Rochdale Council has refused a demolition application by Rochdale Boroughwide Housing following a successful Judicial Review by tenants on the Lower Falinge estate.
In recent years, the estates of Lower Falinge and College Bank, with its “Seven Sisters” tower blocks in Rochdale, have been subject to controversial regeneration plans by Rochdale Boroughwide Housing (‘RBH’). Whilst plans for College Bank have remained politically contested, in Lower Falinge, RBH have pursued a policy of demolish first, perhaps build later. Social tenants on the estates, working with Greater Manchester Tenants Union (‘GMTU’) and Unit 38 Architects, have been at the forefront of challenging the demolitions, arguing that the buildings should be renovated instead to bring them up to standard as good quality, regulated social homes.
The western section of Lower Falinge once stood at 16 residential blocks containing 337 social homes. Of these 337 homes:
- 121 social homes have already been demolished;
- 55 new ‘affordable’ homes have been built (with ‘affordable’ meaning maximum 80% of market rent);
- 74 homes have been brought up to the Decent Homes Standard.
(The applications for these are available here: 18/00896/FUL; 21/01429/DEM; and 22/00420/DEM.)
Tenants and campaigners believe that the fact 74 homes have been refurbished shows that it is possible to do this with the other blocks – and that most likely, the shift to ‘affordable’ homes is more about financialisation and de-regulation than it is about improving conditions. (You can read more about why ‘affordable rent’ housing is often unaffordable in Shelter’s briefing here.)
While the first blocks were demolished, RBH tenants were moved out of the blocks to carry out the demolitions and scattered across Rochdale. The estate was quietly emptied and, with fewer social homes available, temporary accommodation waiting lists for homeless families grew longer.
‘Permitted development’ and legal challenge
On 21 March 2025, RBH applied to demolish a further 6 blocks with 128 social homes, saying the demolition was a “permitted development” under planning law: 25/00292/DEM. If RBH demonstrated this was a permitted development, the Council would legally have to approve the planning application without it going to the usual planning committee, which has oversight from elected Councillors.
On 29 April 2025, the Council’s Planning Department decided that the demolition was a permitted development and granted planning permission.
GMLC were then instructed by a resident of the estate and her partner, a GMTU member, to bring a Judicial Review claim. The claim was filed on 10 June 2025, under four grounds: (1) that the decision had not been made in accordance with the Regulations requiring an Environmental Impact Screening/Assessment; (2) that RBH had used the justification that the blocks were no longer habitable, but had failed to refurbish the blocks (a.k.a. “managed decline”); (3) the Public Sector Equality Impact had not been complied with; (4) the application unlawfully interfered with our client’s human rights, in relation to her neurodivergence.
Nothing was decided in relation to Grounds 2-4. However, the Council conceded that the decision as it related to Ground 1 was unlawful. The claim was settled in an order on 5 September 2025, and approved by HHJ Davies at the High Court in Manchester.
The settlement required the Council to re-determine its decision. GMLC then made representations to the Council as to why it should not approve the application, setting out why the previous decision was tainted by more than just a technicality.
Planning application refused
On 2 October 2025, the Council not only decided that the application was not a permitted development, but also refused the planning application. The Council’s reason was primarily that RBH had not provided the required information for it to determine the application.
Through a combination of tenant organising, legal action, local tenants and those who are in need of social housing in Rochdale now have an opportunity to present an alternative vision for the regeneration of Lower Falinge. Regeneration is always for someone and some purpose. Hopefully, this outcome leaves us one step closer to making regeneration work for social tenants, and not for those who seek to financialise social housing.
For the more legally minded who would like further details, please see barrister Jeremy Ogilvie Harris’ press release on the outcome here.
____
Image credit: ‘The Scenic Estate 4’, Lower Falinge on Flickr.
