CAMDEN Council is facing a legal battle over its decision to allow a property company to reduce the number of social homes built on the £2billion King’s Cross development. 

Lawyers this week launched a challenge against the move – which will see the percentage of affordable housing fall to around 33 per cent – and said that the decision should not have been taken behind closed doors, without any public consultation. 

The massive regeneration project was given the green light in 2006, with developers Argent Limited promising that of the 1,946 homes on the site, 750 would be affordable. But earlier this year the Town Hall agreed a change in a legal agreement, meaning the company could build 21 fewer social homes and 96 fewer “intermediate rent” homes.

Law firm Leigh Day, on behalf of Green councillor Sian Berry, sent a “letter before action” to the council’s planning department challenging the way in which the decision was taken, pointing to a lack of transparency and a lack of independent financial assessment. If the issues remain unresolved, it could trigger a judicial review that will be considered in the High Court. 

The council has said that swingeing cuts to government subsidies for social housing had triggered a clause in the original planning agreement – called a section 106 agreement – and meant that Argent were only duty-bound to provide 74 social housing units in the latest phase of the works, instead of the 148 agreed in 2006. 

But council planning chief Phil Jones said that negotiations between the Town Hall and Argent had “achieved a much better outcome for affordable housing than would have been achieved through the section 106 legal agreement. So it’s difficult to see why they are attempting this legal challenge. The decision improved the outcome and was signed-off by a cross-­party members’ briefing party briefing panel and we are confident of our legal position”.

He said a so-called “cascade” clause in the 2006 agreement meant that Argent would have been “fully within their rights to say we are just going to build 74 units”, but, he said, the changes that they agreed have secured 127 social units. To achieve this they had sacrificed some of the “intermediate rent” homes “because they are no longer really affordable in Camden.”

The development has been praised for revamping a wasteland that for decades had a reputation for drug dealing and ­prostitution. But housing campaigners remain convinced that there should have been more room on such an expansive site for affordable homes, specifically family-sized units, and described the further reduction earlier this year as a “disgrace”. 

Ms Berry, who campaigned for higher levels of social housing on the 67-acre site before being elected to the council in 2014, said: “The letter challenges whether the council was right in saying the housing wasn’t able to be built and paid for on the original terms agreed with Argent and how the decision was made. 

“I believe the public should have been made aware of what was being considered. They can’t just do it on the quiet.

“Before the final decision is made, members of the planning committee should consider the changes and provide a public forum for discussion and possible ways to pay for the housing we were promised.”

An initial letter sent to Camden by Leigh Day in April said: “As a matter of procedure it is very surprising that this change has been achieved by variation in the section 106 agreement which has involved seemingly no publicity and consultation and no referral to the development control committee.”

Cllr Jones added: “The key point is that what was being delivered in the end was better than what was in the section 106 legal agreement, so it didn’t change what was agreed previously in a public forum, apart from to make it better.”