Campaign group threatens legal action over historic London market redevelopment plan

Campaign group ‘Friends of Shepherd’s Bush Market’ have sent a letter before action to the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, warning they will consider taking the council to the High Court if a decision to approve redevelopment plans for Shepherd’s Bush Market is upheld.

Represented by the Public Interest Law Centre (PILC), the market traders argue that the proposed redevelopment plans fail to consider the potential loss of migrant ethnic minority businesses, or the loss of an “important community hub” for the local Black, Asian and minority ethnic population.

Further, the campaign group has warned the plans would lead to small independent traders being pushed out by “huge increases” to rents and service charges, leading to the loss of the markets’ “diversity and affordability” for local communities.

The developer, Yoo Capital, is a real estate investment firm registered in Jersey. The firm manages over £3.5 billion worth of assets across London.

According to PILC, Yoo Capital’s plans for the historic market include constructing a 9-story office building within the market, creating laboratory space for life science companies, and demolishing a former homeless hostel.

“The plans have been consistently met with overwhelming opposition locally, with campaigners disrupting a planning meeting, the submission of over 3,300 letters in objection, and a petition signed by over 2,000”, said the law firm.

In December 2023, the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham voted 3 to 2 to approve the plans.

However, Friends of Shepherd’s Bush Market contend that the council’s decision to approve the plans is unlawful on the following grounds:

• Failure to have regard to relevant information - This includes not reviewing documents that are crucial to ensuring the long-term viability of the traders in the market, failing to consider the impact on the local diverse community, and not considering temporary and other traders who currently do not hold long-term leases.
• Breach of Public Sector Equality Duty (‘PSED’) - Plans haven’t considered the potential loss of the informal economy, the loss of migrant ethnic minority businesses, or the loss of an important community hub for the local Black, Asian and minority ethnic population.
• Failure to provide adequate reasons - The council hasn’t adequately explained the ways in which current plans address concerns about redeveloping the market raised by the Planning Inspector in 2014. There has also been insufficient reasoning of the adequacy of the £30,000-£50,000 profit-loss compensation figure that has been proposed by the developer, given traders’ feedback that this isn’t enough to protect their businesses.
• Flood Risk: Error of Law/ Failure to take into account material consideration - The council failed to do a test as to flood risk required by the National Planning Policy Framework, misleading the Planning Committee about the policies involved and the practical considerations.

According to PILC, the council has been notified of the group’s intention to take legal action if they do not quash the decision.

The law firm said: “If they fail to respond by September 5th the group will consider issuing the claim for Judicial Review at the High Court.”

Holly Ahom, Paralegal at Public Interest Law Centre said: “I’ve been lucky enough to experience the Market as a cultural hub, central to the livelihood of its community for decades. This is why it is so important that Hammersmith and Fulham Council act lawfully when considering the future of these spaces.”

The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham said it will be responding to the letter.

Lottie Winson