Traders at Shepherd’s Bush Market today met with disappointment at the High Court, where a judge rejected their challenge to a compulsory purchase order (CPO) that will pave the way for redevelopment.
Dove J dismissed the claim in which the traders argued the CPO should not have been granted in the absence of greater protections for the unique and diverse character of the market and their livelihoods.
The decision paves the way for redevelopment of the market to proceed.
The judge said that there could be no doubt that the interests of safeguarding the market’s current qualities and character was a “key material consideration” that had been taken into account in the decision-making process.
He added: “There was no error of law in the decision which was reached by the defendant to confirm the CPO and this claim must fail.”
In 2012, the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham granted planning permission to Orion Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd to redevelop the site and adjoining land, including refurbishing the market and constructing new buildings of up to nine storeys to provide up to 212 residential units (up to 27,977 square metres) plus more than 14,000 square metres of non-residential floorspace.
It then made the CPO to facilitate the plans, which was confirmed by the former communities secretary Eric Pickles last October and then published in February.
However, the Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants Association, spearheaded by chair James Horada, claimed that the secretary of state’s decision – and thus the CPO – was based on errors of law.
They argued that it was made contrary to the recommendations of a planning inspector, who had stated that the social and economic benefits of the CPO would only materialise if the uniqueness of the market and nearby Goldhawk Road is retained and the area continues to provide the conditions for its diverse range of independent, small-scale traders. She concluded that that would not be the case, and that the CPO should not be made.
The secretary of state took the view that sufficient safeguards are in place to preserve the diverse character of the market, but the Association argued that he was wrong to conclude that section 106 obligations and planning conditions would protect the traders, particularly when it came to the crucial issue of suitability and affordability of replacement stalls.
They said that, beyond a three year rent freeze, there is nothing to ensure that tenancies will remain affordable in the future, and that the decision was based on a misdirection as to the nature of the s106 agreements and planning obligations.
Lawyers for the government maintained that no error of law was made and that the claim should be dismissed.
Horada and ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Planning Court (Dove J) 31 July 2015
