Howard de Walden Estates Limited, R (on the application of) v Westminster City Council

A local housing authority may designate an area for selective licensing by reference to established administrative boundaries such as wards, even though conditions vary within them. The statutory conditions concern the designated area as a whole and do not require every property, landlord or sub-area to satisfy each condition. Section 81(4) requires consideration of other courses of action, but does not require designation to be the only possible course. Predictive modelling based on property-level data may provide a rational evidential basis where physical inspection before designation would be impracticable. Judicial review applies the stringent Wednesbury standard, and the court will not substitute its own assessment for that of the local authority.

The claimant, a large landowner and landlord, sought judicial review of the defendant council’s designation of seven Westminster wards as a selective licensing area under Part 3 of the Housing Act 2004. The designation covered the claimant’s estate and was based on both the anti-social behaviour conditions in section 80(6) and additional housing conditions under the Selective Licensing of Houses (Additional Conditions) (England) Order 2015/977. The challenge was limited to the choice of boundaries, including whether whole wards should have been designated and whether the claimant’s estate should have been excluded.

The central issues were whether the council had lawfully and rationally assessed the statutory conditions, whether its use of predictive modelling was permissible, and whether it had complied with section 81(4) by considering alternative courses of action and alternative boundaries.

1. Claim dismissed. The council had lawfully and rationally designated the relevant wards under Part 3 of the Housing Act 2004.
2. The statutory scheme did not prescribe the process for selecting an area or require a particular geographical size. Under the housing conditions, the authority could assess whether a significant number of properties required inspection in absolute or percentage terms. The requirement that designation contribute to an improvement in general housing conditions concerned the area as a whole, so it did not require improvement at every property. Similarly, the anti-social behaviour conditions referred to the area as a whole and to some or all landlords.
3. Designation by wards was not irrational merely because conditions varied within wards. The council had considered more localised alternatives and had rationally concluded that wards provided coherent, understood and workable boundaries in a dense, continuous urban area. The evidence showed that predicted hazards and repeated anti-social behaviour were distributed across the relevant wards, including the claimant’s estate.
4. The use of Metastreet’s predictive modelling was lawful and rational. The model was based on a substantial property-level dataset and provided an evidential assessment which could not practically have been obtained by pre-designation physical inspections.
5. The council was entitled to rely on its own records as the most reliable guide to anti-social behaviour, which often did not amount to criminal conduct. The statutory requirement was persistent anti-social behaviour in the area, not necessarily at one property.
6. Section 81(4) required consideration of other courses of action, but did not make designation impermissible where alternatives existed. The evidence showed that alternative boundaries had been considered and rejected.
7. The court applied the stringent Wednesbury standard reflected in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 and Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374. The decision was not one that no reasonable authority could have made.

High Court (King's Bench Division): first-instance judicial review. Permission was granted on 28 January 2026 and limited the claim to the lawfulness of the designation’s boundaries. No appellate stage is stated.