo for years or even decades.
Waiting times vary dramatically by property size. For one-bedroom properties, Southwark residents wait an average of 1,101 days, close to the Central London borough average of 1,008 days but representing the eighth highest in London overall. For two-bedroom properties, waiting times increase to 1,835 days, the fifth highest in London. Interestingly, Southwark contrasts with the wider pan-London trend for three-bedroom properties, showing a slightly shorter waiting time of 1,732 days than for smaller properties.
These waiting times translate into years of housing insecurity, overcrowding, and family stress. Parents watch children grow up sharing bedrooms long after they need privacy. Multi-generational families squeeze into spaces designed for nuclear households. Medical conditions worsen in unsuitable accommodation. The council places applicants in bands depending on urgency of rehousing need, with Band 1 being most urgent, but even priority cases face years before receiving offers.
The twin pressures of limited supply and soaring demand have intensified council pressures in recent years. Even once proposed allocation scheme changes are implemented, the council admits it still will not be able to meet local housing need. Proposed changes include no longer allowing a fifth of housing applicants to bid on council homes while giving higher priority to domestic violence victims and care leavers. These necessary prioritization efforts cannot solve the fundamental shortage of genuinely affordable homes.
The Housebuilding Collapse
Southwark’s affordable housing crisis has been exacerbated by the complete collapse of council housebuilding. Liberal Democrat analysis revealed the council started building zero council homes in 2024-2025, down from 28 the previous year, already a 96 percent drop from the year before that. This freeze on housebuilding represents a dereliction of duty in a borough with an ambitious pledge to deliver 11,000 new council homes by 2043.
The construction slowdown extends beyond Southwark. Latest statistics reveal 23 out of 33 London boroughs started zero new homes in the first quarter of 2025. The council has blamed construction costs, high inflation, interest rates, and the need to focus investment on existing housing stock requiring repair. However, these explanations ring hollow when private developers continue building market-rate housing while affordable delivery stalls.
Despite the lack of council homes started in the last year, Councillor Helen Dennis, Southwark’s cabinet member for new homes, claimed the council delivered 11 percent of London’s social rent properties, more than any other borough in the city. However, these figures mask complex arrangements where housing associations or private developers deliver affordable homes with council support rather than direct council construction. The distinction matters because council-owned housing provides maximum long-term control and affordability.
The number of empty homes in Southwark has soared while housebuilding stalls. Latest estimates indicate roughly 1,600 houses currently lie vacant, the second-largest number of any local authority in the UK. These empty properties represent a scandalous waste of housing stock in a borough where children sleep in temporary accommodation and families wait years for secure tenancies. Bringing these homes back into use should be an urgent priority, yet progress remains slow.
Developer Viability Assessments: The Affordability Loophole
Viability assessments have become the mechanism through which developers systematically reduce affordable housing commitments. Under planning regulations, developers can submit financial analyses claiming that delivering required affordable housing percentages would render projects unprofitable. When viability assessments demonstrate returns falling below target profit margins, usually 15 to 20 percent, developers argue for reduced affordable housing obligations.
The Aylesham Centre redevelopment by Berkeley Homes exemplifies this pattern. After a six-year battle with residents, Berkeley reduced its affordable housing commitment from 35 percent to just 12 percent in December, citing deteriorating market conditions and delays. Berkeley’s viability assessment would have supported zero percent affordable housing, making the developer’s position that 12 percent represents a generous offer. Southwark Council expressed disappointment but appeared powerless to enforce higher percentages.
Canada Water’s masterplan faces similar pressures. Original outline plans complied with local planning policy requiring minimum 35 percent affordable housing, including 25 percent social rent. However, revised viability assessments claim this would risk the developer losing money. The revised plans, responding to construction sector inflation and new planning regulations like the two-staircase rule, involve taller buildings and potentially reducing affordable housing to just 10 percent for the scheme to remain viable.
This comes after a 600-person protest triggered by Peckham developments dropping to 12 percent affordable housing. Liberal Democrat Councillor Adam Hood expressed deep trouble at huge changes to the Canada Water masterplan flying in the face of what the community had previously been told. The council was urged to robustly challenge viability assessments to ensure accuracy and seek urgent clarification that the 10 percent affordable housing figure does not become the new baseline.
Borough Triangle proposes just 17 percent social housing, continuing the pattern of projects falling far short of requirements. The consistency across developments suggests a systematic strategy by developers who know councils lack resources to effectively challenge complex viability assessments prepared by professional consultants. Rising costs and slowing sales markets may be real factors, but windfall profits developers earn when property values soar in regenerated neighborhoods demonstrate projects remain highly profitable overall.
