London borough facing judicial review over amendment to outline planning permission ahead of next phase of major estate redevelopment

The Public Law Interest Centre has issued a judicial review claim on behalf of a resident of a South London estate, arguing that the London Borough of Southwark's approach towards its redevelopment subverts a Supreme Court ruling.

In January of this year, the council granted planning permission for the next phase of the redevelopment of the Aylesbury Estate (Phase 2B), which involves the demolition of five buildings, including the claimant's home.

Parts of the 1960s estate have already been demolished as a result of the redevelopment scheme that first began more than a decade ago.

The claim centres around a section 96a non-material amendment the London borough made to the estate's 2015 outline planning permission.

The amendment adds the word "severable" to the permission, making it easier for the developer to "mix and match" new planning permissions across the estate that differ from the original masterplan, according to the claimant.

The claim alleges that the decision to accept the amendment to the outline planning permission subverts the Supreme Court's ruling in Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority [2022] UKSC 30, which found that a 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.

The claimant is advancing the following two grounds:

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.

Commenting on the legal action, the claimant, Aysen Dennis, said: "Aylesbury estate was built for working class communities to live safely and securely. 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."

Her legal team is made up of Alexandra Goldenberg and Saskia O'Hara of the Public Interest Law Centre, and Alex Shattock of Landmark Chambers.

Responding to the claim, Cllr Kieron Williams, Leader of Southwark Council, said: "We're working with residents on the Aylesbury to build new homes for them to move to, with more new council homes on site being built on the estate than on most others in the country, as well new housing association social rent homes too.

"We're building these replacements because the original homes on the estate were badly built in the sixties. All of the phases meet or exceed our planning policy requirement for half of the development to be affordable homes. We measure this by the total number of 'habitable rooms', because our residents need family sized homes and councils that just count the number of homes end up with lots of one and two bed flats that are no good to families."

Adam Carey