PERMISSION GRANTED: Challenging the proposed demolition of ‘Clockwork Orange’ estate

A full hearing will decide:

1.   Whether the council has failed to properly assess the huge environmental costs of the scheme; and

2.   Whether the counciul concealed this information from its Planning Committee?

On 29 July 2026, the High Court granted permission for a judicial review of Bexley Council’s decision to approve Peabody’s plans to redevelop the Lesnes Estate, better known as the "Clockwork Orange" estate, in Thamesmead, south-east London.

If successful at final hearing, the case could have significant implications for the future of the Lesnes Estate’s redevelopment and for how local authorities assess the environmental impacts of major developments more generally.

The planning application fails to adequately account for the greenhouse gas emissions that would result from demolition and redevelopment, despite the availability of lower-carbon alternatives such as refurbishment or retrofitting. In light of the government’s plan to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, retrofitting or refurbishment should be the first port of call over demolition.

Alexandra Goldenberg, instructing solicitor, comments on the case:

“Planning applications concerning major estate regeneration are commonplace in London and beyond. If there is going to be environmental harm in these projects, then the extent of this must be clear to the planning committee and residents”

Who is bringing the claim?

The legal challenge has been brought by Adam Turk, a resident and social tenant of Peabody Housing Association, who is represented by the Public Interest Law Centre (PILC). The estate gained recognition after appearing in the 1971 film A Clockwork Orange.

Adam has campaigned for tenants' rights on the estate for several years and continues to oppose the proposed demolition. PILC has supported tenants in resisting the demolition for several years. Preserving the estate is not only essential to protecting residents' homes but also to reducing avoidable environmental harm.

Adam comments that:

"This case is not only important to protect our environment, but also highlights the importance of complying with planning processes. When these processes are not followed correctly, it is often the residents that suffer the consequences."

What is the challenge about?

Bexley Council’s planning officers resolved to grant Peabody’s planning application in October 2022, and permission was granted on 23 December 2025.

The judicial review will focus on how Bexley Council assessed Peabody’s planning application.

The planning application required an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), supported by an Environmental Statement. Under established planning practice, known as the Rochdale envelope, an EIA must assess the likely environmental impacts across the full range of development that could be built under the planning permission. This must include assessing the worst-case scenario within the maximum development parameters.

Turk argues that Peabody failed to assess the realistic worst-case greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, its emissions calculations were based on a single illustrative masterplan submitted with the outline application, rather than the maximum development parameters permitted.

What are the legal grounds?

The challenge is based on two grounds.

First, Turk argues that the council failed to apply the Rochdale approach because greenhouse gas emissions were not assessed using the full Rochdale envelope.

Second, he argues that the planning committee was materially misled by the officer’s report, which gave little attention to greenhouse gas emissions and did not explain that they had not been assessed using the required Rochdale approach.

Turk argues that, had the greenhouse gas impacts been assessed correctly using the Rochdale envelope, the council could have reached a materially different outcome.

Too often, people's homes are treated as expendable in the pursuit of profit. PILC stands alongside tenants on estates like Lesnes, supporting communities as they challenge major developers.                              

Legal Team

The Claimant is represented by Alex Shattok of Landmark Chambers, instructed by Alexandra Goldenberg of the Public Interest Law Centre.

Contact Information

For more information, please contact: office@pilc.org.uk