Aylesbury Estate: "This judgement should serve as a warning to developers"

Council tenant and campaigner Aysen Dennis has won her Judicial Review claim in the High Court against a Section 96A non-material amendment to Outline Permission that was approved by Southwark Council for the Aylesbury Estate. 

Dennis, represented by Alexandra Goldenberg and Saskia O’Hara of the Public Interest Law Centre (PILC), argued that the amendment – which included the insertion of the word “severable” – changed the rights granted by the Outline Permission which could not be treated as non-material. 

The amendment would have permitted the site to exceed maximum building heights set in the masterplan, to increase the height of all tower blocks.

PILC stated that it is "hopeful that today’s ruling has far reaching consequences in favour of estate residents across the country who feel powerless to affect change on the land they call home." 

"This judgement should serve as a warning to developers who disregard historical masterplans and the promises they make to communities in the process of gentrification." 

Dennis has lived at Aylesbury Estate for over 30 years and has been fighting against its demolition by Southwark Council and Notting Hill Genesis, even hosting an anti-gentrification exhibition in the Aylesbury flat before facing eviction.

Planning permission to demolish and rebuild the Aylesbury Estate was granted in 2015. The development would see the demolition of five buildings.

The Public Interest Law Centre (PILC) supports local residents and campaigns to "shift the power away" from privatisation: "This is an important judgement for housing campaigners across the country, as large estate redevelopments often unfold from Outline Planning Permissions over time – or ’phased’ like this. This case scrutinises the method in which developers use ’drop in’ applications to deviate from what was promised to residents."

PILC issued a Judicial Review claim in the High Court on behalf of Dennis, a secure council tenant, in May 2023. The legal case rested on the insertion of the word ’severable’ to the permission, making it easier for the developer to deviate from the original masterplan. 

The case follows a recent Supreme Court judgement which according to PILC clarified that planning permission to develop a plot of land is not severable, unless the permission specifies that it is. That ruling has created issues for developers seeking to change parts of planning permissions using s96A amendments.

Dennis challenged Southwark Council’s decision to grant Notting Hill Genesis’ s96A non-material amendment on the basis that adding the word "severable" to an historic planning permission was not a "non-material" change and that, as Outline Planning Permission is not severable, a new planning application is required.