Policy Changes Weakening Affordable Housing Requirements
Government policy changes have dramatically weakened affordable housing protections, threatening to worsen delivery failures. A joint paper from the Government and London Mayor confirmed that the fast-track threshold for developers has fallen from 35 percent to 20 percent affordable housing, with cash required from developers for local infrastructure improvements halved. Under the new plan, just one in eight homes need to be social housing for schemes to receive fast-track approval.
This reduction represents a major victory for the House Builders Federation, which mounted a strong lobbying campaign to reduce affordable housing requirements. According to BBC News, the HBF called for the 35 percent requirement to be reduced to 25 percent. Financial Times and Evening Standard reports indicated developers demanded even bigger cuts to between 10 and 15 percent. British Land and Berkeley Homes, developers of Canada Water and the Aylesham Centre respectively, were already seeking reductions to these levels before policy changed.
Guardian reporting by Aditya Chakrabortty revealed that Steve Reed, the new government’s housing minister, was poised to reduce affordable housing requirements in London down to 20 percent and suspend Community Infrastructure Levy. CIL funds projects like parks, sustainable transport, and safety measures that make growing populations viable. Southwark had recently started allocating £20 million of this funding following a Liberal Democrat campaign to release money for community benefit.
The new framework also grants the Mayor of London power to overturn local housing decisions for schemes over 50 homes, representing a significant centralization of planning authority. This power grab reduces local democratic control and weakens councils’ ability to negotiate with developers on behalf of residents. Southwark Liberal Democrats described Labour as cozying up to big developers whilst ignoring priced-out residents, noting reports suggest the new policy was drawn up behind closed doors between government and major developers with no input from local government voices.
The Private Rented Sector Trap
The private rented sector has grown significantly in Southwark over the last ten years and now accounts for nearly one-third of all households in the borough. In 2015, the Office for National Statistics found 62,500 private renters in Southwark, representing 25 percent of the total population. This proportion has likely grown as homeownership becomes increasingly unaffordable and social housing remains unavailable.
Private renters face mounting insecurity, rising costs, and poor housing conditions. No-fault evictions under Section 21 have displaced thousands of families, often with minimal notice. Landlords use eviction threats to prevent tenants from requesting repairs or improvements. Rent increases far outpace wage growth, forcing families to choose between housing costs and other essentials. The ban on bailiff-enforced evictions during pandemic restrictions provided temporary relief, but lifting these protections has intensified pressures.
Specialized support services have emerged to address private renter vulnerabilities. The Southwark Private Renters Project, delivered by Kineara in partnership with Southwark Law Centre, Southwark Council’s Private Rented Sector Team, and Impact on Urban Health, provides tenancy sustainment support to renters facing eviction and homelessness. The program helps tenants access benefits, improve income, communicate with landlords, access wellbeing and health services, advocate for suitable housing, address home safety and disrepair, and find onward housing.
The project has supported over 150 private sector households with intensive housing support, reaching over 275 individuals. Financial hardship and wellbeing have been addressed, with legal support provided to nearly half of households. Ninety percent reported improved wellbeing at the end of the program. These interventions prevent homelessness and improve lives, but they treat symptoms rather than causes. The fundamental problem remains insufficient affordable housing forcing working families into an expensive, insecure private rental market.
Temporary Accommodation and Homelessness
Southwark’s use of temporary accommodation has exploded as affordable housing delivery has failed. Between 2020 and 2024, children in temporary accommodation rose by 77 percent, from around 1,900 to over 3,300. New Economics Foundation analysis found one classroom worth of homeless children for every primary school in Southwark, highlighting the human cost of inadequate affordable housing provision.
Temporary accommodation often means substandard housing conditions far from support networks and schools. Families live in cramped bed and breakfasts, converted office buildings, or former student housing. Children change schools multiple times, disrupting education and friendships. Parents struggle to maintain employment when temporary placements are hours from workplaces. Health conditions deteriorate in overcrowded, damp, or poorly maintained properties.
Fifty percent of temporary housing in Southwark is outside the borough due to lack of availability of council housing. Out-of-borough placements sever community connections built over years or generations. Extended family support becomes inaccessible. Cultural and religious institutions that anchor lives disappear. Local knowledge of services, shops, and amenities must be rebuilt from scratch. The disruption inflicts profound psychological and practical costs on families already experiencing housing crisis.
Parliament’s cross-party Housing Committee, chaired by local Labour MP Florence Eshalomi, slammed local authorities for poor quality of temporary accommodation and use of out-of-borough properties, saying the shortage of social housing was to blame. In 2024-2025, Southwark recorded a 72 percent success rate in preventing homelessness, including amongst families with children where early help was provided. However, this positive statistic cannot obscure the failure to prevent homelessness at the scale the crisis demands.
