Cressingham Gardens residents are getting ready for their second High Court battle over what they claim is Lambeth council’s unlawful decision to demolish their homes.
Andy Plant, a resident of the estate near Brixton in south London, is bringing the second challenge on four grounds (listed below), in a case listed for three days and beginning tomorrow (November 15).
Just 12 months ago, another resident of the estate Eva Bokrosova (pictured bottom of page), won her case against the local authority which had unlawfully resolved to flatten the estate’s 306 homes. Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing quashed the decision after finding Lambeth had unfairly dropped refurbishment options from the consultation.
Residents claim that rather than carry out a sound review of resident feedback, the council briefly re-consulted early this year, before making the same decision at a heated cabinet meeting on March 21, this year, rejecting the residents’ alternative scheme. The Labour-run council hopes to completely redevelop the estate at an estimated cost of £110m.
As part of the resumed consultation, the council had agreed to consider an alternative option called ‘The People’s Plan’ – a lengthy consultation response compiled by residents, including Mr Plant (pictured centre, main image).
The plan not only aims to save most of the homes with a refurbishment programme, but would also increase the number of council-rented homes by 34, beating Lambeth’s proposals for 27 extra homes at council rent levels (of a total extra 158). The council claims it can only achieve this through full demolition, and privatisation of the redeveloped estate.
The cost of the council’s controversial plan is projected to exceed £100 million, compared to the residents’ proposal, which would need a fraction of that.
Lambeth proposes to achieve its aim by setting up a specially created private company known as a special purpose vehicle (SPV), which would be used to raise funds. Following demolition, the land would be transferred to the SPV and private investors would be signed up to finance the redevelopment. The new estate would therefore be privately-owned, rather than council-owned, so placing the homes at risk of being sold off.
Residents choosing to remain would lose their secure ‘council tenant’ status, including the ‘right to buy’ and associated statutory rights. Lambeth has also admitted that living costs will rise for those living on the redeveloped estate.
Lambeth’s swift re-consultation – which started at the end of January, and ended on March 4 – concluded again that any options entailing a degree of refurbishment, including ‘The People’s Plan’, were all unaffordable, blaming Housing Revenue Account (HRA) constraints and central government cuts.
At the High Court on Friday, August 19, this year, Mrs Justice May granted permission to allow Mr Plant to challenge the council’s consultation and subsequent decision.
This was followed on September 26, with the granting of an order prohibiting Lambeth from forging ahead with the regeneration of Cressingham Gardens, which includes a ban on possession proceedings and CPOs.
Mr Justice David Holgate will hear the judicial review at the Royal Courts of Justice over three days beginning on November 15. Judge Holgate is expected to reserve judgement to a later date.
In four grounds of claim, Mr Plant argues that Lambeth council’s decision to demolish the estate is unfair, and unlawful because the council:
- Erroneously included a £7.5m loan to the SPV in its calculation of the Net Present Value (NPV), which would have otherwise for each of the options resulted in its own preferred demolition option failing the ‘must achieve criteria’;
- Misled its own Cabinet members as to ‘The People’s Plan’ and/or the members failed conscientiously to take into account key aspects of key aspects of this consultation response;
- Failed to provide up-to-date data relating to the HRA finances to either the consultees or the Cabinet members, such that they were (respectively) not properly able to comment on or take into account the data; and
- Breached his right to property under Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, combined with his right to respect for a home, by removing his existing ‘Right to Buy’ contrary to current government policy.
If the judge agrees the decision was unlawful, it could be quashed for the second time and have far-reaching implications for other local authorities across the UK.
The decision follows communities secretary Sajid Javid’s refusal in September to grant a compulsory purchase order (CPO) to Southwark council, which had been gearing up to begin phase one of the Aylesbury estate redevelopment.
And it joins a growing list of recent “citizens’ challenges” to the decisions of both local and central government – mounted by people who refuse to allow those in power to abuse the law without fear of public scrutiny.
Mr Plant commented: “Once again, residents of Cressingham Gardens were dealt an unfair blow.
“It’s very sad that we’ve had to take this step, but it is in response to what we see as cavalier behaviour on the part of Lambeth councillors and officers, where they seemingly treat public property as if it’s part of a game of Monopoly.
“I can see for myself that their privatisation plans have the potential to devastate the lives of real people (tenants and homeowners), and are likely to jeopardise the future of true council housing in the borough for generations to come whilst doing almost nothing to help those on the housing waiting list.
“On the contrary, many of our residents might well find themselves unable to find secure housing locally as a result.”
Cressingham Gardens residents first learned their homes were under threat in the summer of 2012, when Lambeth launched its regeneration programme, which now includes six of the borough’s estates: Cressingham Gardens, Central Hill, Westbury, Fenwick, Knights Hill and South Lambeth.
In February 2014 the council suggested five options for discussion by Cressingham Gardens residents, that were the subject of the first consultation.
The options were:
- Option 1 – Refurbishing the estate and bringing all council tenant homes up to decent homes standard, including the six void flats that have stood empty for over 15 years;
- Options 2 and 3 – Refurbishing as in Option 1, plus infilling to create new homes.
- Option 4 – Partial demolition of the estate, with the net extra in new build homes sold at top market price
- Option 5 – Full demolition and rebuilding of the estate at higher density
The local authority has consistently promoted Option 5, despite a clear majority of residents favouring a refurbishment-led option.
The legal firm in both the Plant and Bokrosova cases is Leigh Day.
Donate to the Cressingham residents’ fighting fund here.
FOR FURTHER DETAILS PLEASE CONTACT: email@example.com