A judicial review on the future of the Cressingham Gardens Estate in Lambeth, south London, will be heard in the High Court this week (15th to 17th November 2016).
The legal challenge against the demolition of the estate has been brought by resident Andy Plant, represented by law firm Leigh Day, against Lambeth Council.
The grounds for judicial review include: a failure by Lambeth Council to follow its own criteria as to the financial viability of demolition; a failure to carry out a fair consultation; and a breach of Mr Plant’s right to property.
This is the second judicial review relating to the estate, following the launch of Lambeth Council’s regeneration programme in 2012, which put homes on the estate under threat.
In the first judicial review in November 2015, the High Court ruled that Lambeth Council had acted unlawfully when it removed options for refurbishment from its public consultation on the future of the estate. This prompted a re-consultation earlier this year, which resulted in another decision in March 2016 to demolish the estate, despite strong opposition from residents.
Permission for the latest judicial review, brought by Mr Plant against Lambeth Council’s March 2016 decision, was granted at the High Court on 19 August 2016.
A court order is currently in place preventing Lambeth Council from demolishing the estate until the conclusion of the legal challenge. The order also prohibits the council from beginning possession proceedings and compulsory purchases.
Rowan Smith, solicitor at Leigh Day, said: “We believe that the council’s latest decision to demolish the Cressingham Gardens Estate is unlawful for a number of reasons, including failures to follow its own policy and carry out a fair consultation. We also believe the demolition would breach Mr Plant’s right to property.
“Mr Plant and the other residents of the estate have fought hard for their homes and community, in the face of questionable decision-making processes, and they feel that the council’s decision to demolish the estate is profoundly unfair.”