Social Housing Lost Through Demolition and Sales
While Southwark struggles to build new council homes, existing social housing has been lost through regeneration-linked demolitions. The Heygate Estate housed approximately 3,000 residents in 1,000 socially rented flats before demolition as part of Elephant and Castle regeneration. Despite promises that residents would receive fair deals and be rehoused locally, most were displaced to outer London boroughs, with only one in five rehoused in the SE17 area.
The site has been redeveloped as Elephant Park with approximately 3,000 new homes, but only 79 will be social rented homes. This represents a catastrophic net loss of 921 social rented units. A 2012 planning application for redevelopment originally proposed just eight social rented flats among 2,535 new homes. While the final number increased to 79, this remains far short of what existed before or what local need requires.
The Aylesbury Estate regeneration follows a similar trajectory. Nearly 1,000 empty homes sit on the Aylesbury Estate as demolition and redevelopment proceed in phases. Notting Hill Genesis, the housing association partner, has delivered very little affordable housing, particularly social rented housing. Despite holding outline planning permission since 2015, aside from the First Development Site, Notting Hill Genesis has only completed 122 homes on Plot 18, with just 23 designated as social rent.
The First Development Site required a council bailout in July 2020 costing over £200 million. Through this deal, the council took over two of three FDS plots designated as FDS A and B, while leaving FDS C to Notting Hill Genesis. FDS C will provide just 56 social rent units, 75 shared-ownership homes, and 190 private homes. Leaving FDS C with Notting Hill Genesis denies Southwark important revenue for cross-subsidizing affordable and social rented housing across the estate.
Right to Buy sales have further depleted social housing stock. While allowing some tenants to achieve homeownership, the policy has removed homes from social rent permanently, with replacement rates far below sales. Former council homes sold under Right to Buy often reappear in the private rental market at market rents, enriching individual landlords while reducing affordable housing available to those in greatest need.
What Affordable Housing Actually Means
The term affordable housing has been stretched to include housing options that remain unaffordable for residents on average or even above-average incomes. Under current definitions, affordable housing encompasses social rent, affordable rent at up to 80 percent of market rates, London Living Rent, shared ownership, and various intermediate tenure models. However, 80 percent of market rents in areas where market rents exceed £2,300 monthly still means £1,840 monthly for a modest home.
Social rent, tied to historic formulas based on property values and average earnings, represents the only genuinely affordable option for low-income households. Yet social rent makes up a declining proportion of affordable housing delivery. Developers prefer affordable rent at 80 percent of market rates or shared ownership schemes that generate higher returns. Planning policies that count these tenures as affordable housing enable developers to meet percentage requirements while providing little housing accessible to those most in need.
Shared ownership schemes marketed as affordable homeownership often prove financially precarious. Buyers purchase a share of the property, typically 25 to 75 percent, while paying rent on the remaining share. Service charges, ground rent, and maintenance costs add substantial expenses. Staircasing to purchase additional shares requires significant capital. If property values fall, shared owners face negative equity while still paying rent. The complexity and costs make shared ownership a poor substitute for genuinely affordable renting or full homeownership.
London Living Rent, calculated as a third of median household income for each borough, provides a middle ground between social rent and market rent. However, even London Living Rent remains unaffordable for households with below-median incomes or single-income families. The program serves moderate-income households priced out of homeownership but does little for low-income residents who need social rent. Counting London Living Rent as affordable housing in meeting targets obscures the failure to deliver social rent homes.
The Economics of Affordable Housing Delivery
Understanding why affordable housing delivery consistently falls short requires examining development economics. Land values in Southwark have increased dramatically as regeneration has progressed. Sites that were industrial wastelands or low-density retail now command premium prices. Developers acquiring sites must pay market rates reflecting development potential, creating high baseline costs that shape project viability.
Construction costs have risen significantly in recent years due to material price increases, labor shortages, inflation, and new regulatory requirements. Safety regulations following Grenfell require enhanced fire safety measures. Energy efficiency standards demand better insulation and systems. Building Control and planning requirements add layers of complexity and cost. These increases are real, but they affect all construction, not just affordable housing components.
Developer profit expectations remain the critical variable. Viability assessments typically assume target profit margins of 15 to 20 percent of gross development value. These profit requirements are treated as fixed costs that must be met before affordable housing obligations are considered. If projected profits fall below these thresholds after accounting for land costs, construction expenses, and sales revenues, developers claim affordable housing must be reduced to restore viability.
This framework is fundamentally flawed because it prioritizes developer profit over affordable housing delivery. Target profit margins of 15 to 20 percent already represent substantial returns. The system allows developers to acquire sites at prices reflecting planning permissions for developments with minimal affordable housing, then use viability assessments to justify exactly those reduced affordable housing levels. Councils lack resources to challenge sophisticated financial models prepared by developers’ consultants.
