An affordable-housing campaigner has failed in his bid to challenge Southwark Council’s plans to redevelop Elephant and Castle, SE1.
At a two-day hearing at the High Court in London in October, part-time teacher and campaigner for affordable housing in the capital Jerry Flynn argued that the plans did not provide enough affordable homes.
He asked Mr Justice Dove to quash the council’s grant of planning permission for Delancey and APG’s £1bn redevelopment of the Elephant & Castle shopping centre, which also incorporates the local University of the Arts London campus.
But in a ruling handed down today, Dove J rejected his arguments and found in favour of the council.
At the hearing, lawyers for Flynn argued that, of the 979 homes that form part of the project, only 35% are affordable – the minimum figure expressed in Southwark’s development plan, and well below the 60% target in the mayor’s London Plan. Of those, most will fall under the least affordable tenure of discounted market rent, with only 116 homes (12%) for social rent.
He argued that the deliverability of social housing was a critical issue in the determination of the planning application, in the context of a controversial regeneration scheme which will displace many existing small businesses, largely operated by BAME people.
Permission was granted by Southwark’s head of planning in January, following an increase in the number of social rented units from 33 to 116. The planning committee had initially indicated that it would refuse the scheme based on the lower number, but resolved that permission should be granted following the increase.
However, David Wolfe QC, representing Flynn, argued that members who voted had been wrongly advised by planning officers that the improved social housing provision had been “facilitated” by “recently confirmed” Greater London Authority funding. In fact, he said, this funding had not been confirmed, nor agreed in principle.
However, in today’s ruling, Dove J disagreed. “I am not satisfied that the officer’s report, when read as a whole, including the addendums to it, materially misled members in relation to whether or not grant funding for the increased affordable housing offer of 116 social rented units had been secured,” he wrote.
Even so, he agreed that part of the report “was not framed with sufficient care.”
At the hearing, Wolf, for Flynn, also argued that the section 106 agreement intended to secure delivery of the social rented units fails to achieve its purpose, because the sum secured “falls well short of the construction costs”. As a result, he said that members unlawfully took into account an irrelevant decision when voting in favour.
But in his ruling, Dove J said some of the argument took “too literal” an approach to the committee documents, and the section 106 agreement was effective.
In summary, Dove J said that while all of the Flynn’s points were “properly arguable, “I am not satisfied that in substance they should succeed.”
“It follows that, in the result, the claimant’s claim must be dismissed.”
The development is intended to be delivered in two phases – the east site and the west site – lasting almost a decade. Work on the east side, including demolition of the iconic shopping centre and provision of new shops, will begin first.
Jerry Flynn v London Borough of Southwark; Elephant and castle Properties Co Ltd
Planning Court, QBD (Dove J) 20 December 2019
