RESIDENTS from a south London estate celebrated victory yesterday, as the local authority’s plans to demolish their homes were defeated in court.

Lambeth Council admitted to have downplayed local opposition to its redevelopment programme for Cressingham Gardens, which would see up to 300 homes flattened.

High Court judge Elisabeth Laing ruled Lambeth’s decision to pull the plug on refurbishment alternatives and proceed with demolition was unlawful.

Resident and mother of one Eva Bokrosova took the council to court for the “absolute agony” the authority had put her and her neighbours through.

She told the Star: “I am aware that council tenants are sometimes afraid to speak up in case the council uses it against them.

“I was worried too, but I had to find the courage to continue so that the truth would come out, and on behalf of other people who have felt bullied by the powers that be.”

According to campaigners, around 86 per cent of the estate’s residents favoured repairs over demolition, a fact that was omitted in official documents.

Ms Bokrosova added: “I believe they only ever had their eye on one goal, full demolition, and that they are motivated by a political agenda rather than what is best for residents.

“The quashing of the decision is a vindication of what we have been saying about the council’s appalling behaviour.

“All we ever wanted was a fair consultation on refurbishment and so I am thrilled that repairs are now back on the table.”

The council has said it would be conducting a new report on the matter and go back to meetings with residents.

However, Lambeth’s cabinet member for housing Cllr Matthew Bennett said the council was “disappointed at this judgement.”

He added: “We have said previously that full refurbishment of the estate or a significant proportion of the estate is currently unaffordable within the constraints of the Housing Revenue Account.

“After detailed work with residents and experts the council concluded in February 2015 that refurbishment was unaffordable and that to continue to consult on something that could not be delivered would be misleading to residents.”