Who Benefits From Rising Property Values
Property value increases in regenerated areas create enormous wealth, but distribution of this wealth reveals fundamental inequities. Landowners who sold sites for regeneration captured significant gains, particularly if they held property during decades when values were depressed. Early investors who purchased off-plan apartments in new developments have seen property values soar as neighborhoods have transformed. Buy-to-let landlords collect rising rents while benefiting from capital appreciation.
Developers profit from the gap between costs and sales revenues. Despite claims that projects barely break even, development companies consistently report healthy profits overall. Lendlease, Get Living, Berkeley Homes, British Land, and other major developers involved in Southwark regeneration are substantial corporations delivering returns to shareholders. The financial structures of development projects, often involving separate project companies and complex funding arrangements, can obscure profitability.
Existing homeowners in regenerated areas benefit from property value increases that create paper wealth. For those wishing to downsize or relocate, this wealth is realizable. For those hoping to remain in the area, rising property values matter less than rising costs and changing neighborhood character. The benefits to existing homeowners are real but should not be overstated as justification for regeneration approaches that displace renters and fail to deliver affordable housing.
The wealth created by regeneration should be captured for public benefit through planning obligations requiring substantial affordable housing and community infrastructure. When developers acquire sites at prices reflecting planning permissions with 35 to 50 percent affordable housing requirements, then deliver just 10 to 20 percent while claiming viability constraints, something is fundamentally wrong. Either land prices are too high, profit expectations are too generous, or affordable housing requirements are too weak. The solution requires political will to rebalance development economics toward public benefit.
Community Organizing and Resistance
Community organizations have mobilized to demand more genuinely affordable housing and resist displacement. The 35% Campaign takes its name from the borough’s minimum 35 percent affordable housing requirement, organizing residents to hold developers and the council accountable when projects fall short. The campaign has exposed viability assessment manipulation, challenged planning applications, and mobilized protests that bring hundreds into the streets.
A 600-person protest in February 2025 responded to Peckham developments dropping to just 12 percent affordable housing, with Liberal Democrat Opposition leader Councillor Victor Chamberlain addressing the crowd in support of more genuinely affordable homes. Such mobilizations demonstrate that residents will not passively accept regeneration that prioritizes luxury housing over community needs. The size and persistence of protests have forced developers and the council to engage more seriously with affordability concerns.
Peckham Vision and Latin Elephant organize around specific neighborhood regeneration issues. Peckham Vision has campaigned for years against the Aylesham Centre redevelopment, demanding that Berkeley Homes deliver genuinely affordable housing and preserve commercial space for existing traders. Latin Elephant advocates for Elephant and Castle’s Latin American community displaced by shopping centre demolition and wider regeneration, fighting to preserve cultural spaces and affordable housing.
These organizations provide crucial counterweights to developer power, but they operate with limited resources compared to the professional teams developers employ. Volunteers donate time and expertise while juggling work and family responsibilities. Fundraising campaigns must cover legal fees when appealing planning decisions or participating in public inquiries. The asymmetry of resources shapes planning outcomes, even when community arguments are substantively stronger.
Alternative Models: What Could Be Done Differently
Alternative approaches to affordable housing delivery exist, but they require political will and financial commitment. Vienna’s social housing system, where 60 percent of residents live in high-quality subsidized housing, demonstrates that cities can prioritize affordability without sacrificing quality. Vienna achieves this through municipal land ownership, direct construction by the city, cross-subsidy from market-rate units within mixed developments, and long-term planning horizons that prioritize social benefit over short-term profit.
Community land trusts offer another model where land is owned by a nonprofit trust and leased to housing providers, permanently removing land costs from development equations and ensuring long-term affordability. The London Community Land Trust has delivered homes in Mile End with rents at a third of market rates, proving the model’s viability. However, scaling community land trusts requires substantial public investment in land acquisition and patient capital willing to accept below-market returns.
Cooperative housing models where residents collectively own and manage properties can provide affordability and security. Cooperatives eliminate landlord profits, keep housing costs tied to actual expenses rather than market rates, and give residents democratic control over their homes. The UK has a relatively underdeveloped cooperative housing sector compared to continental Europe, but organizations like Confederation of Co-operative Housing advocate for policy changes to support cooperative development.
Council-owned housing companies could combine local authority accountability with commercial efficiency. Councils retain ultimate ownership and control while housing companies manage construction and maintenance using business practices. Profits return to the council to cross-subsidize additional affordable housing rather than extracting wealth for private shareholders. Several London boroughs have established such vehicles, but Southwark’s complete failure to start building any council homes in the last year suggests serious implementation problems.
The Health and Wellbeing Costs
Housing insecurity inflicts profound health and wellbeing costs on individuals, families, and communities. Children growing up in temporary accommodation experience disrupted education, unstable friendships, and psychological stress that affects development. Research consistently demonstrates links between housing insecurity and poor educational outcomes, behavioral problems, and mental health issues. Parents struggling with housing costs face impossible choices between paying rent, buying food, heating homes, or affording transport to work.
