R (Thomas) v Lewisham: High Court dismisses challenge to Scott House student housing scheme

The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to Lewisham Council's grant of planning permission for a 31 storey purpose built student accommodation scheme at Scott House in Deptford, rejecting arguments that the development was speculative and that former residents had been inadequately protected during their eviction.

Timothy Corner KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, handed down judgement rejecting both grounds advanced by the claimant, a former local resident supported by the Save Scott House campaign group. The permission, granted in October 2025, allows for the partial demolition of a Victorian former live/work building and its replacement with 502 student units, including 176 classified as affordable, none of the existing residential occupiers being retained.

The first ground concerned the interpretation of policy HO7 of Lewisham's newly adopted local plan, which requires purpose built student accommodation to be "secured for use by students, as demonstrated by an agreement with one or more specific higher education provider." The claimant argued this required a binding nominations agreement with a higher education provider to be in place before permission was granted, and that the scheme's reliance on a letter of support from Trinity Laban, rather than a concluded contract, rendered the permission unlawful and the associated section 106 obligations non-compliant with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.

The judge rejected that reading. He found nothing in the wording of HO7, its supporting text, or the London Plan and accompanying guidance to suggest that a contractual nominations agreement must exist prior to permission being granted. Evidence from the council and the developer indicated that higher education providers are, in practice, reluctant to commit to nominations agreements until construction is well advanced, a position reflected in the Mayor's own guidance on student housing. The section 106 agreement's requirement that the developer use reasonable endeavours to conclude such an agreement by first occupation was, the judge held, consistent with both local and London-wide policy.

The second ground concerned the treatment of Scott House's existing tenants. The claimant argued that the developer had circumvented the relocation obligations contained in the section 106 agreement by serving eviction notices and largely rehousing tenants before the agreement was even signed, rendering the associated schedule redundant and depriving the council of a meaningful opportunity to scrutinise the relocation strategy. The judge accepted that most tenants had left Scott House by the time permission was formally issued but found this did not render the relevant obligations unenforceable, noting that at least one tenant remained in occupation at the relevant date and that the council had subsequently approved the developer's relocation strategy without objection. He held that the practical assistance provided, including flexibility over departure dates and pro rated rent, fell within the scope of what had been promised, and that the eleven month delay in finalising the section 106 agreement adequately explained why relocation had proceeded in parallel with, rather than after, the legal agreement.

The judge indicated that, had he found either ground made out, he would in any event have declined to quash the permission under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, taking the view that the outcome for the claimant would have been no different given the practical realities of securing higher education provider commitments and the extent of assistance already given to residents.