Tenant challenges redevelopment over extent of consultation options

A tenant launched a legal challenge earlier this month over a London borough’s plans to redevelop a housing estate.

Eva Bokrosova has applied for a judicial review over Lambeth Council’s plans for the Cressingham Gardens estate, where she has lived since 2009.

Built in the 1960s the estate is a low-rise scheme with 306 houses. Of these, 216 are council homes.

According to Bokrosova’s lawyers, Leigh Day, in February last year Lambeth put forward five options for the estate. These 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 16 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; and
• Option 5: Full demolition and rebuilding of the estate.

The claimant, Bokrosova, is seeking to challenge Lambeth’s decision to cease consultations on options 1-3, and to consult residents only on options 4 and 5.

The three-month consultation was launched on 6 November 2014. Lambeth also wrote a letter to residents – including details of all five options and costings – and also set up workshops.

Bokrosova alleges that residents who were not able to attend meetings were not able to give their views on the consultation and that the forms used in meetings were too simplistic to express the wider views and opinions of residents who did attend meetings.

In February residents were told by the councillor at Lambeth for housing that, following financial analysis, the authority would not consult further on options 1-3.

Bokrosova’s lawyers will argue that the decision to drop options 1-3 was unlawful on the basis that the council had failed to take into account the views of residents, and that the council had decided to not proceed with options 1-3 on the basis that they were not “affordable”, despite the financial aspect of the redevelopment not having been evaluated as an issue in the consultation process.

It will also be claimed that Lambeth unlawfully failed to discharge the Public Sector Equality Duty in making the decision as some residents, particularly elderly and disabled residents, were unable to attend meetings which were held at night and with short notice.

Ugo Hayter, the solicitor at Leigh Day advising on the case, said: “Following a three-month consultation, where the vast majority of the residents made it clear that they favoured refurbishment over demolition, Lambeth Council out of the blue announced that all options to refurbish the estate were off the table. This decision was then rubber stamped by the council's cabinet members.

“Lambeth's decision is clearly unlawful and we look forward to it being quashed by the High Court.”

A Lambeth spokesman said: “The council has received notification of the judicial review application, and has previously responded to the applicant’s lawyers with the relevant information. The material now sits with the courts, and we await notification to see if the matter will proceed any further.”