Overcrowding creates immediate health risks. Infectious diseases spread more easily in cramped conditions. Stress from lack of privacy and personal space affects mental health and family relationships. Children lack quiet space for homework. Adults working from home find nowhere to take calls or concentrate. Multi-generational families experience tensions when cultural expectations of independence clash with economic necessity to share housing.
Poor housing conditions exacerbate physical health problems. Damp and mold trigger respiratory conditions and asthma. Cold homes increase cardiovascular disease risk and winter mortality. Inadequate facilities make maintaining hygiene difficult. Pests and infestations spread disease. Disrepair creates hazards from faulty electrical systems, structural problems, or broken heating. Landlords often ignore repair requests, leaving tenants to cope with deteriorating conditions or face eviction threats if they complain too persistently.
The stress of housing insecurity itself damages health. Constant worry about eviction, rent increases, or inability to afford housing costs triggers chronic stress responses. Sleep disruption from anxiety or noise in poor-quality temporary accommodation compounds health impacts. Mental health conditions including depression, anxiety, and trauma intensify under housing insecurity. Healthcare systems bear substantial costs treating health problems rooted in housing crises, costs that preventive investment in genuinely affordable housing would avoid.
Employment and Economic Impacts
Affordable housing shortages create economic as well as social costs. Employers in Southwark struggle to recruit and retain workers who cannot afford to live near jobs. Service sector workers including hospitality staff, retail workers, healthcare support workers, and education assistants find wages insufficient to cover local housing costs. The directors of SpareRoom observed that rental prices might be acceptable for hybrid workers but questioned how service workers the city relies on to function can afford these costs.
Long commutes from areas where housing remains affordable exact multiple costs. Workers spend hours daily traveling, time lost to family, recreation, or rest. Transport costs consume substantial proportions of household budgets, particularly for those living beyond zones served by capped fares. Exhaustion from early starts and late returns reduces productivity and increases workplace accidents. Employers face recruitment difficulties and high turnover as workers seek opportunities closer to affordable housing.
Economic dynamism suffers when diverse working populations cannot afford to live in vibrant mixed-use neighborhoods. The creativity and innovation that emerge from diverse communities interacting in dense urban environments require that people from various backgrounds and income levels can afford to live in proximity. When regeneration creates exclusive enclaves affordable only to high earners, the social mixing that drives urban vitality disappears.
Local businesses dependent on local customer bases struggle when displacement replaces working-class residents with affluent newcomers whose spending patterns differ. Independent retailers, ethnic food shops, community cafes, and service providers that sustained neighborhoods for decades find customers disappearing and rents rising. The replacement businesses serve different markets with different price points, creating homogenized commercial landscapes that lack the character and affordability that made neighborhoods attractive in the first place.
Political Accountability and Democratic Participation
The failure to deliver affordable housing represents a failure of political accountability. Southwark Council, controlled by Labour, has overseen affordable housing delivery collapse while approving developments with minimal affordable housing. The council’s public commitments to build 11,000 council homes by 2043 and require 35 to 50 percent affordable housing in new developments ring hollow when not one council home was started in 2024-2025 and approved developments deliver 10 to 17 percent affordable housing.
Liberal Democrat opposition has highlighted these failures, but opposition parties lack power to change planning decisions or development priorities without winning elections. Southwark Liberal Democrats have described Labour as cozying up to big developers whilst ignoring priced-out residents, questioning how anyone can have confidence in the council to solve the housing crisis when it fails to build its own council homes and cannot stand up to developers putting profit before people.
However, the crisis extends beyond single-party failures. The Conservative government presided over a decade of national housing policy that prioritized homeownership over affordable housing supply, reduced council borrowing capacity to build new homes, failed to adequately fund housing associations, and created policies like Right to Buy that depleted social housing stock. The new Labour government’s reduction of affordable housing requirements from 35 to 20 percent and suspension of Community Infrastructure Levy represents continuity rather than change in policies that favor developers over communities.
Meaningful political accountability requires sustained community organizing to make affordable housing a decisive electoral issue. When communities mobilize 600-person protests, planning committees take notice. When local media consistently report on affordable housing failures, political pressure builds. When residents organize to question candidates about specific housing commitments and track whether elected officials deliver on promises, accountability increases. Democracy functions only when citizens actively participate, and housing provides perhaps the most immediate issue around which to organize.
Looking Forward: What Needs to Change
Addressing Southwark’s affordable housing crisis requires changes at multiple levels. National policy must prioritize genuinely affordable housing delivery through adequate funding for council house building, reform of viability assessment processes, stronger enforcement of affordable housing requirements, protection of Community Infrastructure Levy, land value capture mechanisms, and regulation of private rental sector to provide security and affordability.
