Campaigners protested outside a meeting of Westminster council on Monday against plans to demolish the Ebury Bridge estate in the London borough.
The council voted through its preferred plan, which involves the complete demolition of the estate.
This will replace existing homes with 750 “residential units”. Some 340 will be “affordable”, which means rents of up to 80 percent of “market rent” in the area.
Residents backed a 2013 regeneration plan which involved redevelopment and refurbishment.
The council said this wasn’t pursued as it couldn’t be made “attractive to developers”.
It claims there is “full right of return for all existing tenants and leaseholders”.
It is not clear whether that will be on secure council tenancies.
The redevelopment of the Elephant and Castle shopping centre was granted approval by Southwark council’s planning committee on Tuesday 3 July.
Activists and residents protested outside as the vote took place. The decision was carried by four votes to three, with one abstention.
The scheme will see 979 homes built above the new shopping centre.
But just 116 will be for social rents.
Southwark’s policy is that 50 percent of any new development has to be for social rents. But developers get around this by claiming it’s not “viable” for their profits.
Previous protests forced the council to postpone the decision on planning permission.
More decisions will have to be voted on and more pressure can be put on the council.
Lambeth council is set to hold a vote on whether tenants and residents should be balloted over regeneration plans.
The council will debate the motion, proposed by Green Party councillors, on 18 July.
It demands that residents on three estates in the south London borough should be given a vote on council proposals to demolish their estates.
The estates are Cressingham Gardens in Brixton, Central Hill in Crystal Palace and the Fenwick Estate in Clapham.
The vote comes after strong campaigns and protests.
A warning from a director of West Midlands Ambulance Service
Cops handcuffed trade unionists
One-off payments aren’t enough
IWGB union members fight back