THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO SAVE
EARL’S COURT EXHIBITION CENTRE!

Call for a halt to the process, sign our new, URGENT petition today and help save Earls Court Exhibition Centre!

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-earl-s-court

You can also donate to our legal fighting fund by clicking on the Donate button on our Home page. 

Call for the immediate halt of the implementation of the Reserved Matters for the demolition of the Earl’s Court Exhibition Centre.

Why is this important?

• The Reserved Matter conditions to demolish the Earl’s Court Exhibition Centre in the first quarter of 2015 have been published and are to be decided by the borough of Kensington and Chelsea by 27 August. 

Some background

The original planning applications required the consent from the two London boroughs and were jointly approved in November 2012. In May 2014 the Labour Party overthrew the Conservative majority in Hammersmith and Fulham. 

This was a game changer…

• Since such time Hammersmith and Fulham have commissioned a review of all agreements and transactions associated with the proposed development and have announced a ‘pause’ to all dealings with the developer. 
• The District Valuer’s Report, determining the value of the planning gain is being questioned, with the potential for a re-valuation of the entire site.
• TfL’s feasibility study on the relocation of the Lillie Bridge Engineering Depot is inconclusive as to its future and further investment has been made at this Depot.
• Tesco’s amended application for 100 West Cromwell Road
  
• The developers do not own all the land in Application 1
  

It is rumoured that the developers in light of the ‘pause’ in Hammersmith and Fulham will concentrate on the RBKC Earl’s Court Exhibition Centre, Warwick Road as a standalone development. This is against RBKC core policy and the impact assessment studies supporting the original applications will become redundant—this should be resisted.

If demolished this could be another Battersea Power Station—a ruin for years and a loss to the local, national and international economy.

New developments mean Capco’s vision for Earl’s Court faces collapse.

The politically non-afilliated Earl's Court Area Action Group need to mount an URGENT legal challenge.

Here’s where we are at:

The newly elected council in Hammersmith & Fulham has put the development on hold. It wants to scrutinise the Masterplan and may well recommend that the development be materially altered or that parts of it be abandoned. This means the original scheme would no longer be deliverable.

Faced with this important unknown, Kensington & Chelsea is set to approve the demolition of Earl’s Court Exhibition Centre by 27 August 2014, with work scheduled to start at Christmas. The clear danger is that with Earl’s Court conveniently destroyed, the developers will argue that any development (on the most profitable portion of the site) is better than a vacant space. This would be a double disaster for Earl’s Court. 

Kensington and Chelsea’s approval was, however, granted subject to one hugely significant condition. Namely, that if the re-development did not go ahead in its totality, then the entire application must be called in for further consultation. 

An URGENT legal challenge, to make a wavering, developer-friendly Kensington & Chelsea council abide by that condition, is needed NOW!   

How can you help? By donating what you can —  from as little as £2 — TODAY and by asking friends and colleagues to support ECAAG.

Donating is quick and easy. Just click on the Donate button on this page. 

Better a redevelopment on hold than the destruction of a vital contributor to our national and local economy and culture!

 THANK YOU!

On the 16th July at a full RBKC council meeting, Cllr Linda Wade and Chair of the Earl's Court Area Action Group,  under the section of a councillor being able to speak unopposed for 2 minutes on an issue of concern for their local ward, called for a "pause of the approval of the demolition of the Exhibition Centre until more is known, as otherwise we might be faced with a repeat of the Battersea Power station scenario, that was neither beneficial to the area nor constituted progress." 

Here is the full text of her speech:

It is over 18 months since a Major Planning Committee approved the Earl’s Court Redevelopment Planning Application.

That decision was based on:

1. A comprehensive bi-borough site-wide delivered Masterplan.
2. A viable and deliverable planning permission with guarantees that promised community benefits were both affordable and deliverable.
   
3. A settled political consensus and an agreed basis for bi-borough joint working

The ground has fundamentally shifted, and we must now respond flexibly to new and emerging realities:

1. A determination by Hammersmith and Fulham to review all agreements and transactions between the old administration and Capco, and their announcement of a ‘pause’ during this period of forensic examination.
   
2. The District Valuer’s Report is being questioned with the potential for a re-valuation of the entire site
   
3. TfL’s feasibility study on the relocation of the Lillie Bridge Depot is inconclusive as to its future
   
4. It is a matter of public record that not all the land in Application 1 is available to the developers
   

These factors substantially challenge the realisation of the Opportunity Area Masterplan, making the planning permissions as granted, not deliverable, and undermining the Impact Assessment studies on which they were based, making the approvals effectively unsound.

Due to the essential interdependence of the two applications areas, Application 1 cannot be viewed as a standalone permission. 

The decision date for the Demolition Reserved Matters at the peak holiday period is fundamentally undemocratic and cannot be considered to be representative of the concerns of residents and businesses.

There are too many questions that remain unanswered, I am asking the Council consider a ‘pause’ of the approval of the demolition of the Exhibition Centre until more is known, as otherwise we might be faced with a repeat of the Battersea Power station scenario, that was neither beneficial to the area nor constituted progress.