Mayoral policy must robustly enforce the 50 percent affordable housing strategic target, challenge viability assessments that fall short of requirements, resist developer lobbying to reduce standards, invest in council housing through the Greater London Authority’s own development programs, and use planning powers to promote genuinely affordable housing rather than approving market-led development.
Southwark Council must resume building council homes at scale to meet its 11,000 homes by 2043 target, enforce the 35 to 50 percent affordable housing minimum across all major developments, challenge viability assessments with independent expert review, acquire land proactively to enable affordable housing delivery, bring empty homes back into use, and prioritize affordability in allocation scheme changes. The council must recognize that enabling private developer-led regeneration has failed to deliver genuinely affordable housing at the scale required.
Community organizing must continue pressing for accountability, mobilizing residents to demand truly affordable housing, supporting tenants facing eviction or poor conditions, building coalitions across neighborhoods and tenure types, and making affordable housing the defining local political issue. The power of organized communities to resist luxury development and demand affordable alternatives should not be underestimated.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why has affordable housing delivery failed in Southwark?
Affordable housing delivery has failed due to multiple factors including the collapse of council house building with zero homes started in 2024-2025, developers systematically reducing affordable housing through viability assessments despite borough requirements of 35 to 50 percent, government policy changes reducing affordable housing thresholds from 35 to 20 percent, rising land and construction costs making development economics challenging, and insufficient political will to prioritize affordable housing over developer profits. The combination of policy weakness, developer power, funding constraints, and political failures has created a perfect storm where ambitious affordable housing targets remain consistently unfulfilled.
How many people are waiting for social housing in Southwark?
Approximately 18,000 households are currently on Southwark’s housing waiting list, making it the ninth largest in London. Official figures from 2022-2023 showed 11,893 households, but more recent council data suggests the register has increased to around 18,000. Just 10 percent of those on the waiting list make successful bids each year. Waiting times average 1,101 days for one-bedroom properties, 1,835 days for two-bedroom properties, and 1,732 days for three-bedroom properties. The large backlog reflects decades of insufficient social housing construction coupled with loss of existing stock through demolition and Right to Buy sales.
What do viability assessments mean for affordable housing?
Viability assessments are financial analyses submitted by developers claiming that delivering required affordable housing percentages would render projects unprofitable. When assessments demonstrate returns falling below target profit margins of 15 to 20 percent, developers argue for reduced affordable housing obligations. This mechanism has been used systematically across Southwark with Berkeley Homes reducing Aylesham Centre affordable housing from 35 to 12 percent, Canada Water potentially dropping to 10 percent, and Borough Triangle offering just 17 percent. The viability assessment system prioritizes developer profit over affordable housing delivery, allowing developers to acquire sites at prices reflecting minimal affordable housing then use viability claims to justify exactly those reduced levels.
How much does it cost to rent in Southwark?
Average monthly rent for private properties in Southwark reached £2,345 in September 2025, up 2.9 percent from £2,279 in September 2024. By bedroom count, average rents are £1,774 for one bedroom, £2,224 for two bedrooms, £2,583 for three bedrooms, and £3,420 for four or more bedrooms. Rooms in shared houses average £1,029 monthly in areas like Bermondsey and Rotherhithe, well above London’s average of £982. These rents have risen faster than London averages, with one-bedroom flats seeing seven percent annual increases. Housing benefit Local Housing Allowance rates fall short of market rents, leaving significant shortfalls that low-income tenants must cover from already stretched budgets.
Why did Southwark fail to build any council homes last year?
Southwark Council started building zero council homes in 2024-2025, down from 28 the previous year itself a 96 percent drop from the year before. The council has blamed high construction costs, inflation, interest rates, and the need to focus investment on existing housing stock requiring repair. However, critics note that 23 out of 33 London boroughs started zero new homes in the first quarter of 2025, suggesting systemic rather than Southwark-specific issues. The failure represents a profound breakdown in council capacity to deliver on its commitment to build 11,000 council homes by 2043. Liberal Democrats have described it as a dereliction of duty and a massive hole in Labour’s housing claims.
What happened to affordable housing requirements?
Government policy changes reduced the fast-track threshold for developers from 35 to 20 percent affordable housing, with cash required for local infrastructure improvements halved. Under the new plan, just one in eight homes need to be social housing for schemes to receive fast-track approval, with the remainder designated as so-called affordable housing often still far too expensive for local residents. The Mayor of London also gained power to overturn local housing decisions for schemes over 50 homes, centralizing planning authority. Community Infrastructure Levy that funds parks, sustainable transport, and safety measures has been halved. These changes weaken councils’ leverage over developers and threaten to worsen affordable housing delivery further.
How many children are in temporary accommodation in Southwark?
Between 2020 and 2024, children in temporary accommodation in Southwark rose by 77 percent from around 1,900 to over 3,300. Analysis found one classroom worth of homeless children for every primary school in Southwark. Fifty percent of temporary housing is outside the borough due to lack of availability of council housing. Temporary accommodation often means substandard conditions, disrupted education, isolation from support networks, and profound psychological impacts on children and families. Parliament’s cross-party Housing Committee slammed local authorities for poor quality of temporary accommodation and use of out-of-borough properties, saying the shortage of social housing was to blame.
What happened to the Heygate Estate?
The Heygate Estate was a large council housing estate at Elephant and Castle that housed approximately 3,000 residents in 1,000 socially rented flats before demolition as part of regeneration. Despite promises of fair deals and local rehousing, most residents were displaced to outer London boroughs with only one in five rehoused in SE17. The site has been redeveloped as Elephant Park with approximately 3,000 new homes, but only 79 will be social rented homes, representing a catastrophic net loss of 921 social rented units. The Heygate demolition symbolizes regeneration-linked displacement that shatters established communities while dramatically reducing genuinely affordable housing.
Can housing benefit cover rent in Southwark?
Housing benefit through Local Housing Allowance does not cover market rents in Southwark. Despite increases on April 1, 2024, monthly LHA rates are £648 for shared accommodation, £1,292 for one-bedroom flats, £1,546 for two-bedroom flats, £1,945 for three-bedroom flats, and £2,618 for four-or-more-bedroom homes. These amounts fall significantly short of average market rents of £1,774 for one bedroom, £2,224 for two bedrooms, £2,583 for three bedrooms, and £3,420 for four or more bedrooms. More than 4,200 private renters in Southwark claim housing benefit, but must cover substantial shortfalls from already stretched incomes. The gap between support and actual costs forces difficult choices between housing and other essentials.
What is the Aylesham Centre controversy?
The Aylesham Centre redevelopment by Berkeley Homes has sparked major controversy over affordable housing and community consultation. After a six-year battle, Berkeley reduced affordable housing from 35 to 12 percent in December citing deteriorating market conditions and delays. The application proposes 850 high-rise flats that locals argue fail to provide genuinely affordable homes or serve existing community needs. Berkeley launched an appeal after failing to secure timely approval, threatening to bypass Southwark Council’s planning authority through public inquiry. The fight has united long-term residents and newer arrivals who recognize the development will fundamentally shape Peckham’s future, with campaigners demanding more community involvement and social housing.
What alternative models could deliver more affordable housing?
Alternative approaches include Vienna-style social housing where 60 percent of residents live in high-quality subsidized housing through municipal land ownership and direct city construction, community land trusts where nonprofit trusts own land permanently removing land costs and ensuring long-term affordability, cooperative housing where residents collectively own and manage properties eliminating landlord profits, and council-owned housing companies combining local authority accountability with commercial efficiency. These models require political will and financial commitment but demonstrate that cities can prioritize affordability without sacrificing quality. The UK’s current developer-led regeneration approach consistently fails to deliver genuinely affordable housing at required scales.
How do empty homes relate to the housing crisis?
Approximately 1,600 homes currently lie vacant in Southwark, the second-largest number of any local authority in the UK. These empty properties represent a scandalous waste of housing stock in a borough where over 3,300 children sleep in temporary accommodation and 18,000 households wait years for secure tenancies. Bringing empty homes back into use should be an urgent priority, yet progress remains slow. The contrast between empty properties and desperate housing need highlights the failure to treat housing as primarily shelter for people rather than investment assets for owners. Empty homes demonstrate that the housing crisis is not simply about insufficient supply but also about inefficient and inequitable use of existing stock.
Why are housing costs rising faster in Southwark than London overall?
Housing costs in Southwark have risen faster than London averages due to regeneration-driven gentrification, improved transport connectivity including Elizabeth Line and Jubilee Line extensions, proximity to central London employment centers, limited affordable housing supply meeting insufficient demand, displacement of lower-income residents creating demand from higher-income households, and investor interest in regenerated neighborhoods. Average house prices rose over five percent year-on-year to nearly £600,000, outpacing London as a whole. Rental costs climbed with one-bedroom flats seeing seven percent annual increases. The regeneration programs meant to improve the borough have paradoxically made it less affordable for existing residents as property values surge.
What is being done to help private renters facing eviction?
The Southwark Private Renters Project, delivered by Kineara in partnership with Southwark Law Centre, the council’s Private Rented Sector Team, and Impact on Urban Health, provides tenancy sustainment support to renters facing eviction and homelessness. The program has supported over 150 households, helping tenants access benefits, improve income, communicate with landlords, address home safety and disrepair, and find onward housing. Nearly half received legal support, and 90 percent reported improved wellbeing at program end. However, these interventions treat symptoms rather than causes. The fundamental problem remains insufficient affordable housing forcing working families into an expensive, insecure private rental market where landlords hold excessive power.
What role does the private rented sector play in Southwark?
The private rented sector now accounts for nearly one-third of all households in Southwark, up from 62,500 private renters representing 25 percent of the population in 2015. This growth reflects homeownership becoming increasingly unaffordable and social housing remaining unavailable. Private renters face mounting insecurity through no-fault evictions, rising costs far outpacing wage growth, and poor housing conditions with landlords ignoring repair requests. The sector provides essential housing but at significant cost and insecurity. Expanding social and genuinely affordable housing would reduce dependence on the expensive, unstable private rental market, but current policy trends move in the opposite direction.
How does Southwark’s housing crisis compare to other London boroughs?
Southwark maintains the ninth largest social housing waiting list in London with approximately 18,000 households. The borough has the eighth highest waiting times in London for one-bedroom properties at 1,101 days and fifth highest for two-bedroom properties at 1,835 days. Southwark has the second-largest number of empty homes of any UK local authority with approximately 1,600 vacant properties. The 77 percent increase in children in temporary accommodation between 2020 and 2024 ranks among London’s worst. However, 23 out of 33 London boroughs started zero new council homes in the first quarter of 2025, suggesting Southwark’s failures reflect systemic problems affecting most London boroughs rather than unique local circumstances.
What can residents do about the affordable housing crisis?
Residents can organize through groups like the 35% Campaign, Peckham Vision, and Latin Elephant, mobilize protests and demonstrations to pressure developers and the council, submit responses during consultation periods for planning applications, attend planning committee meetings to observe decisions and sometimes speak, challenge viability assessments and planning decisions through legal processes when resources allow, vote in local and national elections making affordable housing the decisive issue, support tenants facing eviction through projects like the Southwark Private Renters Project, document and publicize failures to meet affordable housing commitments, and build coalitions across neighborhoods and tenure types. Meaningful change requires sustained community organizing to make affordable housing a priority that elected officials cannot ignore.
What does genuinely affordable housing mean?
Genuinely affordable housing refers to social rent tied to historic formulas based on property values and average earnings, making it accessible to low-income households. This contrasts with affordable rent at up to 80 percent of market rates which remains unaffordable when market rents exceed £2,300 monthly, shared ownership schemes that are complex and financially precarious, and London Living Rent calculated as a third of median household income that remains unaffordable for below-median or single-income households. Planning policies counting these tenures as affordable housing enable developers to meet percentage requirements while providing little housing accessible to those most in need. Social rent represents the only housing option genuinely affordable for residents on low incomes or benefits.
Why does affordable housing matter for everyone, not just low-income residents?
Affordable housing supports the service workers, healthcare staff, teachers, and essential workers that communities depend on. Without affordable housing, employers struggle to recruit and retain workers, economic dynamism suffers when diverse populations cannot afford to live in mixed-use neighborhoods, local businesses lose customer bases as displacement replaces working-class residents, children benefit from stable housing regardless of family income, public health improves when housing insecurity decreases, and cities maintain the social mixing that drives creativity and innovation. The affordable housing crisis imposes costs across society through higher business costs, reduced public service quality, increased healthcare spending, and loss of urban vitality. Everyone benefits from communities where people across income levels can afford secure, decent housing.
What is the future of affordable housing in Southwark?
The future of affordable housing in Southwark depends on political choices made at national, mayoral, and local levels. Current trends are alarming, with council house building at zero, affordable housing requirements weakened from 35 to 20 percent, viability assessments routinely used to reduce affordable housing obligations, and major developments delivering 10 to 17 percent affordable housing. Without substantial policy changes, community organizing to demand accountability, and political will to prioritize affordable housing over developer profits, the promise of affordable living in Southwark will remain unfulfilled for tens of thousands of residents. However, alternative models exist, and communities are organizing to demand change. The outcome is not predetermined but will be determined by whether residents insist on genuinely affordable housing as a non-negotiable requirement.
Affordable living in Southwark remains a promise yet to be fulfilled. Despite billions invested in regeneration, ambitious targets for new homes, and repeated political commitments, genuinely affordable housing remains out of reach for the 18,000 households on waiting lists, the 3,300 children in temporary accommodation, and the thousands of private renters struggling with rents exceeding £2,300 monthly. The gap between promise and reality reflects policy failures, developer power, and insufficient political will to prioritize community needs over profit. Until these dynamics change fundamentally, the affordable housing crisis will continue deepening, making Southwark increasingly unaffordable for the working families, long-term residents, and essential workers who sustain the borough’s communities and economy.
To read more : London City News