Objection to application 2017/03851/FUL - Former Laundry Site Rear Of Nos. 9 - 61 Pennard Road London W12 and Shepherd’s Bush Market The Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants’ Association (SBMTA) thank you for your support and time in cradling the long standing small businesses of Shepherd’s Bush Market. The developer’s planning application to the Hammersmith & Fulham Council (application 2017/01887/FUL) was thankfully refused for several reasons. The developer U+I Group Plc. has resubmitted the application again to the Hammersmith & Fulham Council (application 2017/03851/FUL) and we kindly ask you once again for your help and to object to this application. The application has emerged not from a coherent and considered development plan, but from an attempt to achieve a retrospective justification for what is in essence, an unsightly and muddled site. A temporary solution to legitimise the current position is not sufficient, as the area needs a constructive long-term solution that will truly assist the community and not a temporary botched proposal that may cause prejudice to the market community. Please help the Shepherd’s Bush Market community and submit an objection application 2017/03851/FUL to the Hammersmith & Fulham Planning Department before Saturday 28th October 2017. Simply use this link and submit your objection http://public-access.lbhf.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=OX7FWTBIIBS00 For more information on the plight that the developer is causing to the trader of Shepherd’s Bush Market please continue to read: - Objection to application 2017/03851/FUL - The Old Laundry Site Area rear of Pennard Road & Shepherd’s Bush Market, London W12 Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd and U+I Group’s Plc.’s actions 1) It is the Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants’ Association’s (SBMTA) view that it is essential to look at the past events and actions of the developer Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. / U+I Group Plc. in assessing their application 2017/03851/FUL. 2) Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. acquired management of Shepherd’s Bush Market in February 2014. 3) Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. removed Transport for London’s concession, which gave the Shepherd’s Bush Market tenants greater time to pay rent. The removal of this benefit placed greater financial pressure onto the market businesses. 4) From 2014 to 2016 Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. escalated the cost of the market superintendent by approximately 300% (in the region of 36K to 110K) 5) This has raised dispute and the matter sits with the SBMTA’s solicitor Owen White & Catlin LLP. 6) From February 2014 to present day, Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. have failed to follow the Shepherd’s Bush Market Lease Service Charge stipulation and subsequently has not procured various service charge contracts in the correct manner. This has led to the SBMTA having to seek legal assistance and has caused financial cost. The matter now sits with the SBMTA’s solicitor Owen White & Catlin LLP. 7) Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd has over charged the market tenants when invoicing for the Service Charge, subsequently this overcharge for several years is still due to be reimbursed back to the market tenants. 8) Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. has not yet presented the full service charge accounts to the Shepherd’s Bush Market tenants for four financial years from 2013 to 2017. 9) Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. has failed to abide by the lease stipulations for the ‘buildings insurance’ since 2014 and has demonstrated wish to charge the market tenants for costs which the tenants are not obligated to pay, subsequently the matter sits with the SBMTA’s solicitor Owen White & Catlin LLP. 10) The Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses traditionally have enjoyed the security of long leases, six years for Stalls and Shops, and ten years Arches. Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. has brought uncertainty and insecurity to the market businesses as they have chosen to place tenants on short-term (tenancy at will) leases. 11) Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. acquired and closed the Cookie’s Pie and Mash business on the Gold Hawk Road and subsequently footfall has diminished in the area. 12) It is strongly felt that the disruption and actions of Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. within their first 12 months of managing the market led to the loss of 20% of the tenancy within Shepherd’s Bush Market, putting the tenancy at record lows. 13) Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. has failed to reintroduce any long-term retail businesses to the vacant units of Shepherd’s Bush Market, which are diverse and embrace the market character, whilst complementing the other market businesses. 14) Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. removed two shops, which had previously tenanted market businesses and made two openings into the Laundry Site Area. 15) Shepherd’s Bush Market is the oldest linear market in the country, unfortunately Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. / U+I Group Plc. has threatened the character of Shepherd’s Bush Market and punctured an opening through the back of shop 4 & 5 to the Bush Theatre. 16) It should be noted that the works to Shop 4 & 5 caused disturbance to neighbouring tenants, which has not yet been resolved. 17) Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. has ignored the infrastructure of Shepherd’s Bush Market since 2014 and subsequently, the neglected market road, path, drains, tenants’ toilet block, market canopy, graffiti and other unsightly areas since 2014 has worsened. 18) U+I Group Plc. has been exceedingly sluggish to address the Market’s Infrastructure since their involvement in the market, and even encouraging U+I Group Plc. to address the shabbiness of their own premises (at their own cost) has been a struggle. 19) Since Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. acquired the management of the market, the footfall of Shepherd’s Bush Market has fallen by 50%. 20) Since February 2014, the management of Shepherd’s Bush Market has been remarkably poor, and the dispute to waive the 5% management fee from Service Charges now sits with the SBMTA’s solicitor Owen White & Catlin LLP. 21) The SBMTA has met with U+I Group Plc. to resolve the long-standing, ongoing concerns. The SBMTA has meticulously written to U+I Group Plc. from Autumn 2016 to present day and has met with U+I Group Plc. on over 20 occasions from Autumn 2016 to Spring 2017. U+I Group Plc. had agreed on issues relating to the full waiver of the management fee and superintendent fee for 2013/14 & 2014/15, however U+I Group Plc. has now reneged on this agreement. (The SBMTA are very happy to supply evidence to support these facts if required). 22) The SBMTA and U+I Group Plc. had established agreements on communication, acknowledgement of letters, and consultation of new tenancies, however U+I Group Plc. have failed to honour these agreements as well. 23) Despite the words of U+I Group Plc. promising to resolve the ongoing concerns and issues of the Shepherd’s Bush Market tenants in Autumn 2016 in front of the leader of the Hammersmith & Fulham Council and the SBMTA, a full year has past and U+I Group Plc. are still procrastinating on resolving matters satisfactorily. Communication 24) It is the view of the SBMTA that Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. and U+I Group Plc. have been giving a lip service. 25) Recently over the last 5 months, U+I Group Plc. has demonstrated a lack of courtesy and civility and has veered away from the established protocol for meetings between the SBMTA, the Hammersmith & Fulham Council, and U+I Group Plc. 26) U+I Group Plc. have been bullish to inconvenience the SBMTA by proposing meeting times which compromise the businesses of the SBMTA committee and have proposed meeting locations which are viewed to be inconvenient. 27) U+I Group Plc. has been exceedingly imprecise and elusive regarding a number of Shepherd’s Bush Market matters and has evaded giving written answers to the majority of the SBMTA’s questions and concerns. 28) The communication from U+I Group Plc. to the SBMTA is poor, and the aversion of U+I Group Plc. to provide written explanation to the SBMTA’s concerns demonstrates a lack of flexibility, commitment, and unprofessionalism. 29) U+I Group Plc. state on page 3 of 6 of the DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 1946746: “A full tender process will be undertaken prior to the commencement of the OLS to ensure best value and quality is achieved for each of these contracts” 30) Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. and U+I Group Plc.’s failure, from February 2014 to present day, to procure the Shepherd’s Bush Market services correctly and abide by the Shepherd’s Bush Market lease agreements, has been an ongoing matter which has now escalated to the SBMTA’s solicitor’s Owen White, & Catlin LLP. This has caused the SBMTA a great deal of inconvenience due to Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd.’s poor cooperation and communication. 31) Page 5 of 6 of the OLS DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 1946746 discusses regular monthly meetings. 32) Unfortunately U+I Group Plc. have shown great reluctance in accommodating the SBMTA in agreeing on times, dates, and agendas of meetings. Despite the issues, concerns, and disputes of the tenants being meticulously placed in writing and sent to Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd and to U+I Group Plc., the developers have demonstrated disregard of the tenants’ concerns. 33) In Autumn 2016, at the Hammersmith & Fulham Council, U+I Group Plc. gave promise to resolve the numerous issues stated in the Hammersmith & Fulham Council’s ISSUES LOG, which lists the SBMTA’s ongoing concerns. Despite a further year passing, U+I Group Plc. are still evading the majority of the concerns and demonstrate continual neglect for the tenants’ rights and the lease stipulations. 34) On page 13 of 34 point 3.15 of the PLANNING STATEMENT 02 10 2017 1946714, it states, “The applicant has also engaged with James Horada (of Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants Association) and offered a meeting to try to resolve any outstanding concerns.” 35) As previously mentioned the SBMTA have met with U+I Group Plc. on 20+ occasions from Autumn 2016 to May 2017 to resolve the ongoing concerns and issues, which Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd have evaded for 3+ years. However, U+I Group Plc. have been remarkably uncooperative, reneged on agreements made during the course of the year, strayed from agreed meeting protocol, and shown aversion to answering many concerns in writing. 36) The SBMTA have explained and documented the concerns, issues, and disputes in writing in conjunction with the Hammersmith & Fulham Council’s ISSUES LOG, and in some instances have had to escalate the issues to the SBMTA’s solicitor Owen White & Catlin LLP due to U+I Group Plc.’s lack of cooperation. Despite a full year passing since U+I Group Plc. taking on the responsibility of Shepherd’s Bush Market, they continue to evade resolving the disputes satisfactorily and issue lip service. Site Manager 37) On page 26 of the 2017/03851/FUL DESIGN_AND ACCESS STATEMENT PART 3-1946711 U+I Group Plc. state that they are proposing to have a site manager for their Laundry Site Area application 2017/03851/FUL. 38) On Page 4 of 6 of the 2017/03851/FUL OLS DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 1946746 discusses the duties of the site manager, although there is still a large amount of ambiguity surrounding the job position. 39) What is the entire job roll of the Laundry Site Area site manager? 40) How many hours per day will the position of site manager require? 41) How many days per week will the position of site manager require? 42) Will the position of site manager be restrained to the Laundry Site Area or is U+I Group Plc. proposing that this site manager will intrude onto Shepherd’s Bush Market land? 43) How much will the position of the site manager cost per year? 44) Who will pay the cost of the site manager? 45) Will the cost of the Laundry Site Area site manager fall onto the Shepherd’s Bush Market Service charge expenditure? 46) It should be noted that although the Shepherd’s Bush Market Service Charges permit for the contract of a market superintendent and a deputy, these positions should not be confused as management. Unfortunately, Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. has attempted to abuse the Shepherd’s Bush Market service charge stipulations. 47) It should also be noted that the performance of managing agent for Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. known as Activate Assets Ltd., has demonstrated inability and incompetence. Some examples of Activate Assets Ltd.’s poor management stretches from late and incorrect invoicing, negligent over charging, absence, and failure to address various health and safety concerns. 48) U+I Group Plc. has not stated what procurement process will be adopted to acquire a site manager, or what the required competence of the site manager must be. 49) There is concern that U+I Group Plc. may wish to implement a site manager, which proves to be incapable, and may cause compromise to Shepherd’s Bush Market. Condition of Shepherd’s Bush Market 50) On page 20 of the 2017/03851/FUL DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT PART 3-1946711 states that “the orange hatch denotes the general refurbishment of the existing market” 51) Unfortunately, it is not very clear and it seems that the diagram with orange is highlighting the various premises in Shepherd’s Bush Market which have become vacant. Any improvements to the vacant properties should be the responsibility of the landlord, and charges should not fall onto the Shepherd’s Bush Market Service Charge expenditure but borne by the landlord. 52) The SBMTA ask the question as to whether the cost of general refurbishment of the existing market been borne by U+I Group Plc. or been placed onto the Shepherd’s Bush Market Service Charge expenditure accounts. 53) The SBMTA have stressed to U+I Group Plc. that there are numerous areas of the Shepherd’s Bush Market, which require attention due to the managements neglect. 54) This includes (but not limited to), the drains, the path and road surfaces, the gates, walls, and parameters of Shepherd’s Bush Market. 55) Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd and U+I Group Plc. have been particularly sluggish to address the infrastructure of the market, and despite the SBMTA’s numerous written correspondences to acquire a full 1 year and 3 years draft Planned Preventative Maintenance Schedule with the financial expenditures, U+I Group Plc. have failed to provide this information. 56) Due to Orion Shepherd’ Bush Ltd.’s lack of willingness to resolve issues, the SBMTA is seeking the assistance of the Mayor of London to address the poor condition of the Shepherd’s Bush Market viaduct. Service Charges 57) The application 2017/03851/FUL suggests development of the Laundry Site Area along with numerous services, however it fails to state how this scheme is being funded, and who will pay the maintenance of all the various services. 58) The application fails to show what the estimated projections of the cost of the development and maintenance of the scheme may be and there is concern that U+I Group Plc. may attempt to merge the services with Shepherd’s Bush Market, compromise the existing market services and attempt to place the maintenance cost of the Laundry Site Area onto the Shepherd’s Bush Market Service charge expenditure, and therefore onto the heads of the Shepherd’s Bush Market traders. 59) It is the view of the SBMTA that this Laundry Site Area application does not make financial sense, and may be a ruse to bring further financial burden to the tenants of Shepherd’s Bush Market. 60) U+I Group Plc. have been very ambiguous as to how the application will be financed and there is requirement for assurances that no cost what so ever for the implementation and maintenance of the Laundry Site Area will fall onto either the Shepherd’s Bush Market Service Charge expenditure or the Shepherd’s Bush Market tenants. 61) The application does not address as to who will be paying for the implementation and the maintenance of the Laundry Site application scheme. 62) The application does not address as to whether any cost generated from the laundry site land scheme will place cost onto the Shepherd’s Bush Market Service Charge account expenditure. 63) The application does not address as to whether any of the Shepherd’s Bush Market services will be compromised due to the laundry site application? 64) The application fails to give any indication what so ever as to the cost of the maintenance of implementing and maintaining such a scheme. 65) If there is any intention of the laundry site area merging or sharing Shepherd’s Bush Market’s services and facilities, then there is question as to who will pay the servicing costs and how the cost will be proportioned. 66) Point 5.0 of the delivery and servicing management plan discusses the presence of a site manager. The duties and responsibilities seem to be extensive if performed with efficiency. The job roll suggests that the site manager will always be present whilst the laundry site area is in operation. 67) Who will cover the cost of the site manager? 68) What is the estimated cost of the site manager? 69) Does U+I Group Plc. have a competent management company perform the task of the site manager? 70) Are there terms and conditions established to ensure that the site manager is qualified and able? 71) What will be the boundaries of the Laundry Area site manager? 72) If the Laundry Site Area has vehicles entering via Shepherd’s Bush Market, then will the Shepherd’s Bush Market Management have to concern themselves with the Laundry Site area vehicles? 73) If so, then who will bear responsibility for the additional cost and possible compromise of the Shepherd’s Bush Market management’s time? 74) It should be noted that there is dispute regarding the breach of the procurement of the Shepherd’s Bush Market superintendent. 75) There is no evidence in the application that U+I Group Plc. will hold the Laundry Site Area accountable for the additional costs which may be caused to the Shepherd’s Bush Market land due to the use of the Shepherd’s Bush Market’s ground and facilities. 76) This is a concern that requires explanation, as it may be viewed to show prejudice to the Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses. Preserving the character of Shepherd’s Bush Market 77) The SBMTA are greatly concerned that the character of Shepherd’s Bush Market is preserved. The character of Shepherd’s Bush Market may be found in the affordability of the market, the goods and produce offered. The long standing businesses themselves, the linear dynamic of the market running from the Uxbridge Road to the Goldhawk Road, the architecture of the arches and small shops and stalls with awnings and the market canopy are all respected features of the market’s character. 78) The SBMTA has expressed the alarming concern of Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. previous actions, closing the Cookies Pie & Mash business and the reduction of 20% of the tenancies within Shepherd’s Bush Market and these events are viewed as assault on the market’s character. 79) On page 7 of 8 of 2017_03851_FUL-DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT PART 2-1946710 there is indication that Shepherd’s Bush Market shop units 45 and 46a will be removed and lost due to landscaping. 80) The continual removing of businesses from Shepherd’s Bush Market has caused the severe drop in footfall, and further removal of more units causes further threat to Shepherd’s Bush Market. 81) The application claims that it will increase the footfall by 10% to 15%, however the removal of the small retail market businesses is destroying the backbone of the Shepherd’s Bush. 82) As previously mentioned, Shepherd’s Bush Market is the oldest linear market in the country, and recently U+I Group Plc. threatened this dynamic by puncturing an entrance through the back of Shops 4 & 5, leading to the Bush Theatre. This has threatened the security, footfall flow, and the operational hours of Shepherd’s Bush Market. The SBMTA are concerned that U+I Group Plc. will attempt to puncture further holes through the back of other Shepherd’ Bush Market Units leading through to the Laundry Site Area. This is viewed as a threat to Shepherd’s Bush Market’s dynamic and character. 83) It is most unfortunate that even the architecture of Shops 4 & 5, which remains shut and empty, does not match or compliment the character of Shepherd’s Bush Market. 84) On page 1 of 9 in the 2017 03851 FUL DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT PART 3-1946711 it makes assertions saying “Shipping containers have become increasingly popular to use for this type of application due to their versatility, simple implementation with the added advantage of being able to up-cycle them.” 85) The Shipping cargo containers are not in character with the area and are in fact an eye soar, particularly to residents in Pennard Road and may lower the salability of the Pennard Road premises. 86) The condition of the shipping containers is not good and has already started to rust and look unkempt. The awnings on the cargo containers were identified to Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. as faulty by the SBMTA, as they allowed rainwater to seep between the cargo container front and the awning. The condition of the awnings now is unknown and may have experienced some rot. 87) In point 14 of the 2017/03851/FUL application form it states that the 72 shipping containers are vacant, however U+I Group Plc. has failed to mention that some of the containers are actually being used for storage and have reaped a revenue for U+I Group Plc. 88) There is great concern that U+I Group Plc. are diminishing the number of retail market businesses with long leases within Shepherd’s Bush Market and are either leaving units empty or allowing the premises to be used on short lettings for non retail market uses. It is this erosion of Shepherd’s Bush Market’s character that diminishes footfall. Laundry Site Area Contamination 89) On page 20 of 40 the PRELIMINARY RISK ASSESSMENTPART 1-1946734 it states 90) “Moderate Risk Identified - Hydrocarbon contamination of the made ground has been identified in the previous ground investigations. A moderate risk to plastic water pipes exists if they are intended to be laid below the ground surface.” 91) The application does not address the concern as to how long it will take to naturalize the contamination. 92) Neither does the application address the concern of the land contamination affecting the water supply in and around the land area. 93) There is no explanation as to how long it would take to neutralize the threat of any water contamination in the laundry site or in neighbouring areas such as Pennard Road or Shepherd’s Bush Market. 94) On Page 22 of the 2017 03851 FUL DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT PART 3-1946711 it states that “Environmental and sustainable considerations have been paramount in the development of the proposal.”, however U+I Group Plc. have provided no information on how the length of time and cost it will take to remove the contamination of the laundry site area and the contamination that may effect the water supply in and around the laundry site area. 95) Would the Hammersmith & Fulham Council planning department please seek answer as to what duration of time and cost will it take to address and naturalize the contamination of the Laundry Site Area, and the possible contamination of the water supply in both the Laundry Site Area and neighbouring areas? 96) The GEO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PART 1 -1946729 does state: 97) The control of development and land use in the future is the responsibility of the planning system. A fundamental principle of sustainable development is that the condition of land, its use and its development should be protected from potential hazards. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23 Planning and Pollution Control details the process by which Local Planning Authorities should take decisions on applications in relation to development on land affected by contamination. 98) PPS 23 states that ‘it remains the responsibility of the landowner/developer to identify land affected by contamination and to ensure that remediation is undertaken to secure a safe development’. 99) Where development is proposed, the developer is responsible for ensuring that the development is safe and suitable for the proposed end use for which it is intended. In particular, the developer should carry out an adequate investigation to inform a risk assessment to determine: 100) Whether the land in question is already affected by contamination; 101) Whether the proposed development will create new pollutant linkages (e.g. pathways by which existing contamination might reach existing or proposed receptors and whether it will introduce new vulnerable receptors); and 102) Whether mitigation action is needed to break those linkages, avoid the introduction of new ones and deal with unacceptable risks to enable safe development and future occupancy of the site and neighbouring land. 103) The 2011 report does state: Potentially complete pollutant linkages have been identified on the site; an overall non-urgent Medium risk rating has been assigned based on the proposed mixed use development. The key potential pollution linkages and risk is summarised as: Contamination on site impacting on the human health of future site users and construction workers of the proposed development; and Unexploded ordnance impacting construction works and/or future users of the proposed developments. 104) The 2017/03851/FUL GEO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PART 3 1946731 states on page 36 & 37: “Both soil samples were classified as hazardous due to elevated concentrations of lead. The sample retained from TP4 at 0.8-0.9m bgl recorded the hazardous property H14 Ecotoxic and the sample retained from WS10 at 1.6-1.9m bgl recorded the hazardous properties H10 Toxic for Reproduction and H14 Ecotoxic.” 105) On page 44 of 87 it states: “All hazardous and non-hazardous soil waste arisings will need to be pre-treated in line with current guidance prior to disposal.” Drains 106) The application fails to provide precise and reliable literature on the Shepherd’s Bush Market drains, and due to the contamination present in the Laundry Site Area, there is presumably requirement to identify the underground condition of the Shepherd’s Bush Market drains. 107) The application 2017/03851/FUL suggests the wish for the Laundry Site Area to share the drainage of Shepherd’s Bush Market, however this may increase the maintenance cost of the market drains, and may compromise the condition of the drains and cause additional financial compromise to the Shepherd’s Bush Market Service Charge expenditure. 108) Is the removal of sewage from the Laundry site Area via the Shepherd’s Bush Market drains? 109) If the removal of sewage is via the Shepherd’s Bush Market drains, then this may place additional costs onto the Shepherd’s Bush Market service charge expenditure. (Reference point 11 Foul Sewage - 2017_03851_FUL-APPLICATION FORM NO PERSONAL DATA-1946750) 110) Point 12 of the application form confirms there is risk of the area flooding. The Shepherd’s Bush Market drains already struggle with draining rainwater away from the market road and water pooling around stalls and shops. 111) If the laundry site area is placing further strain on the same drains, then who will pay for the modifications in the drains? 112) What evidence is provided to substantiate that the neighbouring areas such as Shepherd’s Bush Market, or the Pennard Road residencies, may not be put at increased risk to flooding due to this Laundry Site Area application? The Shepherd’s Bush Market Road 113) It should be noted that the condition of the Shepherd’s Bush Market road is not good and has suffered narrowing due to landlord permitting shops and stalls to build out and extend, therefore it is difficult for vehicles to pass and over take one another. This in turn makes deliveries slower and less convenient. Additional vehicles accessing the market will cause greater congestion, and therefore may delay or disturb trade and footfall. 114) Due to the narrowing of the Market road, there is poor drainage of rainwater and a lack of manholes drains to filter the water into the drain. 115) There is concern that the application suggests that vehicles associated with the Laundry Site Area also wish to utilize the shepherd’s Bush Market road. 116) It is felt that this should not be permitted and that the laundry site should not compromise the efficiency of Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses, nor cause additional ‘wear and tear’ to the condition of the market road. 117) Using the Shepherd’s Bush Market road will cause disturbance and congestion to the Shepherd’s Bush Market traders’ deliveries, and to the traders daily set up of their shop and stall displays. Parking 118) There is no provision for visitors to park cars within the Laundry Site Area. 119) This is most unfortunate, as turning the Laundry Site Area into a car park may be a far more favourable and beneficial proposal to assist trade for Shepherd’s Bush Market and the Gold Hawk Road businesses and ease the present parking congestion which this area suffers. 120) The local streets around Shepherd’s Bush Market are exceedingly busy, and there is concern for the local businesses with parking permits and the local residents that this application 2017/03851/FUL may cause upset and increase difficulty to the parking. 121) The application claims that there will be 65 new employees in the laundry site area. Will these 65 individual be permitted to acquire business-parking permits? As this will place further strain on the parking for both the residence and the existing local businesses who are entitled to apply for parking permits. 122) Will each inhabitant in the cargo shipping containers be permitted to apply for a parking permit? 123) The times that an individual may enter and exit the Laundry Site Area is surprisingly not clearly stated in the application 2017/03851/FUL. Is there any reason why this fundamental detail of the times of access to the Laundry Site area has not been stated? 124) It is not understood how U+I Group Plc. may make assertions that visitors to the laundry site area will not inconvenience local residents or the residents’ guests, as parking restrictions lift at 8pm and therefore visitors to the laundry site area may still acquire parking spaces and inconvenience numerous residents (or guests of the local residence) parking spaces. 125) On page 23 of the 2017 03851 FUL DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT PART 3-1946711 it states that 30 of the 60 cycle parking spaces will be long stay, and the other 30 spaces will be short term, however with a stated amount of 65 employees on the Laundry Site Area, all 60 cycle parking spaces may be completely utilized by the 65 employees, leaving no spaces for visitors to the area. 126) Is the Bicycle storage for customers, staff, visitors, or all? 127) Will bicycles be permitted to stay over night? 128) On Page 38 of the 2017/03851/FUL DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT PART 4-1946712 raises the matter of the bicycle storage. 129) It should be noted that Shepherd’s Bush Market does not advocate bicycles cycling within Shepherd’s Bush Market, and therefore bringing bicycles in and out of the laundry site area via the Shepherd’s bush Market during market trading hours may cause concern. Cyclists should dismount from their bicycles when in Shepherd’s Bush Market; else there may be compromise and disturbance to the Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses and to their customers. Shipping Cargo Containers 130) Page 8 of 34 of the 2017 03851 FUL PLANNING STATEMENT 02 10 2017 1946714 claims that the cargo containers in the Laundry Site Area remain empty and unused, however U+I Group Plc. has been using some of the cargo containers for storage and charging for the use of these. 131) The SBMTA are most concerned that the cargo containers have sat on the Laundry Site Area with no official permission, and one of the reasons of U+I Group Plc. for this application is to minimise the cost and inconvenience of U+I Group Plc. having to remove these cargo containers, and incur further financial loss on the containers. 132) U+I Group Plc. state, “The size of the containers also creates good sized affordable units in line with demand.” 133) What is the cost of the containers (Rent and Service Charge) and what evidence is provided to prove that the units are affordable and that there is demand? 134) What evidence is provided that full time employment of 65 employees will be achieved? 135) As this application may take a number of years to realistically discharge the terms and conditions if permitted, how does one know that businesses may have decided to move on and abandon the notion of establishing themselves in a rusting cargo container? Odors 136) There is concern that the ‘food and beverage area’ in the laundry site area will cause extensive odors, which will cause damage to the goods sold in Shepherd’s Bush Market. Goods made of cloth are particularly at threat. 137) There is concern that the odors will cause distress to the traders and customers of Shepherd’s Bush Market, and to the residents of Pennard Road. 138) U+I Group has failed to address the concern of the cooking and sufficient extraction of odors from the food units. Noise 139) Point 5.3 under the Servicing Management places obligation for the site manager to instruct drivers to turn off engines when stationary, to turn off vehicle radios when parked, and keep noise to a minimum. However, is there restriction for any of the units / premises on the laundry site area not to play music / radios or any media broadcast? 140) Permitting these cargo containers to broadcast / play any music, loud sound, or use any speakers, may be antisocial, and may cause disturbance. Operation times 141) U+I Group Plc. are ambiguous as to the intended times of accessibility to the Laundry Site Area, 142) How early may the staff of the laundry site area arrive at the laundry site area in the morning? 143) U+I Group Plc. claim that the reason for this application is to better the footfall for Shepherd’s Bush Market, however the application indicates intent to run the Laundry Site Area outside and beyond the operation times of Shepherd’s Bush Market. Therefore, it suggests that U+I Group Plc. may wish for the laundry site area to supersede Shepherd’s Bush Market. 144) Running the Laundry Site Area late into the evening, and seven days a week, will mean that the maintenance of this site will be a costly area to upkeep, and may be uneconomical, especially due to the vast land area. 145) It is likely that the cost of maintaining the services of the Laundry Site Area may be far greater than the services of Shepherd’s Bush Market. 146) There is worrying ambiguity that U+I Group Plc. wish the Laundry Site Area to piggy back on Shepherd’s Bush Market, and to compromise the efficiency of the markets established services and facilities whilst unfairly proportioning the Laundry Sites Area’s cost onto the shepherd’s Bush Market Service charge account expenditure. Footfall 147) U+I Group Plc. makes assertions in the application cover letter, that footfall within Shepherd’s Bush Market will increase by 10% to 15% with this implementation of the Laundry Site Area. 148) Does U+I Group Plc. have any evidence to support these claims? 149) U+I Group Plc. has stated in the DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT PART 3-1946711 that the footfall of Shepherd’s Bush Market is approximately 5000 visitors per week. 150) As U+I Group Plc. have stated that the Laundry Site Area scheme will bring an additional 10% to 15% of visitors to the area, then 15% of 5000 visitors will be 750 visitors per week. 151) As this Laundry Site Area will be open 7 days per week, this will mean there is an estimated upper level of 107 visitors per day. 152) As 65 of these people will be employees to the Laundry Site Area, this means that the scheme may bring in an upper level of the 65 employees plus another 42 visitors per day. 153) Of course these visitors may or may not be potential customers, and may or may not be in together in groups or as individuals. 154) If U+I Group Plc. are unable to achieve the upper level of a 15% increase in footfall and achieve only a 10% increase in footfall, then only 71 visitors, including the employees, will visit the market per day; therefore, this is a very disappointing additional 6 visitors per day, excluded the 65 employees, who will visit the market. 155) Unfortunately, U+I Group Plc. seem to have little evidence to substantiate their anticipated numbers, and aspirations of increasing the footfall by 10% to 15% and even if their assertions are correct, the estimated increase in sales due to this Laundry Site Area scheme demonstrates insufficient numbers to be viable or worthwhile. 156) U+I Group Plc. have not shown evidence as to what additional costs may fall onto the Shepherd’s Bush Market service charge expenditure due to the Laundry Site Area scheme. 157) Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. and U+I Group Plc.’s neglect of the infrastructure of Shepherd’s Bush Market since February 2014, their implementation of poor management of the market, and lost of 20% of the market tenancy are core reasons why the footfall has crashed. The further failure to fill the vacant market units in Shepherd’s Bush Market with diverse complementary retail market businesses, breeds no confidence that these developers will be able to fill an entire new area with viable businesses. 158) U+I Group Plc.’s actions demonstrate that they are not willing to dedicate the time, money, or commitment to Shepherd’s Bush Market, and their motives must be scrutinised. These developers only show interest in acquiring control of the Laundry Site Area and the temporary 2 years cargo container application is a ‘Trojan Horse’ for further building applications on this Laundry Site Area. Waste/Rubbish Removal 159) In 2017/ 03851/FUL DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT PART 4-1946712, it states “that the Laundry Site Area will use large wheeled bins for general waste emptied daily, Monday to Friday, five days a week, together with three smaller volume food specific wheeled bins collected by SITA separately, twice a week, (Monday and Friday). Oils will be recycled with the current containers, collected bi-weekly. Cardboard will be recycled via use of the current baler or hire/purchase of a specific baler. The proposals will result in a move from the existing large compactor programme to high volume wheeled bins that are emptied by SITA”. 160) This proposal raises a number of concerns:- 161) The large wheeled bins for general waste have already been proved to be inadequate for Shepherd’s Bush Market, as the rubbish cannot be compressed and subsequently the market rubbish is too great to be accommodated by these large wheeled bins and compromise the efficiency of the Shepherd’s Bush Market sweepers. 162) The Inability at times not to be able to shut and seal completely these wheeled bins increases the presence of vermin, and increases the problem of unwanted odors. 163) The Wheeled bins are certainly not suitable or efficient for Shepherd’s Bush Market, and the suggestion that the Laundry Site Area may be using these bins raises concerns. 164) It is shocking that U+I Group Plc. are proposing a waste disposal scheme which has already been proved to be inadequate for the Shepherd’s Bush Market area, especially as it raises increased health, hygiene, vermin and odor concerns. 165) U+I Group Plc. seem to be proposing in their application that the Laundry Site Area may use the recycling facilities of Shepherd’s Bush Market’s cardboard baler. 166) This causes compromise to the efficiency of Shepherd’s Bush Market’s waste disposal, inflates the workload for the Shepherd’s Bush Market sweepers, which in turn will compromise the efficiency of the sweepers service and will place further cost and confusion onto the Shepherd’s Bush Market Service Charge Accounts. This in turn will cause financial detriment to the traders. Emergency Vehicles 167) How will emergency vehicles manoeuvre to the west side of the laundry site area in the evening when Shepherd’s Bush Market is shut ? Insurance 168) The Laundry Site Area is apparently 4,222 sq. metres. 169) Who will insure this site? 170) What will the extent of the insurance cover be? 171) Will any of the cost of the insurance be deferred onto the Shepherd’s Bush Market traders in any way? 172) It should be noted that there is currently dispute with U+I Group Plc. and their inability to follow the insurance stipulations within the leases within Shepherd’s Bush Market. This matter has had to be escalated to the SBMTA’s solicitors Owen White & Catlin LLP due to U+I Group Plc.’s lack of cooperation to resolve the matter. CCTV 173) The application suggests that there may be CCTV throughout the Laundry Site Area and Shepherd’s Bush Market, however there is no indication as to whom may pay the installation and maintenance of these CCTV cameras, and how the proportions of cost may be allocated if amongst several parties. 174) Will the cost of the implementation and maintenance of the CCTV be borne by U+I Group Plc.? 175) Will any cost what so ever, for implementation or maintenance of the laundry site area fall onto the Shepherd’s Bush Market service charge expenditure? 176) Who will monitor the CCTV? 177) Will the staff who monitor the CCTV for the laundry site area have any interaction or accountabilities to Shepherd’s Bush Market? 178) Who will bear the cost of these CCTV staff personnel? 