An Aylesbury Estate tenant’s case against Southwark Council and Notting Hill Genesis was heard in the High Court this week.
Aysen Dennis, 65, whose flat of 21 years is about to be bulldozed as part of the regeneration, has been in a legal battle with the council and the developer since May this year.
The estate is being demolished in phases. Phase 2B, where Aysen lived, is particularly controversial because it involves slashing the number of social rent homes by almost 50 per cent.
In May, she told us that she believed this was an attempt at “social cleansing.”
She is claiming that the council acted unlawfully by allowing the developer to make a change which would make it easier for them to sign off on ideas that vary from the original plan.
Aylesbury Estate tenant will fight for her home in the high court against Southwark Council
On Tuesday 28 November, the case – which could stop Southwark Council’s plans to demolish her block and build a 25-storey private tower on the site – was heard before Mr Justice Holgate in the Royal Courts of Justice.
Ahead of the hearing, around 50 residents and local campaigners protested the regeneration of the Aylesbury estate outside the court.
Protesters demanded an end to the redevelopment of the estate in favour of refurbishment, chanting: ‘refurbish don’t demolish, homes for people, not for profit’.
In 2015, outline planning permission was granted to redevelop the Aylesbury Estate. This establishes the main principles of a development project but allows the developer to hammer out the finer details in subsequent planning applications.
Later, in July 2022, Notting Hill Genesis inserted the word ‘severable’ into the outline planning permission.
According to Aysen’s lawyers, at the Public Interest Law Centre, the insertion of ‘severable’ would allow the developer to build “something different from the approved scheme”.
However, when Notting Hill inserted this change, it did so as a non-material amendment. Non-material amendments are very minor changes and don’t require approval from elected councillors.
Aysen claims that the amendment was not minor, so should have been a material amendment.
“Southwark Council turned a blind eye to the amendment but, thankfully, we were watching,” Aysen said.
She says the council should now submit an entirely new outline planning application.
As for the outcome, Mr Justice Holgate reserved judgment to be delivered as soon as ‘physically’ possible.
Aysen was originally refusing to leave her flat but reluctantly agreed to move earlier this month, into one of the estate’s newly built, council-owned flats.
The 65-year-old claimed the council bought her flat for £690,000 – which she believed was an attempt to shut her up amid the legal challenge.
Despite having moved, she is still technically a tenant of the estate, so Aysen is continuing with her fight.
In May, Notting Hill Genesis and Southwark Council were approached for comment on the matter of the case being taken to the High Court.
Although the council did not respond, the developer said: “A Notting Hill Genesis spokesperson said: “We have been made aware today that proceedings have been issued in relation to Southwark’s recent approval of a Non-Material Amendment to the Aylesbury Outline Planning Permission. We are currently considering the documents that have been lodged with the High Court.”