Tenant launches legal action against London council over housing regeneration scheme

A council tenant has launched legal action against Southwark Council over a controversial long-running housing regeneration scheme.

Public Interest Law Centre (PILC) has issued a Judicial Review claim in the High Court regarding the Aylesbury Estate redevelopment on behalf of Aysen Dennis, a council tenant and campaigner who has been fighting against the demolition of the Aylesbury council estate. The claim is against Southwark Council as defendant and developer Notting Hill Genesis as interested party. 

Southwark Council resolved to grant planning permission for ‘Phase 2B’ of the redevelopment of the Aylesbury estate on 17th January 2023. This latest phase is one in a long history of redevelopment on the estate and would see the demolition of five buildings including Dennis’ home.

The legal case concerns an ‘s96A non-material amendment’ to the historic overarching 2015 Outline Planning Permission covering the Aylesbury Estate. PILC said this amendment, which adds the word ‘severable’ to the permission, makes it much easier for the developer to “mix and match” new planning permissions across the estate that differ from the original masterplan.

Dennis argues that in accepting this amendment, Southwark Council have subverted a recent Supreme court ruling, which stated that planning permission to develop a plot of land is not severable into separate permissions applicable to discrete parts of the wider site, unless the permission clearly says so.

PILC said this renders the previous consultation of residents meaningless, and gives power to developers to move further away from original plans years into redevelopment – a practice many housing campaigners in London are weary of.

Dennis is challenging Southwark Council’s planning authority’s decision to grant Notting Hill Genesis’ s.96A non-material amendment, arguing that:

1. Southwark Council unreasonably came to the conclusion that adding the word ‘severable’ to a historic planning permission was “non-material”; and
2. As the historic Outline Planning Permission was not severable, they must apply for an entirely new permission for the entire scheme, suggested by the Supreme Court’s judgment in Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority 2022.

Resolution to grant permission to Phase 2B was already highly contentious due to the proposed reduction of social-rented homes in favour of shared ownership and at least 50% privatisation. PICL said that by acting to sever Phase 2B from the historic permission, gains by residents – such as restricting the height of buildings to 20 storeys – could be lost with a 25 storey all-private tower the centrepiece of Phase 2B.

‘Aylesbury estate was built for working class communities to live safely and securely,’ said Dennis. ‘Now it is the site of a battle between our communities, and the councils and private developers who seek to demolish and privatise our homes. We cannot allow them to spread insecurity and socially cleanse us. We demand no demolition, no privatisation – refurbishment, security and justice.’

Alexandra Goldenberg and Saskia O’Hara of PILC said: ‘It is already difficult for communities to play a meaningful role in the planning process, and this is never more true than for a resident of a London estate which has been a target for demolition by councils and private developers over decades. Developers should not be able to sidestep the findings of the Supreme Court in this manner. For the council to permit this is an affront to its public.’

Image: Jessy Smith