179) Will the CCTV spread onto Shepherd’s Bush Market ground? 180) Who will bear the cost of the installation and maintenance of CCTV cameras on Shepherd’s Bush Market land? Lighting 181) In 2017/03851/FUL DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT PART 4-1946712 U+I Group Plc. discuss lighting, however there is no explanation as to who will pay the cost for the installation, and the long-term maintenance of these lights. Security 182) There is concern that the gates between the Laundry Site Area and Shepherd’s Bush Market are not secure, and that there is compromise of the security of Shepherd’s Bush Market. 183) Shepherd’s Bush Market, under the management of Transport for London, was vigilant that the Shepherd’s Bush Market grounds were secure and that no unauthorised individuals could gain access to the market once it was shut and locked, however Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. and U+I Group Plc. have weakened the security and increase the access of the market when the market is allegedly shut, with the removal of two businesses and replacing these business premises with feeble gates leading to the Laundry Site Area. 184) The compromise of the security of the Shepherd’s Bush Market boundaries should not have been permitted, and therefore boundaries, including gates between the laundry site area and Shepherd’s Bush Market, should be stronger. Rehabilitation centre 185) It seems socially unsuitable and insensitive to propose having several beverage attractions immediately next to an alcoholic rehabilitation centre. What are U+I Group Plc.’s true motivations? 186) The application claims that it will “Retain and improve the market, including its layout, to create a vibrant, mixed use area; include additional leisure uses, offices and residential development to ensure a more vibrant mix”. 187) The actions of Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. and U+I Group Plc. do not support these words, and the true motives of U+I Group Plc. must be questioned. 188) Laundry Site Area proposal is neither reasonable nor effective. 189) The application will take much time to sign off on the terms and conditions, and if achieved, may allow little time left to implement the scheme. 190) There is question as to what is the motivation and reasoning behind U+I Group Plc., and why they want the Laundry Site Area 191) Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. had acquired an options and indemnity agreement with the Conservative Hammersmith & Fulham constituency in 2013, and the stipulations within this agreement may offer some insight as to why U+I Group Plc. seek control of the laundry site area. 192) U+I Group Plc. make assertions within the application that the Laundry Site Area land is in the control of the Hammersmith & Fulham Council, however again they avoid to mention the ‘indemnity and options agreement’ which Orion Shepherd’s Bush Ltd acquired from the previous constituency relating to this laundry site land area. 193) It is fair to say that the services which U+I Group Plc. are proposing within the Laundry Site Area with the lengthened hours, will generate a large annual maintenance cost. The question is, who will be responsible for this cost? 194) U+I Group Plc. wish to burden this cost onto the Shepherd’s Bush Market tenants, placing further financial strain onto the traders, whilst taking advantage of the existing Shepherd’s Bush Market’s services and manipulating the Shepherd’s Bush Market land to benefit the Laundry Site Area. 195) The question is, what is this laundry site area scheme offering the Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses? The answer is, that the Laundry Site Area brings little to no benefit to the market businesses, especially when you look at the numerous disadvantages and wrongs the application will cause. 196) There is concern that U+I Group Plc. will submit a new application in 2018 to build on this land in 2019 and complete a further development, which will allow them to recoup £40 million pounds by 2021. 197) There is concern that U+I Group Plc.'s proposals will have a potential impact on the ethnic diversity of Shepherd’s Bush Market, and that this application is merely a tool to implement the initial phase of weakening the rights and presences of the market businesses. 198) The U+I Group Plc.’s scheme for the Laundry Site Area is viewed as an excuse to acquire greater land area, and place financial responsibility of the maintenance and upkeep of this scheme onto the Shepherd’s Bush Market service charge expenditure, which will in turn cause further financial compromise to the Shepherd’s Bush Market traders. Further, U+I Group Plc. wish to avoid losing revenue on the cargo containers, which apparently have no permission to be sitting in the Laundry Site Area. U+I Group Plc. wish to perpetuate the possibility to resurrect their luxury apartment scheme, which was previously quashed. 199) None of these plans have a favourable outcome for the Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses or for the local residents. 200) The fact that U+I Group Plc. are seeking additional land through their laundry site area application, whilst emptying the premises within Shepherd’s Bush Market and leaving the majority of the market unit empty, is a grave concern. Conclusion 201) The application has emerged not from a coherent and considered development plan, but from an attempt to achieve a retrospective justification for what is in essence, an unsightly and muddled site. A temporary solution to legitimise the current position is not sufficient, as the area needs a constructive long-term solution that will truly assist the community and not a temporary botched proposal that may cause prejudice to the market community. Please help the Shepherd’s Bush Market community and submit an objection application 2017/03851/FUL to the Hammersmith & Fulham Planning Department before Saturday 28th October 2017. Simply use this link and submit your objection http://public-access.lbhf.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=OX7FWTBIIBS00