Former Brackenbury Arms

91 Hammersmith Grove

250-252 King Street

Little Vegas King St

Former Nicholas Mee showroom

Game of Throwing 20220922

King Street shop fronts

123a King Street

In recent months we, our members, affiliates and others have noticed an increase in unsympathetic shop fronts or public realm land-grabs adjacent to shops, particularly in King Street, but elsewhere in the borough too. We are of course aware of the plight of the high street, an issue we wrote about in 2019, but the pandemic seems to have accelerated a slip in standards.  The pictures also demonstrate an unfortunate correlation between these slippages, metal roller shutters (with or without graffiti), and some of the better historic buildings, sharpening the discordancy. Shopfronts require the same constraints as rear extensions – ‘subservient to the existing building’.  A strong building presence at ground level – with visible walls between the shop openings – can accommodate a variety of shopfront designs without losing the integrity of the building design.

Some larger chains are showing is that it’s quite possible to build new frontages sympathetically, while maintaining enough corporate branding to meet the business needs, though it’s unclear how much cajoling the various local authorities undertook to achieve these results.  Unfortunately we’re not seeing quite enough of this in parts of Hammersmith – yet.

Tesco and Pret Holland Park Ave

Shoreditch Pret

Paintbox Studios and Coffeeology: Nancye Goulden Award 2019

Longstanding members will recall the Nancye Goulden award we gave to the Nicholas Mee showroom in 2013, a “stylish minimalist modern frontage”, which appeared to be a high point, with the nearby Ginger Pig also awarded in the same year.  In 2019, helping to highlight what can be done in our high streets, we awarded the two adjacent shops shown at the western end of King Street, but the eastern end remains a rather different matter.

Nancye Goulden Award 2013 – The Ginger Pig

Nancye Goulden Award 2013 – Nicholas Mee Aston Martin showroom

A few years after the award, Nicholas Mee sold up, possibly feeling – correctly as it turned out – the zeitgeist turning significantly against car ownership in general, big-engined luxury car ownership in particular, notwithstanding the skilled jobs involved.  The workshop in Wellesley Avenue was also sold, leaving a site that’s been fought over tooth-and-nail since.  These days, the mere suggestion of a car-related enterprise locally may have segments of the population foaming at the mouth, though the residents of Wellesley Avenue probably still reflect fondly on the glamorous metal formerly adorning their neighbourhood. We digress.

The appearance of the replacement frontage for the Nicholas Mee showroom seems to us to leave a little to be desired, so much so that we’ve thought of reclaiming our plaque in the dead of night on more than one occasion. In King Street, a variety of premises have recently opened, with gaming or betting a significant and concerning theme, given the dystopian consequences for those addicted or otherwise adversely affected.

We note our Local Plan’s discouragement of such establishments in policies DC9, TLC2, TLC3 and TLC6, the guidance in section 7 of the SPD (SD1 and SD5 in particular), and have requested the council review how these places still pass muster.

Recent planning policies, no more so than the Mayor’s London Plan – all 542 pages of it – contain rather too many Shoulds, Woulds, and Coulds, often lacking SMART criteria. Our now ageing 2018 local plan, at 286 pages, with accompanying SPD, suffers from some similar issues, experience showing that this approach makes it significantly harder to pin the tail on the donkey. SMART requirements have the benefit of being a fraction of the size, and are also more easily understood and tested. Unfortunately even the government’s requirements for plan-making score poorly in the SMART test – they are much harder to write, and “guidance” verbiage often substitutes – there’s some way to go…

We’ve asked the council to investigate the situation, looking at whether planning or other regulations have been contravened. To their significant credit, the enforcement team have been actively following up the various cases we’ve highlighted, several of which are shown here, documenting what they find,  and we look forward to the results of any enforcement actions taken.

It appears that in a number of cases that the tenants are either unaware, claim they are unaware, or have taken a gamble that it’s better to ask for forgiveness than permission, and gone ahead with whatever frontages they think garish enough to attract business – bright red being popular = without planning. We understand that these are often significantly cheaper to put up than refurbishing historic frontages, even if grants are available as they were as part of Westfield’s S106 contributions along the northern part of Shepherds Bush Green – a particularly challenged part of the townscape – in rather stark contrast to recent improvements along The Lawn nearby.

• Are the planning constraints strong enough?
• Are they effectively enforceable as guidance?
• Is enough being done to make it clear to landlords and tenants what the controls are?
• Can we help re-drafting the regulations, for example as part of the long-awaited Town Centre SPD? We can certainly revise them to make them SMARTer.

The Historic Building Group believe that existing guidelines are up to date and sufficient. However the key issue here is the word guide.

Most of King Street is actually in a conservation area of one sort or another, be it named Broadway, Town Hall, Bradmore, Westcroft Square, Ravenscourt, or  St. Peter’s Square, meaning that permission for changes is required. Other parts of the borough are also covered to a greater or lesser extent with half the borough in a conservation area of one sort or another.

Please let us have your views.