Campaigners make renewed judicial review threat over Brockwell Park festival use

The London borough issued its second certificate of lawfulness to the event organisers on 22 May, noting that the previous certificate was submitted under a "different context and format".

However, the campaign group Protect Brockwell Park (PBP) described the council's decision to issue a second certificate for the event as "sidestepping" the High Court's ruling.

Lambeth issued the first certificate of lawfulness under permitted development rights for the May events in March.

The approval meant that a series of festivals in a fenced-off part of the park would go ahead without being considered by a planning committee.

PBP argued that the certificate was unlawful after complaining large-scale live events in the park are "unsustainable", disturb wildlife and compact the soil.

In a judgment handed down on 16 May, a High Court judge quashed the certificate, finding that Lambeth acted unlawfully and irrationally.

Less than a week later (22 May), the council issued a certificate of lawfulness for an existing use or development, greenlighting the events for a second time.

This came after PBP warned that any attempt to issue a new certificate would "defy" last week's High Court judgment.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the council said: "People were able to comment on the application, with the opportunity to make representations during this week.

"This certificate confirms that the use of part of the park for the summer events is lawful. The events in Brockwell Park are proceeding.

"The application for the new certificate of lawfulness follows the High Court ruling last week on the previous certificate which was submitted in a different context and format."

PBP has since sent a pre-action protocol letter over the second certificate.

In an update published to PBP's crowdfunding page on 23 May, a spokesperson said: "Lambeth has approved the latest application based on legal advice that we believe sidesteps a key High Court ruling: that the change of use exceeds the 28-day limit.

"We see this as a fudge - an attempt to create the appearance of legality."

It continued: "Lambeth has shown it is willing to ignore a High Court decision. That must be exposed. A judicial review is the right way to do that. It's crucial to stopping a repeat next year. We have just issued a pre-action protocol letter to start JR proceedings."

Adam Carey