GOLDHAWK ROAD SHOPKEEPERS DEMOLISH COUNCIL’S

PLANS TO REVAMP SHEPHERD’S BUSH MARKET

Goldhawk Road Shopkeepers were celebrating today following a High Court

ruling to overturn a decision of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

to adopt a Supplementary Development Plan (SDP) for the regeneration of the

Shepherd’s Bush Market in West London.

The 13 successful claimants are freehold or leasehold owners of various trading

premises between 30-52 Goldhawk Road which is a terrace of shops, cafes and

restaurants fronting onto the Goldhawk Road in Shepherd’s Bush. Although the

Goldhawk Road shops were not part of the market they were set to be

demolished as part of the regeneration of the area which included the building of

over 200 flats by the property developer, Orion. Mr Justice Wilkie quashed the

decision of the Council to adopt the SDP on the grounds of:

(i) That its decision was procedurally flawed in that it failed to follow the

proper procedure for adopting a Development Planning Document (DPD).

(ii) It is procedurally flawed in that adopting a document that was a DPD failed

to conduct a sustainability assessment.

(iii) Whether or not the document was a DPD or an SPD the decision to adopt it

on 27 October 2010 was procedurally flawed because it failed to apply its

mind to whether an environmental assessment was required before

adopting it, pursuant to the 2004 Environmental Assessment Regulations.

The High Court decision now leaves the Council’s regeneration policy in disarray

as their Core Strategy document for regeneration, published in October 2011,

specifically makes reference to implementing the now defunct SDP policy. In

addition, despite warnings from the shopkeepers and other interested parties the

Council has granted outline planning permission for the redevelopment of the

market and surrounding areas including the Goldhawk Road Shops,

notwithstanding the ongoing Court case.

A claimant, Aniza Meghani, the owner of Classic Textiles Limited stated “Our

victory is a vindication of our objections to the Council’s plans to incorporate our

shops into a redevelopment that is disproportionate, ill conceived and that has

not been subject to proper public scrutiny. The High Court has ruled decisively in

our favour that the Council has acted unlawfully in trying to push through their

plans without the proper scrutiny required for a development that would

undoubtedly be of significant change to the area and involve the demolition of

our shops. Many of our businesses have been established for decades and it has

never been our wish to be part of the regeneration scheme as we are not part on

the market. It is our intention to continue with our fight to retain our shops and

we will seek to challenge the existing planning permission and also to have that

quashed or otherwise withdrawn. This Council has a reputation for not listening

to the people that it serves and clearly had its own agenda in seeking avoid full

public scrutiny of its redevelopment plans.”

Another claimant, Michael Boughton, the owner of the famous of Cooke’s Pie and

Mash shop, stated “The court’s decision is a clear message to the council that

small independent shopkeepers should not be ignored when they have genuine

concerns about regeneration plans that directly impact their business. The irony

is that our parade of shops does not form part of the market yet the council felt

the need to demolish buildings without considering any viable alternatives. The

pie and mash shop been located on the same site for 113 years and is part of the

historical fabric of Goldhawk Road. We are not against regeneration where it is

appropriate but the council’s plans were never about the redevelopment of the

market, but the building of 200 flats with their preferred developer Orion. Let’s

hope my shop will continue to exist for the next 100 years.”

Michael Webster, a Partner in the firm of Webster Dixon representing the

Claimants states “the decision of Mr Justice Wilkie is a damning indictment of

the Council’s planning practices and procedures; even one of the grounds would

have been enough to quash the decision however the Judge found in our favour

on three grounds. Despite several warnings the Council continued to plough on

with their unlawful policy of the regeneration of the market. In our view the

purpose of the regeneration was not the market itself but the development of

200 flats for which the developer Orion stands to make millions of pounds.

The Council has in reality used the SPD procedure to prepare a policy which

ought properly to have been subjected to a more detailed examination and

public scrutiny, circumventing the more time consuming and expensive

procedures attached to DPDs and its adoption is as a consequence, unlawful.

The Council should now reconsider its position to ensure that it complies with its

lawful obligations to allow proper public scrutiny and consultation of its

regeneration policies.”

NOTES; Webster Dixon LLP is a commercial law firm based in the City of London.

The solicitors with conduct of the case on behalf of the claimants were Ruhul

Ayazi and Michael Webster of Webster Dixon LLP

Webster Dixon LLP instructed Gregory Jones QC and Annabel Graham Paul of

Francis Taylor Buildings

For further information please contact Michael Webster or Ruhul Ayazi on 0207

3538300 or by email at info@websterdixon.com