A group of nine councils have lost a High Court challenge to the Mayor of London’s plan to allow ‘affordable’ rents in new housing to be set at 80% of the market rate. The nine councils involved in the case – Islington (which led the action), Camden, Brent, Enfield, Greenwich, Lambeth, Southwark, Hackney and Tower Hamlets – claimed that they should be permitted to set lower rent limits in new affordable housing.
However the Mayor’s London plan precludes the boroughs from imposing borough-wide caps on rent for affordable rented housing.
Mrs Justice Lang rejected the councils’ challenge –
“In my judgment, the real issue in this claim is a profound disagreement between the claimants and the defendant about economics, planning and housing policy. All parties agree that more affordable rented housing is needed in London, at levels below 80% of market value, but they disagree about how best to realise this aim”
“The claimants wish to have power to introduce local planning policies imposing rent caps on affordable rented housing at levels below 80% of market value; low enough to make the housing affordable to a wider class of potential tenants. The defendant considers that rent control imposed via the planning system will compromise his policy to maximise the provision of affordable rented homes, by rendering delivery of new housing units unviable for developers and registered providers.”
The High Court judge concluded that the Mayor was exercising his statutory powers to make a series of policy and planning judgments in deciding upon the content of the London Plan. They did not, in her view, disclose any error of law.
Mrs Justice Lang said the claimant councils had failed to establish that the defendant’s strategy was contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.
It was also “unarguable” that the Mayor’s strategy was so misguided or flawed that it will effectively prevent the councils from making appropriate provision for affordable rented housing.
“The points made by the claimants on, for example, land values, the difficulty of persuading developers to accept lower rents, and the uneven distribution of affordable rented housing across London, are reasons for disagreeing with his strategy, not grounds for finding the strategy unlawful,” the judge said.
“The defendant has a carefully considered strategy, in line with national policy, for delivery by registered providers. In his reasons, he pointed to proven success, though the extent of this is in dispute. I accept that the strategy may be open to legitimate criticism, but it is plainly within the band of reasonableness.”
The Campaign For Town Planning by Neil Goldberg 