Forum Topic

Goldhawk and Patrick Clarkson QC

Brackenbury residents and businesses are opposing the overdevelopment plans of London & Newcastle for the Goldhawk Industrial Estate, currently home to Innocent Drinks, recording studios the Soundhouse, and small company Analox. The developer plans a cramped mixed-use of offices and residential, compelling tenants to leave, and taking with them 200+ jobs.Tomorrow (Tuesday) we shall know if the planning officer has recommended that the Planning Applications Committee meeting(5 August, 7.00pm at the Town Hall) accepts the developer's proposal. See http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/Council_and_Democracy/Decisions_meetings_and_agendas/Other_Committees/68510_Other_Committees.asp. Click on Planning Applications Committee, then 5 August. Meanwhile, our site on Facebook at Goldhawk Industrial Estate Redevelopment Ha! has visuals and reports.Residents have instructed Patrick Clarkson QC to examine the planning officer's report. We're concerned that he (the officer) will tell the planning committee that, if councillors refuse permission, the Council will lose if the developer appeals. There are plenty of good planning reasons to turn down this application. We are looking for a more robust response. Patrick Clarkson is a top planning lawyer who - acting for the Council - won the Allied Carpets appeal; the Allied site is a few yards down the road from the Goldhawk Industrial Estate.

Rosemary Pettit ● 5755d12 Comments

According to a post on this threadhttp://www.shepherdsbushw12.com/default.asp?section=community&app=forum/ShowMessage.asp?ID=533111The decision has been 'called in' by the secretary of state. Well done to all those campaigning.

Karen Cooper ● 5632d

After the Council decision to give consent to the development on 23 September residents considered three options: make a complaint of maladministration to the local government Ombudsman, ask for a call-in of the development to the Government Office for London, and seek a judicial review. We consulted two of our local councillors and have now started on the process of a complaint of maladministration - the planning officers' report was littered with inaccuracies and lack of balance. One of our councillors has now requested a call-in on the grounds of loss of commercial space, and we decided against judicial review, which is in any case very expensive, after seeking advice from our QC.An interesting aside is that h&f news, which wouldn't publish a letter from residents about the Goldhawk development, has recently been examined by a Commons Select Committee. More news about that in the forum of www.hammersmithtoday.co.uk.

Rosemary Pettit ● 5660d

John Humphreys has written supporting the Goldhawk Industrial Estate as follows:To whom it may concern: I am surprised and dismayed at the plans proposed for the Goldhawk Road Industrial Estate. I have lived in this area for 25 years and regard the estate and the businesses it houses as a considerable asset to the neighbourhood. My own personal association is with the Sound House, where I have been recording programmes ever since it came into existence more than twenty years ago. It is a classic example of a small business that has grown to maturity in the area where it was born. It meets local needs as well as bringing in both national and international clients, thus enhancing the status of Hammersmith. All  residential areas need a mix of domestic homes and businesses if they are to prosper. The Goldhawk Estate makes a vital contribution. It provides employment not only for the tenants and their staff but also promotes the use of local amenities such as shops, restaurants, hotels  and taxi companies. So much for the positives. The negatives will be  familiar to everyone who lives here. In short, the proposed development is totally unsuitable for this restricted site: far too many new homes in an area that is already struggling with parking and congestion problems. It’s hard to imagine where all the additional cars will be parked, given that on-street parking can often be a nightmare as it is. I am wholly opposed to this development and I hope my opposition - along with that of so many others - will be registered. John HumphrysPlanning meeting is tomorrow (Wednesday, 23 Sept), 7.00pm at the Town Hall.

Rosemary Pettit ● 5697d

More details and links to planning papers contained in this story:http://thecowanreport.blogspot.com/2009/09/residents-fear-planning-stitch-up-as.htmlRegardsCllr. Stephen CowanLabour Leader of the OppositionThe London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

Stephen Cowan ● 5701d

Yup, open for business means open to developers in this borough. Come to the Planning Applications Committee meeting this Wednesday, 23 September, 7.00pm at the Town Hall, and it will be clear why residents need to be on the up and ready.

Rosemary Pettit ● 5703d

Blimey !

Andrew Broadbent ● 5703d

In our immediate area or close by(just for instance) there's one coming up in Stowe Road, there's the ongoing Allied Carpets site, there's a development proposed for a large site at 282 Goldhawk Road (causing much concern to Ashchurch residents), there's a half acre site in Glenthorne Road where the old Phillips building is, at some point the Notting Hill Housing Group is proposing a development on its building in Hammersmith Grove, and I hear that the old garage at the top end of Hammersmith Grove is in the pipeline for development. The builder's site in Trussley Rd is having the Hammersmith Control Centre built on it for TfL. Flats for a much smaller site in Carthew Rd are also proposed by a developer. A hotel in King St near Cambridge Grove. If you need any more then please attend one of the Planning Applications Committee meetings at the Town Hall - next one is 23 September.

Rosemary Pettit ● 5703d

>> We are experiencing a tsunami of development applications in this borough.Are we ?  What other applications are in progress at the moment ?

Andrew Broadbent ● 5704d

The application to redevelop the Goldhawk Industrial Estate will be heard next Wednesday, 23 September, 7.00pm at the Town Hall in King St. We are experiencing a tsunami of development applications in this borough. We say enough is enough - come and join us next Wednesday.

Rosemary Pettit ● 5704d

The Environment Agency has objected to the development because London & Newcastle has yet to clarify details of Flood Risk Assessment. So the application won't be progressing to the Planning Applications Committee next Wednesday. The Agency's case officer recommends that a Council seeks reconsultation after it has lifted its objection.Will Hammersmith and Fulham?

Rosemary Pettit ● 5753d

That's it!

Rosemary Pettit ● 5755d

Is this connected to a sign I saw in someone's window the other day saying "Stop the Goldhawk Block", or is that a different thing altogether ?

Andrew Broadbent ● 5755d