Here’s a shocking truth: a massive housing development in south-west London has been approved with zero affordable homes, despite the desperate need for them in the area. But here’s where it gets controversial—the developer claims it’s simply not financially viable, leaving many to wonder: is this a legitimate excuse or a missed opportunity for social responsibility? Let’s dive in.
Last month, Merton Council greenlit the Mitcham Gasworks redevelopment, a project set to deliver 626 new homes. While the scheme promises to transform a former gasworks site demolished in 2021, it’s the absence of affordable housing that’s sparking outrage. Originally, developer St William pledged 35% affordable homes, but they’ve since backtracked, citing failed grant funding and rising construction costs as insurmountable hurdles.
And this is the part most people miss—this isn’t the first version of the plan. It’s the third iteration, with changes including reduced building heights along Hay Drive and Portland Road, and an increase in the total number of homes from 579 to 626. However, the trade-off has been a shift toward smaller, private units, leaving no room for affordability.
Tony Burton, secretary of the Mitcham Cricket Green Community and Heritage, didn’t hold back: “It’s unconscionable that such a significant development provides no affordable homes for a community in dire need.” His frustration echoes a broader concern: how can developers prioritize profit over people’s housing rights?
St William argues that securing the necessary grants became impossible due to strict timelines and the site’s complexities. They’re now in talks with Merton Council and the Greater London Authority (GLA) to fund at least 146 socially rented homes—but this won’t be confirmed until April 2026 at the earliest. Is this a genuine effort or a delay tactic?
At the council meeting, opinions were divided. Independent councillor Edward Foley expressed hope that this wouldn’t set a precedent, while councillor Gill Manly criticized the developer’s viability claims, stating, “I’m shocked we’re still debating this at this stage.” Meanwhile, Merton Council defended its decision, emphasizing that approval is contingent on efforts to secure affordable housing through a legal agreement.
Here’s the bigger question: In a city grappling with a housing crisis, should developers be allowed to sidestep affordability commitments when profits are at stake? Or should councils hold firmer ground, even if it means delaying or rejecting projects? Let us know your thoughts in the comments—this debate is far from over.
