|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Bokrosova v London Borough of Lambeth  EWHC 3386 (Admin) (24 November 2015)
Cite as:  WLR(D) 478,  PTSR 355,  EWHC 3386 (Admin)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Buy ICLR report:  PTSR 355] [View ICLR summary:  WLR(D) 478] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
|- and -
|LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH
Jon Holbrook (instructed by Lambeth Legal) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 3 - 4 November 2015
Crown Copyright ©
Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing DBE:
a. that the cost estimate to bring the Cressingham Gardens Estate ('CGE') up to the Lambeth Housing Standard ('LHS') was £9.4m;
b. that there was then no provision for the cost of a refurbishment-only programme in the Council's LHS programme, and the Council had a duty to say what was feasible within budgetary constraints;
c. to recommend that officers consult further on options for significant regeneration of CGE (as set out in the report) and that a viable regeneration proposal be brought back to the Council's Cabinet ('the Cabinet') in May 2015 with full supporting evidence;
d. that there was a commitment to work with residents to develop the regeneration proposals.
a. in breach of section 105 of the Housing Act 1985 and of the common law requirements for a lawful consultation the Cabinet did not conscientiously take into account the views of residents expressed in response to the information pack and other information provided at workshops and meetings; and
b. in breach of the general requirements of lawful consultation (as above) the Council decided not to proceed with options 1-3 because they were 'not affordable'.
The Lambeth Estate Regeneration Programme
Social Life's activities in 2013
The project delivery team
21 October 2014 letter to residents
The finance sub-group 27 October 2014
31 October 2014 email
6 November 2014 letter
Emails in November 2014
Events in December 2014
Events in January 2015
The meeting of 2 February 2015
Email exchanges on 13 February 2015
The 13 February 2015 document
Mr Vokes's evidence about the Council's financial analysis
Further events in February 2015
Councillor Bennett's letter of 26 February 2015
Emails on 27 February 2015
2 March 2015 meeting
3 March 2015 email
The report for the Cabinet meeting of 9 March 2015
The legal framework
"(1) A landlord authority shall maintain such arrangements as it considers appropriate to enable those of its secure tenants who are likely to be substantially affected by a matter of housing management to which this section applies—
(a) to be informed of the authority's proposals in respect of the matter, and
(b) to make their views known to the authority within a specified period;
and the authority shall, before making any decision on the matter, consider any representations made to it in accordance with those arrangements.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a matter is one of housing management if, in the opinion of the landlord authority, it relates to—
(a) the management, maintenance, improvement or demolition of dwelling-houses let by the authority under secure tenancies, or
(b) the provision of services or amenities in connection with such dwelling-houses;
but not so far as it relates to the rent payable under a secure tenancy or to charges for services or facilities provided by the authority.
(3) This section applies to matters of housing management which, in the opinion of the landlord authority, represent—
(a) a new programme of maintenance, improvement or demolition, or
(b) a change in the practice or policy of the authority,
and are likely substantially to affect either its secure tenants as a whole or a group of them who form a distinct social group or occupy dwelling-houses which constitute a distinct class (whether by reference to the kind of dwelling-house, or the housing estate or other larger area in which they are situated).
(5) A landlord authority shall publish details of the arrangements which it makes under this section, and a copy of the documents published under this subsection shall—
(a) be made available at the authority's principal office for inspection at all reasonable hours, without charge, by members of the public, and
(b) be given, on payment of a reasonable fee, to any member of the public who asks for one. "
a. Was the Council's decision on 9 March 2015 to stop consulting on options 1, 2 and 3 unlawful?
b. If so, does it appear to me to be highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred ('the section 31(2A) question')?
c. If so, are there nonetheless reasons of exceptional public interest for granting relief to the Claimant ('the section 31(2B) question')?
d. If so, was there undue delay in making the application for judicial review and do I consider that the granting of the relief sought would cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of any person or be detrimental to good administration ('the section 31(6) question')?
(1) Was the decision of 9 March unlawful?
(2) The section 31(2A) question
(3) The section 31(2B) question