Planning permission for the site was originally granted back in 2017, but the owner of a flat in nearby Pennard Rd successfully challenged it by way of Judicial Review, and managed to get the plans quashed, forcing the developers to re-apply for planning permission with revised plans.
Hoxton Hotel on Shepherd's Bush Green
 |
| Threshold & Union House 65 Shepherd's Bush Green |
The image at the top shows the Dorsett Hotel on the left, and the proposed Hoxton Hotel on the right.
On the right you can see the unlovely 1960s buildings which will be demolished.
 |
| Proposed Hoxton Hotel |
The developers consulted widely in our community and the Hammersmith Society, guardians of good architecture in our neighbourhood, is supportive of the scheme, saying that "redevelopment is appropriate for the site", since the existing building "makes no positive contribution to the west side of Shepherds Bush Green". In other words, the existing buildings are ugly.
And, given the great success of the Dorsett Regency hotel, it's hard to imagine that a new upscale hotel wouldn't improve the look and feel of Shepherd's Bush Green.
You can read more about the plans here.
2017 plans quashed
The previous plans submitted in 2017 were quashed in the High Court by High Court judge Justine Thornton QC on rather technical grounds to do with access to light, and such arcane concepts as "daylight distribution compliance". To see the legal grounds for the successful challenge, follow this link.
Sometimes it feels like a minor miracle that anything gets built anywhere, given the nightmarish complexity of our planning system.
The Shepherd's Bush Blog offers a personal view on life in Shepherd's Bush. If you would like to contribute a story, email us at shepherdsbushblog(at)gmail.com. And don't forget to add your opinion in the comments section below.
So they're pulling down the old ugly monstrosity and putting up a new, ugly monstrosity. The Dorset is quite decent, but the new Hoxton is just another ugly block.
ReplyDeleteHi Unknown (do feel free to leave your name by the way), you're not wrong; this is why the Hammersmith Society gave only a qualified thumbs-up to the new building. The proposed structure will not be beautiful. But it will be less ugly than what is there now.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that an upscale hotel improves the look of anywhere. Please supply the logic or evidence for this. All it improves is more tourism, more unnecessary journeys, more environmental destruction. This is no longer sustainable or justifiable. Your argument is based on old-fashioned notions of what is good. I think they need to be modernised to be more in line with present and more reasonable lifestyle thinking.
ReplyDeleteHi Neeto, so I take it you think planning permission should have been refused? If you were in charge, would you permit any kind of development at all, or forbid all new building of any kind on the grounds that it is environmentally destructive?
ReplyDeleteNo environment, no life. Life does not need more hotels, it needs more green space. I know it's a tough grasp but it's the reality. We owe it to our children, and our children's children. I love Shepherd's Bush, and I'm all for progress, but it must be environmentally sustainable progression. It's forums like yours and the local people who read them, who are the only people who can make it happen. Another expensive hotel is regression and should not be endorsed. Ultimately it is good for no one.
ReplyDeleteA new hotel is certainly good for the owners of the site, and also for the people who would like to stay in it. Why should the site owners not be able to develop their own property, since they own it? Why should you or I be permitted to tell them what they can or cannot do with it? If we forbid all property development then no homes can be built, nothing can be done.
ReplyDelete@The Bush Telegraph. May I ask you to take another view point please, as it seems you are being very narrow in the opinions you have voiced. I am a resident, located directly behind the proposed plans. 1) The light to the rear of my property will be negatively impacted, thus reducing my family's quality of life in the most important and most used part of our house (kitchen/dining/garden). The plans certainly disregarded the 45 degree rule, which we all must abide by for any planning permissions to be granted, yet here the council had given the approval for this plan. Surely there is some monetary benefits given to the council by the new site owners! 2) The new site owners have proposed to have a restaurant that backs on to our houses, with outdoor seating and a license to close at 11pm. I'm sure you can imagine the impact this will have on us? With noise every night until 11pm, while my young children try to sleep. Not to mention bedrooms with balconies that overlook our homes, thus reducing our privacy. 3) The architects for this project lied to us. In good faith, we met them where they explained the proposal to a few neighbours. Eventually, one neighbour (the flat owner you mentioned above) looked at the plans thoroughly, only to realise we'd all been lied to. This is what set everyone off against the plans. Had they been transparent from the start and willing to see our views and make minor adjustments based on the impact it will have on us all, we would have happily welcomed the new hotel.
ReplyDeleteLet's not forget the drop in our house value due to our homes having reduced light (which let's face it, is a negative appeal when searching for a new home!) and noise and reduced privacy.
Despite all this, the second proposal is practically unchanged from the first. So, yes they have 'won', but again not in a fair or just way. £££!
So, let's please be fair to all and not look at things with such a narrow mindset.
Have you appealed the plans?
ReplyDeletePut simply ... I'm sure you are well versed of the situation. As you said at the start of your post, "the owner of a flat in nearby Pennard Rd successfully challenged it by way of Judicial Review, and managed to get the plans quashed, forcing the developers to re-apply for planning permission with revised plans."
DeleteThis was a joint effort between a few neighbours who will be effected.
A lot of time and money was spent on the appeal. Only to find the council approved the 'revised' plans, which barely changed. We feel the council are being unfair to residents. Perhaps they are getting some financial kick backs. Who knows.
So, is there a point in spending more time and money towards further legal fees? I think this has an obvious answer.
I don't know; that's why I asked. I presume then that you are not appealing the present plans? Also do you have a name? Why are you hiding behind anonymity?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete