The news that proposals for the redevelopment of Shepherds Bush
market have been abandoned is a salutary reminder that there are
numerous hurdles such schemes need to overcome, any one of which,
even the least expected, can trip the developer up and put a
premature end to the project.
On the face of it, the redevelopment proposals for the market
had everything going for them: the proposed developer had funding
behind it; the local authority, Hammersmith and Fulham LBC had
recognised the importance of a redevelopment of the market both in
local plan policy and a specific planning framework setting out the
Council's objectives in some detail. Perhaps unsurprisingly
outline planning permission had been granted. What could possibly
Well, as it turned out, the compulsory purchase order (CPO)
could, and did, go spectacularly wrong! Before the Court of
Appeal's decision in this case, I, and many other experienced
practitioners, would have told you that, once planning permission
has been granted, a CPO to secure its implementation is, if not a
formality, very difficult for objectors to resist. In most cases, I
would still stick to that view. In this case, I reckoned without
The CPO, as might be expected, attracted a large number of
objectors, not least among the market traders and was considered by
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State at a Public
Inquiry. The Council's planning framework emphasised the
importance of ensuring that the scheme "...crucially maintains
existing traders and provides them with the security to ensure that
the market can continue to operate without interruption and serve
existing customers and communities."
However, the Inspector was not satisfied that the proposals
contained sufficient safeguards to ensure that market traders would
be able to afford the rents for the future market stalls and
therefore concluded that the scheme failed to meet one of its own
key objectives and recommended that the CPO should not be
Two factors in particular led to her conclusion: first, a rent
freeze had been agreed during the redevelopment but there were no
details of what rent levels would be after completion of the
development and, second, there was no indication of the sizes of
the stalls – details of which were left by the planning
permission to be submitted before commencement of development. As
retail rents are calculated on a per square foot basis, without
knowing the sizes of the stalls, there was no way of knowing
whether rents would be affordable to existing traders.
The Secretary of State considered the Inspector's report but
did not agree with the Inspector on this point and confirmed the
CPO. Judicial review proceedings were brought by the market
traders' association in relation to that decision. The Court of
Appeal quashed the decision to confirm the CPO because the
Secretary of State did not give any reason for disagreeing with the
Inspector's conclusion. Rather than go back to square one, the
developer has announced it is pulling out of the deal.
Where that leaves the proposal to redevelop the market remains
to be seen. Meanwhile, the market traders have been rewarded for
their perseverance and attention to detail.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) decided that the costs of claims consultants assisting in adjudication enforcement proceedings can be recovered as disbursements, assuming that those consultants acted in the adjudication.
The requirements of a valid payment notice issued under a construction contract were considered in a previous update: "A Payment Notice? Be Clear?" with reference to the case of Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust v Logan Construction (South East) Ltd  ("Surrey and Sussex") a decision of the English High Court.
VL's appeal was against a decision by LBC on a review of an earlier refusal to provide VL and her family with housing on the grounds that she was not homeless, or threatened with homelessness, finding she had accommodation available to her in Portugal.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).